        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Chapter I
        46 CFR Chapters I and III
        49 CFR Chapter IV
        [Docket No. USCG-2017-0662]
        Navigation Safety Advisory Council—Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—New Task

          AGENCY:
          U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of new task assignment for the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC); teleconference meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking NAVSAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Council's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Council is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 16, 2017, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider NAVSAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.

          DATES:
          The full Council is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 16, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Council has completed its business.

          ADDRESSES:

          To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on August 9, 2017. The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

            Instructions: Submit comments on the task statement at any time, including orally at the teleconference, but if you want Council members to review your comments before the teleconference, please submit your comments no later than August 9, 2017. You must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Written comments may also be submitted using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties with comment submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review Regulations.gov's Privacy and Security Notice at https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

            Docket Search: For access to the docket or to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert “USCG-2017-0662” in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. George Detweiler, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Navigation Safety Advisory Council, telephone (202) 372-1566, or email george.h.detweiler@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        New Task to the Council
        The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to NAVSAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Council's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. NAVSAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
        Background
        On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.

        When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the Federal Register requesting comments from interested individuals regarding their recommendations, 82 FR 26632. In addition to this general solicitation, the U.S. Coast Guard also wants to leverage the expertise of its Federal Advisory Committees and is issuing similar tasks to each of its Committees. A detailed discussion of each of the Executive orders and information on where U.S. Coast Guard regulations, guidance, and information collections are found is in the June 8th notice.
        The Task
        NAVSAC is tasked to:

          Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Council's charter.

          1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Council charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Council.

          2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Council recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.

          a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:

          i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.

          ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”

          b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:

          i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.

          ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.

          iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.

          c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Council believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.

          3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Council should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If the data is not readily available, the Council should include information as to how such information can be obtained either by the Council or directly by the Coast Guard.

        Public Participation

        All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Council meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 16, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a commenter. Subcommittee meetings held in association with this tasking will be announced as they are scheduled through notices posted to http://homeport.uscg.mil/navsac and uploaded as supporting documents in the electronic docket for this action, [USCG-2017-0662], at Regulations.gov.

          Michael D. Emerson,
          Director, Marine Transportation Systems.

      [FR Doc. 2017-15707 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 9
        [Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0006]
        RIN 1660-AA85
        Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Regulations To Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published on August 22, 2016. The NPRM proposed changes to FEMA's “Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands” regulations to implement Executive Order 13690, which established the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). FEMA also withdraws the proposed supplementary policy (FEMA Policy: 078-3), which clarified how FEMA would apply the FFRMS. On August 15, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13807, which revoked Executive Order 13690. Accordingly, the NPRM and supplementary policy are withdrawn.

          DATES:
          FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule published August 22, 2016 (81 FR 57402) as of March 6, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kristin Fontenot, Director, Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (OEHP), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Suite 313, Washington, DC 20472-3020. Phone: 202-646-2741; Email: Kristin.Fontenot@fema.dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On August 22, 2016, FEMA published an NPRM entitled “Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Regulations To Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard” in the Federal Register (81 FR 57402). This rulemaking proposed to revise FEMA's regulations on “Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands” to implement Executive Order 13690 (“Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input”), which amended Executive Order 11988 (“Floodplain Management”) and established the FFRMS. FEMA also proposed a supplementary policy entitled “FEMA Policy: Guidance for Implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS)” (FEMA Policy 078-3), which would have further clarified how FEMA would apply the FFRMS. The notice of availability and request for comments for the supplementary policy also published in the August 22, 2016 Federal Register at 81 FR 56558.

        On August 15, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13807 (“Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects”) which revoked Executive Order 13690. See 82 FR 40463, Aug. 24, 2017. Executive Order 13807 left in place Executive Order 11988, which provides for uniform floodplain management standards and procedures across the Executive Branch, and which is currently reflected in FEMA regulations. See 44 CFR part 9. Accordingly, in light of the revocation of Executive Order 13690, FEMA is withdrawing the NPRM and supplementary policy. FEMA will continue to seek more effective ways in its programs to assess and reduce the risk of current and future flooding and increase community resilience.
        Executive Order 13771

        The withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).
        Authority

        Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.

          Dated: February 27, 2018.
          Brock Long,
          Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2018-04495 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9111-66-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 74
        [GN Docket No. 14-166, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No. 12-268: FCC 17-95]
        Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission proposes to permit professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and that meet certain criteria to obtain a license to operate in the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction transition period), thereby allowing them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at venues where their events/productions are performed. In addition, the Commission proposes to permit these same users, based on demonstrated need, also to obtain a license to operate on other bands available for use by wireless microphone licensees provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands. This proposed action promotes the Commission's goal of accommodating wireless microphone users' needs through access to spectrum resources following the incentive auction and reconfiguration of the TV bands.

          DATES:
          Comments are due October 2, 2017. Reply comments are due October 16, 2017.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-0688, Paul.Murray@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 14-166, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No 12-268, FCC 17-95, adopted July 13, 2017, and released July 14, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0714/FCC-17-95A1.pdf.

          People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Synopsis
        1. Background. As an alternative to its request for reinstatement of a reservation system for certain unlicensed wireless microphone users, wireless microphone manufacturer Shure requested in its petition for reconsideration of the Commission's 2015 Wireless Microphones R&O, 80 FR 71702, November 17, 2015, that the Commission provide a more limited reservation system that would make registration for interference protection for wireless microphone users in the TV bands available in special circumstances requiring a high degree of reliability for a user that does not typically use 50 or more microphones. Shure pointed out that recent Commission decisions, including the elimination of two “reserved” TV channels for wireless microphones in the TV bands following the incentive auction, has resulted in unlicensed wireless microphone users having access to fewer vacant TV channels that would be free from interference from white space devices.

        2. Under the Commission's part 74 Low Power Auxiliary Stations (LPAS) rules, licensed operations of wireless microphones are permitted on the TV band frequencies on a secondary, non-exclusive basis, with license eligibility restricted to a limited set of specified entities. Prior to 2014, eligibility was restricted to licensees of radio and broadcast television stations, broadcast television network entities, certain cable television system operators, and motion picture and television program producers. In the TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 79 FR 40680, July 14, 2014, the Commission provided for a limited expansion of eligibility under part 74, Subpart H, to include professional sound companies and venues that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones for major events/productions where use of such devices is an integral part of these events/productions. When using frequencies in the TV bands, these licensed wireless microphone users may also register with the white spaces databases to receive interference protection from unlicensed white space devices in the TV bands at specified locations when these events/productions are performed.
        3. In providing for this limited expansion of license eligibility, the Commission explained that these particular entities share the need of the other eligible entities for regular and reliable high quality audio services that are free from interference, and often require a large number of wireless microphones to meet their needs. In particular, the Commission concluded that professional sound companies and venues that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones at events/productions generally have the same needs for interference protection as existing part 74 wireless microphone licensees, particularly given the spectrum requirements associated with use of a large number of wireless microphones. The Commission found that these types of professional users have experience in coordinating wireless microphone uses among themselves at venues or events, even in congested markets, and have similar needs to existing part 74 wireless microphone licensees, and concluded that routine use of 50 microphones was a reasonable threshold for identifying entities that are more likely to require interference protection in order to ensure high quality audio services.
        4. In the 2015 Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission adopted various revisions in with regard to licensed wireless microphone operations under the part 74 LPAS rules. With respect to the TV bands, it revised the rules to provide more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone users to access spectrum by allowing greater use of VHF channels, and by providing for closer co-channel operation without the need for coordination where the licensed wireless microphone user determines that the TV signals fell below a specified threshold (such that wireless microphone operations would pose little risk of causing harmful interference to TV service). The Commission also expanded eligibility for licensed use of the 600 MHz duplex gap to all entities eligible to hold part 74 wireless microphone licenses for using TV band spectrum. In addition, outside of the TV bands the Commission opened up additional portions of the 900 MHz band (portions of the 941-944 MHz and 952-960 MHz bands on each side of the 944-952 MHz band), as well as portions of the 1435-1525 MHz band (with special equipment and coordination requirements) and the 6875-7125 MHz band, to permit use by licensed wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis under specified conditions.
        5. On April 13, 2017, the broadcast television incentive auction closed, thereby establishing: (1) The revised TV bands that will be repacked and will continue to be available for use by wireless microphones on a secondary licensed or an unlicensed basis, and (2) the 600 MHz Band Plan, which includes the limited spectrum that will be available for wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap after the end of the post-auction transition period. As a result of the repurposing of 84 megahertz of TV bands spectrum in the incentive auction, the spectrum in the revised and repacked TV bands (channels 2-36) available for licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone use will be substantially reduced in the coming years, although the specific amount of spectrum that remains available will vary depending on the particular locations of the users' wireless microphones operations.
        6. Discussion. The Commission agrees with Shure and commenters supporting its petition that certain unlicensed wireless microphone users that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold nonetheless have identical or similar needs for interference protection at their events/productions as do entities that currently qualify for part 74 wireless microphone licenses. In many instances, the 50 microphone threshold is unnecessarily restrictive as it excludes many entities that have the need for professional high-quality audio for their events/productions. Therefore, we propose and seek comment on how best to accommodate these wireless microphone users to the extent that, based on demonstration of particular need, they should qualify for a license at their events/productions.
        7. The Commission recognizes that the 50 microphone threshold is a proxy for the need for professional, interference-free high-quality audio events/productions. Therefore the Commission proposes to allow certain theater, music, and performing arts organizations that do not meet this threshold but are otherwise able to demonstrate they have these “professional” needs and capabilities to obtain a part 74 license to operate in the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap. This would address the specific concerns raised in the petition by allowing these users to register for interference protection from white space devices when operating in the TV bands. In addition, the Commission proposes to allow such users access to other spectrum bands available to part 74 wireless microphone licensees, including portions of the 900 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, and 7 GHz band spectrum where the need and requisite capabilities are demonstrated. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on whether there also may be certain other, similar types of organizations that use wireless microphones for productions where professional-level high-quality audio service is required and these needs cannot otherwise be met, such that the organization also may merit such protection for the same reasons.

        8. To fully account for these certain wireless microphone users with professional needs, the Commission proposes to revise the definition of both “large venue owner or operator” and “professional sound company” under our rules. The Commission proposes to define these terms to include either (a) wireless microphone users that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones where the use is an integral part of major events or productions (as provided under existing rules) or (b) wireless microphone users that otherwise can demonstrate a particular need for, and the capability to provide, professional, high-quality audio that is integral to their events or productions.
        9. To demonstrate a need for high-quality audio during events/productions under prong (b), an applicant for a part 74 license would be required to show that its needs for high-quality audio services for its audiences are identical or substantially similar to those of current part 74 licensees. The Commission seeks comment on what this demonstration would look like, and how the Commission would determine whether there is actual need for a license and that the spectrum would be used in a spectrally efficient manner.

        10. Furthermore, to demonstrate the requisite capability to provide professional high quality audio under prong (b), an applicant for such a part 74 license would need to demonstrate that it has the professional-level technical and operational capabilities to carry out its responsibilities associated with holding a license (e.g., coordination responsibilities, technical capabilities, and registration capabilities). This criterion is meant to encompass users that have capabilities that are identical or similar to the professional sound companies/large venues that currently qualify for part 74 licenses, but that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold.
        11. As in the TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, the Commission is proposing only a limited expansion of eligibility that strikes an appropriate balance in expanding licensee eligibility where there is a clear need for professional high-quality audio for particular events/productions, while ensuring that spectrum is shared effectively with existing wireless microphone licensees and remains available for other uses, such as by white space devices. Commenters should discuss the effect that the proposed expansion of eligibility for wireless microphone licenses would have on other users of the spectrum.
        12. In addition to proposing to permit professional theater, music, and performing arts organizations that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold but meet the two-part test above to obtain a part 74 license in the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap, the Commission also proposes to permit these entities to qualify for a license in portions of the 900 MHz band, as well as in the 1435-1525 MHz and 6975-7125 MHz band, that also are available for part 74 wireless microphone licensees, upon demonstrated need and ability to meet the necessary coordination and other requirements pertaining to each particular band. The Commission believes that any risk of wireless microphone operations causing harmful interference to these primary licensees is low considering that wireless microphones operate at relatively low power over short ranges.
        13. The Commission seeks any additional comment on this proposed case-by-case approach, and on possible alternatives to that approach. Commenting parties proposing alternative approaches should explain the rationale for the metric or standard that they propose, address how it would be a reasonable and appropriate way of identifying the class of wireless microphone users that merit a license, and provide sufficient data and other information supporting such an approach.
        Procedural Matters
        14. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) contains proposed new information collection requirements. We invite the general public and Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
        15. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the RFA.
        16. This proceeding is initiated to explore whether certain professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and meet certain criteria should be permitted to: (1) Obtain part 74 licenses in the TV bands to enable them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices that operate in those bands, and to access the portion of spectrum available to licensed wireless microphone users in the 600 MHz duplex gap (specifically, the 653-657 MHz portion); and (2) obtain part 74 licenses to operate in other bands available for use by part 74 licensed wireless microphone licensees, including portions of the 900 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, and 6975-7125 MHz bands, provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands.
        17. The proposal set forth in the FNPRM would apply to certain theater, music production, and performing arts, and similar organizations that currently use wireless microphones on an unlicensed—rather than licensed—basis to meet their audio service needs because they fail to meet the 50 microphone license eligibility requirement to be a “large venue or operator” or “professional sound company” under the Commission's Rules for part 74 Low Power Auxiliary Stations. Under the proposal, an unlicensed wireless microphone applicant for a part 74 license would be required to establish that needs access to more spectrum in these bands is needed for its major events or productions, based on a showing of its particular needs at that specified location, that its need for high-fidelity audio services for its audiences are identical or substantially similar to those of current part 74 licensees, and that it has the professional-level technical and operational capabilities to carry out its responsibilities as a licensee.
        18. Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        19. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
        • Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        ○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        ○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        ○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for persons with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
        Ordering Clauses
        20. It is ordered that, pursuant to §§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 302(a), 303(f), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 302a, 303(f), and 332, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is Adopted.
        21. It is ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74
          Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        Proposed Rules
        The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 74 as follows:

          PART 74, SUBPART H—LOW POWER AUXILIARY STATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.

        2. Amend § 74.801 the definitions for “Professional sound company” and “Venue owner or operator” to read as follows:

          § 74.801
          Definitions.

            Professional sound company. Professional sound company refers to a person or organization that provides audio services that (a) routinely use 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices, where the use of such devices is an integral part of major events or productions, or (b) can otherwise demonstrate a particular need for, and the capability to provide, professional high-quality audio through use of low power auxiliary station devices, where the use is an integral part of events or productions. Routinely using 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices means that the professional sound company uses 50 or more such devices for most events or productions.

            Venue owner or operator. A venue owner or operator refers to a person or organization that owns or operates a venue that (a) routinely uses 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices, where the use is an integral part of major events or productions, or (b) can otherwise demonstrate a particular need for, and the capability to provide, professional high-quality audio through use of low power auxiliary station devices, where the use is an integral part of events or productions. Routinely using 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices means that the venue owner or operator uses 50 or more such devices for events or productions.

        3. Amend § 74.832 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:

          § 74.832
           Licensing requirements and procedures.

          (a)* * *
          (7) Venue owners or operators as defined in § 74.801.

      [FR Doc. 2017-17441 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 160728670-6904-01]
        RIN 0648-BG23
        Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery; Extension of Public Comment Period

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On October 13, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule to establish protected species hard caps for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift gillnet fishery, with comments due by November 28, 2016. However, in response to a request to extend the public comment period, NMFS has decided to extend the public comment period by an additional 30 calendar days.

          DATES:
          The deadline for receipt of comments on the proposed rule published on October 13, 2016 (81 FR 70660) is extended to December 28, 2016. NMFS must receive written comments and information on or before December 28, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, draft Environmental Assessment (EA), draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Lyle Enriquez, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123” in the comments.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. 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.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of the draft EA, draft RIR, IRFA, and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123 or by contacting the Regional Administrator, Barry Thom, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232-2182, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lyle Enriquez, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4025, or Lyle.Enriquez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On October 13, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 70660) announcing proposed issuance of regulations to establish protected species hard caps for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift gillnet fishery. The 45-day public comment period on the proposed rule ends on November 28, 2016.
        On October 21, 2016, representatives of potentially affected parties requested an extension of the public comment period to aid in their review of the proposed rulemaking. NMFS has considered the request and will extend the comment period to December 28, 2016. This extension provides a total of 75 days for public input and continuing Federal agency reviews to inform NMFS' final decision to issue or deny the regulations.
        NMFS refers the reader to the October 13, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 70660) for background information concerning the proposed rulemaking as this notice does not repeat the information here.

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

          Dated: November 15, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-28179 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No.  030617155-3155-01; I.D. 051903D]
        RIN 0648-AR11
        Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Weakfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to:  increase the incidental catch allowance for weakfish caught in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from 150 lb (67 kg) to no more than 300 lb (135 kg) per day or trip, whichever is longer in duration; remove Massachusetts and Connecticut from the list of states where commercially caught weakfish from the EEZ can be landed; and add to our regulations the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, as an official who can grant Exempted Fishing Permits.  The intent of this proposed rule is to modify regulations for the Atlantic coast stock of weakfish to promote the effectiveness of the Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for weakfish.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to, and copies of a Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), are available from, Anne Lange, Chief, State-Federal Fisheries Division (SF8), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Suite 13317, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Meyer, 301-713-2334.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        NMFS is proposing to modify weakfish conservation measures in the EEZ under the authority of section 803(b) of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., which states that, in the absence of an approved and implemented Fishery Management Plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and, after consultation with the appropriate Fishery Management Council(s), the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may implement regulations to govern fishing in the EEZ, i.e., from 3 to 200 nm offshore.  These regulations must be (1) compatible with the effective implementation of an ISFMP developed by the Commission, and (2) consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        On November 21, 2002, the Commission approved and implemented Amendment 4 to the ISFMP for Weakfish (Amendment 4).  Under Amendment 4, vessels fishing for weakfish must use mesh sizes of at least 31/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 33/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 27/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets.  Vessels using smaller mesh sizes cannot target weakfish, but often take this species as bycatch (i.e. non-directed fisheries).  During development of Amendment 4, some states expressed concern that increased numbers of weakfish are being discarded as bycatch in these non-directed fisheries.  Although research on discard mortality for weakfish is not available, fishermen have indicated that most discards are dead, and therefore, discard mortality has been assumed to be 100 percent.  To address this concern, Amendment 4 provides that states may allow fishermen targeting species other than weakfish to possess up to 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish in any one day or trip, whichever is the longer period of time, as incidental catch in state waters, provided that there is at least an equal poundage of other species on board the vessel.  This is an increase of 150 lb (67 kg) from the Amendment 3 incidental weakfish catch allowance of 150 lb (67 kg).  Any state that chooses to implement a 300-lb (135-kg) allowance must have a reporting system in place that will allow adequate quantification of any such catch.  State management plans must also account for any harvest of weakfish from non-directed fisheries.  The required reporting systems will provide information on weakfish bycatch that will be needed by the Commission and NMFS in developing future regulations.  Such information is currently limited.  The Commission believes that this increase in allowance will contribute little to total landings, while the required reporting systems will result in improved data for future stock assessments
        Status of the Weakfish Fishery
        Amendment 4 incorporates results of the most recent weakfish stock assessments, developed by the Atlantic Coastal States, the Commission, and NMFS (Section 1.2.2 of Amendment 4).  The 30th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, in 2000, reviewed the weakfish stock assessment and concluded that weakfish were at a high level of abundance and subject to low fishing mortality rates.  The assessment was subsequently updated, in 2002, with data through 2000.  Spawning stock biomass has been building since 1993, and is currently well above the threshold of 31.8 million lb (14,400 MT).  Estimates of fishing mortality, which reached a high in 1994 of 2.52, have been below 0.50, since 1995.  The 2000 estimate is below the fishing mortality target of 0.31 and far below the fishing mortality threshold of 0.50.
        Management measures implemented under Amendment 3 resulted in an increase in the size and age structure of the weakfish population.  The estimate of the proportion of age 6+ fish had shrunk to only 0.3 percent of the total number of weakfish in 1990.  This proportion has been increasing in recent years, reaching 6.8 percent of the total number in 2001.  Measures implemented under Amendment 4 are designed to continue the expansion of the weakfish age and size structure to that necessary for full restoration of the stock, and to return weakfish to their previous geographic range.
        Recommendation to the Secretary

        On March 13, 2003, the Secretary received the following two recommendations from the Commission to implement regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Act:  (1) Require that fishermen who harvest weakfish recreationally in the EEZ comply with the laws of the state where they are landed; and (2) allow fishermen in non-directed fisheries using smaller than certain specified  mesh sizes to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration (an increase of 150 lb (67 kg) per day or trip).  These two recommendations were part of five measures approved under Section 4.9 of Amendment 4, but the only two that the Commission believed required changes to the current Federal regulations.
        Recommendation 1 would require that fishermen who harvest weakfish recreationally in the EEZ comply with the laws of the state where they are landed.   NMFS believes that the current provisions at 50 CFR 697.3(c) (“The regulations in this part do not preempt more restrictive state laws, or state enforcement of more restrictive state laws, with respect to weakfish fishing and American lobster fishing”) is compatible with the intent of this recommendation.  If a state has a regulation that is more restrictive than the Federal regulation in the EEZ, the Federal regulation would apply in the EEZ but would likely not prohibit the state from enforcing its more restrictive state law upon landing in that state.  Therefore, the Commission's recommendation is already in effect and a change to the current regulation is not required.
        Recommendation 2 would allow non-directed fisheries using a  mesh size less than 31/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 33/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 27/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration (an increase of 150 lb (67 kg) per day or trip over the current Federal EEZ regulation).   The Commission stated in its letter to the Secretary that an increase in weakfish biomass has resulted in greater weakfish discards, and that a 300 lb (135 kg) bycatch allowance will help to reduce dead discards, while not encouraging directed fishing.  The Commission believes that this recommendation is compatible with Amendment 4.
        Recommendation 2 is essentially a bycatch provision.  Bycatch is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act  as  “fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards.”  In this case, since vessels fishing for weakfish are required to adhere to the minimum mesh sizes described above, vessels using the smaller mesh sizes cannot direct effort on this species.  However, since vessels fishing with smaller mesh sizes are likely to encounter weakfish, any weakfish in excess of 300 lb (135 kg),  taken by such vessels, would be considered bycatch under this recommendation.  In addition, under Amendment 4, vessels fishing with smaller mesh sizes can retain up to the 300 lb (135 kg)  weakfish bycatch allowance in state waters, provided there is at least an equal poundage of other species on board the vessel.  The provision for equal or greater poundage of other species is more restrictive than would be implemented in Federal waters.  Any state that chooses to implement a 300-lb (135-kg) allowance must have a reporting system in place that will allow adequate quantification of any such catch.  State management plans must also account for any harvest of weakfish from non-directed fisheries.  The required reporting systems will provide information on weakfish bycatch that will be needed by the Commission and NMFS in developing future regulations.  This recommendation requires a change to current Federal regulations.

        Another of the five measures approved under Section 4.9 of Amendment 4 was that weakfish commercially harvested in the EEZ be landed in accordance with the landing laws of the state in which they are landed, with the exception that weakfish caught commercially in the EEZ may not be landed in a de minimis state.  The Commission permits a state to apply for de minimis status if, for the previous two years, its combined average commercial and recreational landings (by weight) constitute less than 1 percent of the annual coastwide commercial and recreational  landings of weakfish for the same two year period.  The Federal definition is compatible.  Once de minimis status is granted, designated states are relieved of many of the burdens for monitoring weakfish catches, but must submit annual reports to the Weakfish Management Board justifying the continuance of de minimis status. This recommendation was not included in the letter from the  Commission since this provision is addressed in current regulations.

        The Commission found, and the Secretary agrees, that the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut are now de minimis states within the definition of the term, and therefore, these states ought to be removed from the list of states where commercially caught weakfish from the EEZ can be landed (see 50 CFR part 697.7(a)(7)).  This measure supports the ability of the states to effectively monitor landings.
        Proposed Action
        Pursuant to section 804(a) of the Atlantic Coastal Act, the Secretary has a statutory obligation to support the Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Program.  The Commission recently adopted Amendment 4, which is designed to continue the stock recovery seen during the implementation of Amendment 3, to benefit the ecosystem as well as commercial and recreational fisheries, and to continue to increase the age and size structure of the weakfish population, as well as its geographic range.  In furtherance of this plan, the Commission requested Secretarial support in the form of a modification to the current Federal weakfish regulations.  The recommended regulatory change would reduce dead discards (bycatch) by increasing the amount of incidental catch that can be landed, but by such a minimal amount that it would not encourage directed fishing.  To support the Commission's weakfish management efforts under Amendment 4, NMFS proposes the following regulations that would modify management restrictions in the Federal weakfish fishery in a manner that is compatible with the recommendations made by the Commission.  The proposed rule would allow vessels using a mesh size less than 31/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 33/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 27/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration (an increase of 150 lb (67 kg) per day or trip over the current Federal EEZ regulation).  In addition, the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut would be removed from the list of states where weakfish caught in the EEZ for commercial purposes can be landed (§ 697.7(a)(7)).
        Two changes would be included in this rulemaking for consistency and ease of reading:  (1) Under 50 CFR 697.22—Exempted fishing, the Regional Administrator is the only official who can exempt a person or vessel from the requirements of this part for the conduct of exempted fishing beneficial to the management of weakfish, pursuant to the provisions of 50 CFR 600.745 of this chapter.  But, under 50 CFR 600.745, the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries has also been delegated this task.  For consistency, the Director would be added to 50 CFR 697.22 as an official, along with the Regional Administrator, who can exempt a person or vessel from the requirements of this part; and (2) Atlantic Coastal Act would be added to the definition section at 50 CFR 697.2.
        Classification

        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Act. Paragraphs (A) and (B) of section 804(b)(1) authorizes the Secretary to implement regulations in the EEZ in the absence of a Magnuson-Stevens Act FMP.  Such regulations must be necessary to support a Commission's ISFMP, and consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has preliminarily determined that these actions are consistent with the national standards.  The Secretary, before making the final determination, will take into account data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A summary of the IRFA is as follows:
        This proposed rule is published under the authority of section 803 of the Atlantic Coastal Act.  The purpose of the proposed rule is to improve cooperative management of the Atlantic coast weakfish fishery by supporting the Commission's Amendment 4, as required under the Atlantic Coastal Act.  The proposed Federal regulatory change would increase the permitted non-directed incidental catch of the species from 150 lb (67 kg) to no more than 300 lb (135 kg) per day or trip.  Analysis of the best available data in the EA/RIR/IRFA suggests that the proposed increase would not alter current fishing practices or effort, or increase the number of weakfish caught.  The 150-lb (67-kg) increase would simply convert 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish, which would be caught and discarded at sea as dead bycatch, into 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish caught as incidental catch and landed.  The need for the proposed action is explained in the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here.
        Only two alternatives were considered for this proposed action.  They were:  Alternative 1:  No Action; and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative):  Allow vessels in non-directed fisheries, using mesh sizes less than 31/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 33/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 27/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration.  Although a third alternative was identified in the environmental assessment, it was considered to be not significant for purposes of this IRFA.  Furthermore, because the Secretary is required to develop and implement a program to support the Commission's action, analysis of additional alternatives would not meet the purpose and need for this action, or objectives of the Atlantic Coastal Act..
        The preferred alternative would allow vessels in non-directed fisheries, using a mesh size less than 31/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh or 33/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for trawls and 27/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets, to possess no more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer in duration (an increase of 150 lb (67 kg)).
        NMFS does not have an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply because vessels most likely to be impacted are not required to hold a permit to fish for weakfish in the EEZ.  However, the action would only apply to those fishermen who capture weakfish incidentally while fishing for other species using a smaller mesh size than is allowed in the directed weakfish fishery.  In addition, under Alternative 1, status quo, no additional small entities would be impacted; while implementation of Alternative 2 would apply to fishermen who use nets with smaller mesh sizes and catch over 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish on a given day or trip.  During 1998-2002, vessel trip reports indicated that only 1,116 small mesh otter trawl trips and 4 small mesh gillnet trips landed weakfish caught while fishing in the EEZ.  The average price received by fisherman reporting weakfish catch in the EEZ in 2001 was $0.614 per lb.  If an affected vessel were to land 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish, as currently permitted (Alternative 1), $92 in revenue could be realized, per trip.  If Alternative 2 were implemented, an additional $92 in revenue, for a weakfish total of $184 per trip (double the current amount) would be possible.  For a more accurate picture of the expected economic impacts for the two alternatives, actual catches from individual vessel trip records, from 1998-2002, were multiplied by average price-per-pound of weakfish from the EEZ to determine estimated revenues per trip.  Since vessels may not catch the full 150 lb (67 kg) or 300 lb (135 kg) allowed in Alternative 1 and 2, revenues for each Alternative were projected as the average for those trips that reported from 1 to 150 lb (67 kg)  (Alternative 1) and from 151 to 300 lb (135 kg) (Alternative 2).  Catches from trips that reported over 300 lb (135 kg) were capped at the 300 lb (135 kg) proposed limit (Alternative 2) for these calculations.  Calculated revenues for sale of allowed weakfish landings under Alternative 1 averaged $22; potential revenues for Alternative 2 were estimated at $160 per trip.  Based on 1998-2002 vessel trip data, total annual revenues for all non-directed weakfish trips, coastwide are projected to be about $6,200 under Alternative 1, and about $7,800, if Alternative 2 were to be implemented.
        There will be no reporting and recordkeeping requirements resulting from this proposed action.
        There are no Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
        NMFS is inviting the public to provide comment on the number of small entities that might be affected by this proposed action.  NMFS will consider comments received during the public comment period for this proposed action that relate to the economic impacts of the preferred alternative before publishing the final action.
        A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        NMFS has made a preliminary decision that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.  This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review pursuant to E.O. 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697
          Fisheries, Fishing
        .
          Dated:  June 25, 2003.
          Rebecca J. Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR chapter VI, part 697, is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

        1.  The authority citation for part 697 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

        2.  In § 697.2, the definition for “Atlantic Coastal Act” is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 697.2
          Definitions.

            Atlantic Coastal Act means the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).

        3.  Section 697.7, paragraph (a)(4) and (a)(7) are revised to read as follows:

          § 697.7
          Prohibitions.
          (a) * * *

          (4) Possess more than 300 lb (135 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer, in the EEZ when using a mesh size less than 31/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh (as measured between the centers of opposite knots when stretched taut) or 33/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for finfish trawls and 27/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets.

          (7) Land weakfish for commercial purposes caught in the EEZ in any state other than Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, or North Carolina.

        4.  Section 697.22 is revised to read as follows:

          § 697.22
          Exempted fishing.
          The Regional Administrator or Director may exempt any person or vessel from the requirements of this part for the conduct of exempted fishing beneficial to the management of the American lobster, weakfish, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or fishery, pursuant to the provisions of § 600.745 of this chapter.
          (a) The Regional Administrator or Director may not grant such exemption unless it is determined that the purpose, design, and administration of the exemption is consistent with the objectives of any applicable stock rebuilding program, the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Act,  the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, and that granting the exemption will not:
          (1) Have a detrimental effect on the American lobster, Atlantic striped bass, weakfish, Atlantic sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or fishery; or
          (2) Create significant enforcement problems.
          (b) Each vessel participating in any exempted fishing activity is subject to all provisions of this part, except those explicitly relating to the purpose and nature of the exemption.  The exemption will be specified in a letter issued by the Regional Administrator or Director to each vessel participating in the exempted activity.  This letter must be carried aboard the vessel seeking the benefit of such exemption.  Exempted fishing activity shall be authorized pursuant to and consistent with § 600.745 of this chapter.

      [FR Doc. 03-16573 Filed 6-30-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No. 150610515-5515-01]
        RIN 0648-BF16
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Based on Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission recommendations, we, the National Marine Fisheries Service, are proposing to modify the Lobster Conservation Management Area 4 seasonal closure and are requesting comment. This action is necessary to reduce fishing effort in Area 4 by 10 percent. This action is intended to ensure fishery regulations for the lobster fishery in Federal waters remain consistent with the Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster and previously implemented state measures and the intent of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0075, 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-2015-0075, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on American Lobster Proposed Rule.”

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9122.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The American lobster fishery is managed by the Commission under Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Pan for American Lobster (ISFMP). Since 1997, the Commission has coordinated the efforts of the states and Federal Government toward sustainable management of the American lobster fishery. We manage the portion of the fishery conducted in Federal waters from 3 to 200 miles offshore, based on management recommendations made by the Commission.
        The American lobster management unit is divided between three lobster stocks and seven Lobster Conservation Management Areas.

          EP05AU15.013

        The 2009 stock assessment indicated that the Southern New England American lobster stock, which includes all or part of six areas, is at a low level of abundance and is experiencing persistent recruitment failure, caused by a combination of environmental factors and continued fishing mortality. To address the poor condition of the Southern New England stock, the Commission adopted Addendum XVII to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP in February of 2012. The measures in Addendum XVII were intended to reduce fishing exploitation on the Southern New England lobster stock by 10 percent. Copies of the Addendum are available on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.asmfc.org.

        Consistent with the Commission's action in Addendum XVII, we issued complementary regulations (80 FR 2028; January 15, 2015) for Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5. Measures for Area 4 included mandatory v-notching requirement of egg-bearing female lobster and an annual seasonal closure from February 1-March 31. States, as required, came into compliance with Addendum XVII by January 1, 2013.
        Proposed Measures
        We are now proposing to change the Area 4 seasonal closure from February 1-March 31 to April 30-May 31, consistent with the Commission's recommendation. The American Lobster Technical Committee analyzed the effectiveness of the February 1-March 31 closure after it was implemented by the states and presented these results to the Commission in late 2014. The Technical Committee's analysis indicated that the February and March closure in Area 4 achieved only a 3.7-percent reduction in effort, falling short of the required 10-percent reduction. The Technical Committee recommended that the Lobster Board shift the annual seasonal closure from February 1-March 31 to April 30-May 31. The Technical Committee projected that this shift would achieve a 10.1-percent reduction in effort. The Lobster Board reviewed this analysis and approved the Area 4 seasonal closure modification during several meetings in late 2014 and early 2015. The Lobster Board also recommended that all jurisdictions change the closure date to April 30-May 31 annually. New York and New Jersey (the two states bordering Area 4) have already adjusted their regulatory closure to this later date. In addition, the states have retained the 1-week grace period at the end of the seasonal closure to reset unbaited gear. They did not retain the 2-week grace period at the start of the closure and state regulations.
        The affected states have already issued or are in the process of issuing regulations that comply with this change. We are proposing to shift the timing of the Area 4 seasonal closure, consistent with the Commission's recommendation.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been preliminary determined to be consistent with the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Act, the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132. The proposed measures are based upon the American Lobster ISFMP that was created by and is overseen by the states. The proposed measures were a result of a modification to Addendum XVII measures, which was approved by the states, recommended by the states through the Commission for Federal adoption, and are in place at the state level. Consequently, NMFS has consulted with the states in the creation of the ISFMP, which makes recommendations for Federal action. Additionally, these proposed measures would not pre-empt state law and would do nothing to directly regulate the states.
        This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of their proposed regulations on small entities. The objective of the RFA is to consider the impacts of a rulemaking on small entities, and the capacity of those affected by regulations to bear the direct and indirect costs of regulation. We prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this action as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The proposed management measure would affect small entities (i.e., Federal lobster permit holders) fishing in Southern New England, specifically in Area 4.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by NMFS Is Being Considered
        For a full description of the reasons why this action is being considered, please refer to the Background section of the preamble. The Commission has recommended a change to the Area 4 seasonal closure, which is expected to better achieve the required effort reduction. The affected states have already issued regulations that comply with this change. Consistent with the Atlantic Coastal Act, we intend to implement regulations consistent with Commission recommendations and those promulgated by our partner states.
        Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        The objective of the proposed action is to assist in the reduction of fishing exploitation by 10 percent as part of an overall effort to rebuild the Southern New England lobster stock. The legal basis for the proposed action is the ISFMP and promulgating regulations at 50 CFR part 697.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: Small businesses; small organizations; and small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards define whether a business entity is small and, thus, eligible for Government programs and preferences reserved for “small business” concerns. Size standards have been established (and recently modified) for all for-profit economic activities or industries in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Designations of large and small entities were based on each entity's 3-year average landings. For entities landing a plurality of revenue in shellfish (NAICS 111412), the threshold for “large” is $5.0 million. For entities landing a plurality of revenue in finfish (NAICS 111411), the threshold for “large” is $19.0 million. The number of directly regulated entities for purposes of analyzing the economic impacts and describing those that are small businesses is selected based on permits held. Since this proposed regulation applies only to the businesses that hold Area 4 permits, only those business entities are evaluated. Business entities that do not own vessels with directly regulated permits are not described.

        Of the 47 small entities identified in the IRFA, 23 are considered a shellfish business, 12 are considered a finfish business, and 12 could not be identified as either because even though they had a lobster permit (in Area 4), they had no earned revenue from fishing activity. Because they had no revenue in the last 3 years, they would be considered small by default, but would also be considered as latent effort.
        The entity definition used by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Social Sciences Branch uses only unique combinations of owners. That is, entities are not combined if they have a shared owner. Section 3 of the SBA defines affiliation as: Affiliation may arise among two or more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated (13 CFR 121.103(f)).
        The recent addition of vessel owner information to the permit data allows us to better define fishing “businesses.” The vessel ownership data identify all the individual people who own fishing vessels. Vessels can be grouped together according to common owners, which can then be treated as a fishing business, for purposes of RFA analyses. Revenues summed across all vessels in the group and the activities that generate those revenues form the basis for determining whether the entity is a large or small business. Ownership data are available for the potentially impacted by the proposed action from 2010 onward.
        A person who does not currently own a fishing vessel, but who has owned a qualifying vessel that has sunk, been destroyed, or transferred to another person, must apply for and receive a “confirmation of history” (CPH) if the fishing and permit history of such vessel has been retained lawfully by the applicant. Issuance of a valid CPH preserves the eligibility of the applicant to apply for a permit for a replacement vessel based on the qualifying vessel's fishing and permit history at a subsequent time. The ownership data based on the permits held do not contain information on CPH permits. A total of six CPH's exist for lobster Area 4.

        While considering the number of affected entities, it is also worth noting that the vast majority of permit holders are either dually permitted (i.e., issued both a Federal and state permit) or otherwise subject to a state's lobster regulations. Accordingly, most all Federal permit holders will be required to comply with the proposed measures even if NMFS does not implement these measures. In other words, these Federal permit holders will be obligated to comply with these measures and responsibilities attendant to their state permit regardless of whether these same measures are also required under their Federal permit. In fact, if we do not take the proposed action, these dual permit holders will be restricted for a total of 3 months (February 1-March 31 under the Federal permit and April 30-May 31 under the state permit). Neither the Technical Committee or the Lobster Board recommended this scenario.
        Descriptions of Significant Alternatives Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of Proposed Action on Small Entities
        Due to the expected high rate of dual permitting and that the fact that all of the impacted states already comply with the revised Area 4 seasonal closure or soon will, the majority of Federal vessels must already abide by these requirements, and therefore have already been impacted. For those vessels not dually permitted, this change in the Area 4 seasonal closure can be expected to have limited economic impact to permit holders. Because the proposed regulations are consistent with Commission recommendations and current state regulations, alternative measures, such as maintaining the status quo, would likely create inconsistencies and regulatory disconnects with the states and would likely worsen potential economic impacts. Therefore, the status quo was not considered reasonable, and, for similar reasons, other alternatives that maintained disconnected state and Federal closures were not considered. The status quo is also inconsistent with the objectives of Addendum XVII to the ISFMP and, consequently, was not considered.
        Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
        Duplication, Overlap or Conflict With Other Federal Rules
        This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal Laws.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697
          Fisheries, fishing.

          Dated: July 30, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 697 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

        1. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

        2. In § 697.7, revise paragraph (c)(1)(xxx)(B) to read as follows:

          § 697.7
          Prohibitions.

          (c) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (xxx) * * *
          (B) Area 4 seasonal closure. The Federal waters of Area 4 shall be closed to lobster fishing from April 30 through May 31.
          (1) Lobster fishing is prohibited in Area 4 during this seasonal closure. Federal lobster permit holders are prohibited from possessing or landing lobster taken from Area 4 during the seasonal closure.
          (2) All lobster traps must be removed from Area 4 waters before the start of the seasonal closure and may not be re-deployed into Area 4 waters until after the seasonal closure ends. Federal trap fishers are prohibited from setting, hauling, storing, abandoning, or in any way leaving their traps in Area 4 waters during this seasonal closure.
          (i) Lobster fishers have a 1-week grace period from May 24 to May 31 to re-set gear in the closed area. During this grace period, re-set traps may not be re-hauled and any Federal lobster permit holder re-setting Area 4 traps during this grace period is prohibited from possessing on board any lobster regardless of the area from which the lobster may have been harvested.
          (ii) [Reserved]
          (3) Federal lobster permit holders are prohibited from possessing or carrying lobster traps aboard a vessel in Area 4 waters during this seasonal closure unless the vessel is operating subject to the grace period identified in paragraph (c)(1)(xxx)(B)(2)(ii) of this section or is transiting through Area 4 pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(xxx)(B)(5) of this section.
          (4) The Area 4 seasonal closure relates only to Area 4. The restrictive provisions of § 697.3 and § 697.4(a)(7)(v) do not apply to this closure. Federal lobster permit holders with an Area 4 designation and another Lobster Management Area designation on their Federal lobster permits would not have to similarly remove their lobster gear from the other designated management areas.
          (5) Transiting Area 4. Federal lobster permit holders may possess lobster traps on their vessels in Area 4 during the seasonal closure only if:
          (i) The trap gear is stowed; and
          (ii) The vessel is transiting the Area 4. For the purposes of this section, transiting shall mean passing through Area 4 without stopping, to reach a destination outside Area 4.
          (6) The Regional Administrator may authorize a permit holder or vessel owner to haul ashore lobster traps from Area 4 during the seasonal closure without having to engage in the exempted fishing process in § 697.22, if the permit holder or vessel owner can establish the following:

            (i) That the lobster traps were not able to be hauled ashore before the seasonal closure due to incapacity, vessel/mechanical inoperability, and/or poor weather; and
          (ii) That all lobsters caught in the subject traps will be immediately returned to the sea.

            (iii) The Regional Administrator may condition this authorization as appropriate in order to maintain the overall integrity of the closure.

      [FR Doc. 2015-19233 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P