        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        RIN 1018-AG22
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Matrix Shot as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to grant final approval of tungsten-matrix shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. Acute toxicity studies reveal no adverse effects over a 30-day period on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) dosed with tungsten-matrix shot. Reproductive/chronic toxicity testing over a 150-day period indicated that tungsten-matrix administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect them or the offspring they produced. We also propose to remove 50 CFR Subpart M (Part 20—Migratory Bird Hunting)—Criteria and Schedule for Implementing Nontoxic Shot Zones for the 1987-88 and Subsequent Waterfowl Hunting Season because implementation of nontoxic shot zones in the United States was completed in 1991.

          DATES:
          You should submit comments on the proposed rule no later than August 25, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          You should send comments to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in Room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted under the Act. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service controls the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to allow the hunting public to use tungsten-matrix shot for hunting migratory birds. Accordingly, we propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21, which describes illegal hunting methods for migratory birds. Paragraph (j) of § 20.21 pertains to prohibited types of shot. In accordance with § 20.21(j)(2), tungsten-matrix shot (95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with <1 percent residual lead) is legal as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 1999-2000 hunting season only. We propose to amend § 20.21(j) to allow permanent use of tungsten-matrix shot in the formulation described above.
        Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot that does not pose a significant toxic hazard to migratory birds or other wildlife. Currently, only steel, bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot are approved as nontoxic. We previously granted temporary approval for tungsten-matrix shot during the 1998-99 (December 8, 1998; 63 FR 67619) and 1999-2000 (August 19, 1999; 64 FR 45400) migratory bird hunting seasons. Compliance with the use of nontoxic shot has increased over the last few years. We believe that compliance will continue to increase with the approval and availability of other nontoxic shot types.
        Kent Cartridge Company has requested that we permanently approve tungsten-matrix shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. Kent's candidate shot is fabricated from what is described in their application as a mixture of powdered metals in a plastic polymer matrix whose density is comparable to that of lead. All component metals are present in their elemental form, not as compounds. The shot material being considered has a density of 10.8 grams/cm3 and is composed of approximately 95.9 percent tungsten and 4.1 percent plastic polymers.

        Kent's application for tungsten-matrix includes a description of the shot, a toxicological report (Thomas 1997), results of a 30-day toxicity study (Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998), and results of a 150-day reproductive/chronic toxicity study (Gallagher et al. 2000). The toxicological report incorporates toxicity information (a synopsis of acute and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds, potential for environmental concern, and toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles) and information on environmental fate and transport (shot alteration, environmental half-life, and environmental concentration).
        Toxicity Information

        The toxicity of the plastic polymers in tungsten-matrix is negligible due to their insolubility. There is considerable difference between the toxicity of soluble and insoluble compounds of tungsten. Elemental tungsten, as found in tungsten-matrix shot, is virtually insoluble and is expected to be relatively nontoxic. Even though most toxicity tests reviewed were based on soluble tungsten compounds rather than elemental tungsten, there appears to be no basis for concern of toxicity to wildlife for tungsten-matrix shot via ingestion by fish or mammals (Bursian et al. 1996a, Bursian et al. 1996b; Bursian et al. 1999; Gigiema 1983; Karantassis 1924; Patty 1982; Industrial Medicine 1946).
        Environmental Fate and Transport

        Elemental tungsten is insoluble in water and, therefore, does not weather and degrade in the environment. Tungsten is very stable with acids and does not easily form compounds with other substances. Preferential uptake by plants in acidic soil suggests uptake of tungsten when it has formed compounds with other substances rather than when it is in its elemental form (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
        Environmental Concentration
        The estimated environmental concentration (EEC) for a terrestrial ecosystem was calculated based on 69,000 shot per hectare (Pain 1990), assuming complete erosion of shot material in 5 centimeters of soil. The EECs for tungsten and the two polymers found in tungsten-matrix are 25.7 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg), 4.2 mg/kg, and 0.14 mg/kg, respectively. The EEC for an aquatic ecosystem was calculated assuming complete erosion of the shot in 1 foot of standing water. The EECs in water for tungsten and the two plastic polymers found in tungsten-matrix shot are 4.2 milligram/liter (mg/L), 0.2 mg/L, and 0.02 mg/L, respectively.
        Effects on Birds

        An extensive literature review contained in the application provided information on the toxicity of elemental tungsten to waterfowl and other birds. Ringelman et al. (1993) orally dosed 20 8-week-old game-farm mallards with 12-17 (1.03 g average weight) tungsten-bismuth-tin pellets and monitored them for 32 days for evidence of intoxication. No birds died during the trial and gross lesions were not observed during the postmortem examinations. Examination of tissues did not reveal any evidence of toxicity or tissue damage, and tungsten was not detectable in kidney or liver samples. The authors concluded that tungsten-bismuth-tin shot presented virtually no potential for acute toxicity in mallards.
        Kraabel et al. (1996) assessed the effects of embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on mallards and concluded that tungsten-bismuth-tin was not acutely toxic when implanted in muscle tissue. Inflammatory reactions to tungsten-bismuth-tin shot were localized and had no detectable systemic effects on mallard health.
        Ringelman et al. (1992) conducted a 32-day acute toxicity study that involved dosing game-farm mallards with a shot alloy of tungsten-bismuth-tin (39 percent tungsten, 44.5 bismuth, and 16.5 tin). No dosed birds died during the trial, and behavior was normal. Examination of tissues post-euthanization revealed no toxicity or damage related to shot exposure. This study concluded that “* * * tungsten-bismuth-tin shot presents virtually no potential for acute intoxication in mallards under the conditions of this study.”
        Nell (1981) fed laying chickens (Gallus domesticus) 0.4 or 1.0 grams/kg tungsten (contained in an unspecified salt compound) in a commercial mash for 5 months to assess reproductive performance. Weekly egg production was normal, and hatchability of fertile eggs was not affected. Exposure of chickens to large doses of tungsten either through injection or by feeding resulted in an increased tissue concentration of tungsten (Nell 1981). The loss of tungsten from the liver occurred in an exponential manner with a half-life of 27 hours. Death due to tungsten occurred when tissue concentrations increased to 25 milligram/gram of liver. Due to the insoluble nature of elemental tungsten contained in tungsten-matrix shot, it is not expected that such high levels of tungsten could be attained through ingestion of tungsten-matrix shot.
        The two plastic polymers used in tungsten-matrix shot act as a physical matrix in which the tungsten is distributed as ionically bound fine particles. Most completely polymerized nylon materials are physiologically inert, regardless of the toxicity of the monomer from which they are made (Peterson 1977). A literature review did not reveal studies in which either of the two polymers were evaluated for toxicity in birds.
        New Acute Toxicity Studies
        Kent contracted with Wildlife International Ltd. to conduct an acute toxicity study of tungsten-matrix. The acute toxicity test is a short-term (30-day) study where ducks are dosed with shot and fed commercially available duck food. Survival, body weight, blood chemistry (hematocrit), bone (femur), and organ analysis are recorded.
        Kent's 30-day dosing study (Wildlife International Ltd. 1998) included four treatment and one control group of game-farm mallards. Treatment groups were exposed to one of three different types of shot: eight No. 4 steel, eight No. 4 lead, or eight No. 4 tungsten-matrix; whereas the control group received no shot. The two tungsten-matrix treatment groups (1 group with a deficient diet, 1 group with a balanced diet) each consisted of 16 birds (8 males and 8 females); whereas remaining treatment and control groups consisted of 6 birds each (3 males and 3 females). All tungsten-matrix-dosed birds survived the test and showed no overt signs of toxicity or treatment-related effects on body weight. There were no differences in hematocrit or hemoglobin concentration between the tungsten-matrix treatment group and either the steel shot or control groups. No histopathological lesions were found during gross necropsy. In general, no adverse effects were seen in mallards given eight No.4 size tungsten-matrix shot and monitored over a 30-day period. Tungsten was found to be below the limit of detection in all samples of femur, gonad, liver, and kidney from treatment groups.
        New Reproductive/Chronic Toxicity Study
        Kent contracted with Wildlife International Ltd. to conduct a reproductive/chronic toxicity study of tungsten-matrix. The reproductive/chronic toxicity study is a long-term (150-day) study where ducks are dosed with shot and fed commercially available duck food. Survival, body weight, blood hematocrit, bone (femur), organ analysis, and reproductive performance are recorded.

        The chronic toxicity/reproductive study revealed no adverse effects when mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 size tungsten-matrix shot and monitored over a 150-day period (Gallagher et al. 2000). At initiation of the test (day 0), and on days 31, 60, and 90, 21 male and 21 female adult mallards were orally dosed with 8 No. 4 tungsten-matrix shot. On the same days, 22 male and 22 female adult mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 steel shot (negative control group). An additional four male and four female mallards were dosed with a single No. 4 lead shot (positive control group). Two lead-dosed birds (one female, one male) died from lead toxicosis on days 10 and 17, respectively, during the study; whereas no mortalities occurred in the other test groups. Hematological and biochemical results from blood samples collected during tests revealed no biologically meaningful differences between the tungsten-matrix group and the steel shot control group. Low, but measurable, levels of tungsten were found in the livers of males from the tungsten-matrix group and in the femurs of females from all treatment groups. For all treatment groups, levels of tungsten were below the limit of detection in egg yolks and whites, and all tissues collected from offspring. Liver and kidney tissues collected for histopathological examination revealed no treatment-related abnormalities.

        No significant differences occurred in egg production, fertility, or hatchability of eggs from birds dosed with tungsten-matrix when compared to steel-dosed ducks. No differences occurred in survival and body weight of ducklings from birds dosed with tungsten-matrix when compared to ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Blood measurements of ducklings from tungsten-matrix-dosed ducks were similar to measurements from ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Overall, results of the 150-day study indicated that tungsten-matrix shot repeatedly administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect them, or the offspring they produced.
        Nontoxic Shot Approval
        The nontoxic shot approval process contains a tiered review system and outlines three conditions for approval of shot types. The first condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing. Based on the results of the toxicological report and the toxicity tests discussed above, we conclude that tungsten-matrix shot does not pose a significant danger to migratory birds or other wildlife.
        The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead levels. Any shot with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1 percent will be considered toxic and, therefore, illegal. We have determined that the maximum environmentally acceptable level of lead in any nontoxic shot is trace amounts of <1 percent, and we have incorporated this requirement in the new approval process. Kent has documented that tungsten-matrix meets this requirement.

        The third condition for approval involves law enforcement. In the August 18, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 43314), we indicated our position that a noninvasive field detection device to distinguish lead from other shot types was an important component of the nontoxic shot approval process. At that time, we stated that final approval of bismuth-tin shot would be contingent upon the development and availability of a noninvasive field detection device (60 FR 43315). We incorporated a requirement for a noninvasive field detection device in the revised nontoxic shot approval process published on December 1, 1997 (62 FR 63608). The most common electronic field testing device used by wildlife law enforcement officers can distinguish shells containing tungsten-matrix from shells containing lead. Therefore, the tungsten-matrix application meets the final condition for approval.
        As stated previously, this proposed rule would amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) by approving tungsten-matrix shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. It is based on the toxicological report, acute toxicity study, and the reproductive/chronic toxicity study submitted by Kent. Results of these studies indicate the absence of any deleterious effects of tungsten-matrix shot when ingested by captive-reared mallards. This proposed rule would also amend § 20.21(j) by removing paragraph (3), which pertains to the legal use of tin shot during the 1999-2000 hunting season. Because the 1999-2000 hunting season is over, this regulation is no longer in effect.
        This proposed rule would further amend 50 CFR part 20, by removing and reserving subpart M-Criteria and Schedule for Implementing Nontoxic Shot Zones for the 1987-1988 and Subsequent Waterfowl Hunting Season. A need for this Subpart no longer exists, as implementation of nontoxic shot zones in the United States was completed in 1991. Nontoxic shot zones are defined in § 20.108 for the purpose of hunting waterfowl, coots, and certain other species as being the contiguous 48 United States, and the States of Alaska and Hawaii, the Territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and the territorial waters of the United States.
        References
        Bursian, S. J., M. E. Kelly, R. J. Aulerich, D. C. Powell, and S. Fitzgerald. 1996a. Thirty-day dosing test to assess the toxicity of tungsten-iron shot in game-farm mallards. Report to Federal Cartridge Co. 77 pp.
        Bursian, S. J., M. E. Kelly, R. J. Aulerich, D. C. Powell, and S. Fitzgerald. 1996b. Thirty-day dosing test to assess the toxicity of tungsten-polymer shot in game-farm mallards. Report to Federal Cartridge Co. 71 pp.
        Bursian, S. J., R. M. Mitchell, R. J. Tempelman, R. J. Aulerich, and S. D. Fitzgerald. 1999. Chronic dosing study to assess the health and reproductive effects of tungsten-iron and tungsten-polymer shot on game-farm mallards. Report to Federal Cartridge Co. 115 pp.
        Gallagher, S.P., J.B. Beavers, R. Van Hoven, M. Jaber. 2000. Tungsten-matrix shot: A chronic exposure study with the mallard including reproductive parameters. Wildlife International, Ltd. Project No. 475-102. Easton, Maryland. 324pp.
        Gigiema I. Sanitariya. 1983. Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga. Moscow, USSR. 48(7):71.
        Industrial Medicine. 1946. 15:482.
        Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace elements in soil and plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.
        Karantassis, T. 1924. On the toxicity of compounds of tungsten and molybdenum. Ann. Med. 28:1541-1543.
        Kraabel, F. W., M. W. Miller, D. M. Getzy, and J. K. Ringleman. 1996. Effects of embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot and steel shot on mallards. J. Wildl. Dis. 38(1):1-8.
        Nell, J. A., E. F. Annison, and D. Balnave. 1981. The influence of tungsten on the molybdenum status of poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 21:193-202.
        Pain, D. J. 1990. Lead shot ingestion by waterbirds in the Carmarque, France: an investigation of levels and interspecific difference. Environ. Pollut. 66:273-285.
        Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 1982. Wiley Interscience. Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY, NY. Third Ed.
        Peterson, J. E. 1977. Industrial Health. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
        Ringelman, J. K., M. W. Miller, and W. F. Andelt. 1992. Effects of ingested tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on mallards. CO Div. Wildl., Fort Collins, 24 pp.
        Ringelman, J. K., M. W. Miller, and W. F. Andelt. 1993. Effects of ingested tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on captive mallards. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:725-732.
        Thomas, V.G. 1997. Application for approval of tungsten-matrix shot as non-toxic for the hunting of migratory birds. 39 pp.
        Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998. Tungsten-matrix shot: An oral toxicity study with the mallard. Project No. 475-101. 162 pp.
        NEPA Consideration

        In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), we prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for approval of tungsten-matrix shot in May 2000. The EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
        Endangered Species Act Considerations

        Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that Federal agencies shall “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat * * * ” We are completing a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The results of our Section 7 consultation will be available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. This rule proposes to approve an additional type of nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt migratory birds; this proposed rule would provide one shot type in addition to the existing four that are approved. We have determined, however, that this proposed rule will have no effect on small entities since the approved shot merely will supplement nontoxic shot already in commerce and available throughout the retail and wholesale distribution systems. We anticipate no dislocation or other local effects, with regard to hunters and others.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the final determination under E.O. 12866.

        E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We have examined this regulation under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and found it to contain no information collection requirements. However, we do have OMB approval (1018-0067; expires 08/30/2000) for information collection relating to what manufacturers of shot are required to provide to us for the nontoxic shot approval process. For further information see 50 CFR 20.134.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform

        We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, et seq., that this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities.
        Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988
        We, in promulgating this proposed rule, have determined that these proposed regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
        Takings Implication Assessment
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this proposed rule allows hunters to exercise privileges that would be otherwise unavailable and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public property.
        Federalism Effects
        Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these proposed regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 20—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
            2. Section 20.21 is amended by revising paragraph (j) in its entirety to read as follows:

            20.21
            What hunting methods are illegal?

            (j) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts bismuth: 3 parts tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-iron (40 parts tungsten: 60 parts iron with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 parts Nylon 6 or 11 with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix (95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or such shot approved as nontoxic by the Director pursuant to procedures set forth in § 20.134, provided that this restriction applies only to the taking of Anatidae (ducks, geese, [including brant] and swans), coots (Fulica americana) and any species that make up aggregate bag limits during concurrent seasons with the former in areas described in § 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.

            Subpart M—[Removed and Reserved]

          3. Remove and reserve subpart M, consisting of §§ 20.140 through 20.143.

            Dated: July 14, 2000.
            Stephen C. Saunders,
            Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 00-18806 Filed 7-25-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, 64, and 67
        [CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178; DA 17-197]
        Petition for Clarification, or in the Alternative Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for clarification or reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          A Petition for Clarification, or in the Alternative Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by T-Mobile USA, Inc.

          DATES:
          Comments to the Petition must be filed on or before March 31, 2017. Reply Comments must be filed on or before April 10, 2017.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael Scott, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email: Michael.Scott@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 418-1264.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 17-197, released February 27, 2017. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/102231846629100/T-Mobile%20RTT%20Petition%20for%20Clarification%20(2-22-17)%20FINAL.pdf. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, FCC 16-169, published at 82 FR 7699, January 23, 2017 in CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Karen Peltz Strauss,
          Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2017-05191 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 160531477-6477-01]
        RIN 0648-BG10
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Removal of Vessel Upgrade Restrictions for Swordfish Directed Limited Access and Atlantic Tunas Longline Category Permits

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This proposed rule would remove vessel upgrading restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category limited access permits (LAPs). Currently, regulations allow for upgrading vessels or transferring permits to another vessel only if the vessel upgrade or permit transfer results in an increase of no more than 35 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage, as measured relative to the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., the specifications of the vessel first issued an HMS LAP). The proposed rule eliminates these restrictions on upgrades and permit transfers. This action could affect vessel owners issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs and fishing in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Swordfish handgear LAP upgrade restrictions are not being addressed in this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by September 26, 2016. An operator-assisted, public conference call and webinar will be held on August 23, 2016, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST.

          ADDRESSES:

          The conference call information is phone number 888-843-6165; participant passcode 6512640. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar go to: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?MTID=e7bad02475e6061ff9227fb0842ccf332; meeting number: 998 920 078; event password: NOAA. Participants that have not used WebEx before will be prompted to download and run a plug-in program that will enable them to view the webinar.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0087, 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-2016-0087, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

          Presentation materials and copies of the supporting documents are available from the HMS Management Division Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or by contacting Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637 or Rick Pearson by phone at 727-824-5399.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637 or Rick Pearson by phone at 727-824-5399.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
        In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued initial LAPs in the Atlantic swordfish and shark fisheries (64 FR 29090, March 28, 1999). To be eligible to fish with pelagic longline gear, a vessel had to be issued a swordfish directed or incidental LAP, a shark directed or incidental LAP, and an Atlantic tunas Longline category permit. After initial issuance of these permits, no new permits were issued by NMFS, but permits could be transferred to other vessels. Swordfish and shark directed LAPs included restrictions on vessel upgrading and permit transfers. Vessel upgrades and permit transfers were allowed only if the upgrade or permit transfer to another vessel did not result in an increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage relative to the respective specifications of the first vessel issued the initial LAP (the baseline vessel). Additionally, vessels could only be upgraded one time. These vessel upgrading restrictions were put into place to limit capacity in the swordfish fishery and to be consistent with the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's permit policies at the time. Incidental LAPs for these species did not have vessel upgrading restrictions. Upgrading restrictions for Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs were not explicitly implemented in the 1999 rule. As a practical effect, Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs were limited by the same upgrading restrictions as the swordfish and shark directed permits due to the requirement to hold all three permits when fishing with pelagic longline gear.

        On June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31688), NMFS issued a final rule amending the highly migratory species (HMS) fishery regulations to provide additional opportunities for U.S. vessels to more fully utilize the North Atlantic swordfish quota, recognizing the improved status of the species. The ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) had completed a stock assessment for North Atlantic swordfish in October 2006 indicating that the North Atlantic swordfish biomass had improved, possibly due to strong recruitment in the late 1990s combined with reductions in reported catch since then. The SCRS estimated that the stock biomass at the beginning of 2006 (B2006) was at 99 percent of the biomass necessary to produce maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy), and the 2005 fishing mortality rate (F2005) was estimated to be 0.86 times the fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy). The 2007 action modified limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer restrictions for vessels that were concurrently issued, or were eligible to renew, directed or incidental swordfish, directed or incidental shark, and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs (i.e., vessels that were eligible to fish with pelagic longline gear). The rule also clarified that Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs were subject to the same vessel upgrade restrictions as swordfish and shark directed LAPs. These measures allowed eligible vessel owners to upgrade their vessels by 35 percent in size (length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage) relative to the specifications of the baseline vessel, and removed upgrade limits on horsepower. Additionally, these permits could be upgraded more than once, provided that the new maximum upgrade limits were not exceeded.
        NMFS now is considering removing these vessel upgrading restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs. Under the current regulatory framework and given the now rebuilt status of the North Atlantic swordfish stock, these restrictions have the effect of reducing flexibility in the pelagic longline fishery for persons interested in entering the fishery, purchasing a new vessel, or upgrading their existing vessel. Currently, a new entrant to the fishery must obtain an available permit with an associated maximum upgrade limit that accommodates his vessel size. This can limit and complicate the permit transfer as the owner searches for a permit suitable to the vessel. For a vessel owner who is already issued a swordfish directed and/or Atlantic tunas Longline category LAP that wants to purchase a new vessel or enlarge an existing vessel, the new or upgraded vessel may not exceed the permit's maximum vessel upgrading limit. This can limit and complicate the permit holder's purchasing options. Because there are usually only a small number of swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline permits available, it is often difficult to find a permit that accommodates the target vessel size. NMFS also has heard from swordfish and tuna LAP permit holders that the vessel upgrading restrictions restrict their ability to transfer permits to newer vessels, which could have greater capacity, and address safety issues that exist with older vessels. For these reasons, and those discussed below, NMFS is proposing to remove vessel upgrading restrictions for swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline LAPs.
        Since implementing the vessel upgrade requirements in 1999 and modifying them in 2007, several important things have changed in the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery. First, there are fewer swordfish permit holders. From the mid-to-late 1990s, more than 2,000 commercial open access swordfish permits were issued annually, and the pelagic longline fleet had become overcapitalized. The directed swordfish fishery was closed temporarily in 1995, and again in 1997, due to quota overages, and the swordfish stock was overfished (B/Bmsy = 0.715) with overfishing occurring (F/Fmsy = 1.169). Also in 1999, ICCAT adopted an international rebuilding plan for North Atlantic swordfish (ICCAT Recommendation 99-02) and passed a resolution to examine time/area closures and gear modification measures to reduce catches of undersized swordfish (Res. 99-04). Thus, in 1999, NMFS was particularly concerned about ensuring that pelagic longline fishing effort and fleet capacity were commensurate with the available swordfish quota, and the vessel upgrading restrictions were part of NMFS' management strategy to reduce capacity. That situation does not exist today. Fleet capacity has been reduced through the successful application of the initial LAP qualification criteria and attrition over time. In 1998, prior to the implementation of upgrade restrictions, 233 pelagic longline vessels among the 2,000 permit holders landed swordfish and thus were considered “active.” The number of such vessels dropped to a low of 102 in 2006 and has remained between 109 and 122 vessels since then. Similarly, as of December 30, 1999, approximately 451 directed and incidental swordfish LAPs had been issued. By 2015, permit numbers had been reduced to 260 directed and incidental swordfish LAPs. Permit numbers are expected to remain at approximately these levels because no new LAPs are being issued.

        Second, other requirements implemented since 1999, such as those designed to reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery (e.g., closed areas, bait requirements, individual bluefin tuna quotas, and gear restrictions), have also limited fishing effort. The directed North Atlantic swordfish quota has not been exceeded in almost 20 years and, in fact, has been underharvested for a number of years.

        Third, during this same time period, the stock status of north Atlantic swordfish has significantly improved. In 2009, ICCAT declared that the stock has been fully rebuilt. Using domestic stock status thresholds, NMFS has also declared that the north Atlantic swordfish stock is not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring.
        In addition to limiting capacity in the HMS pelagic longline fishery, a secondary goal for implementing the specific swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline vessel upgrade limits adopted in 1999 was to be consistent with similar regulations previously established by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). In August 2015, the Councils removed gross registered and net tonnage limits (80 FR 51754) so that only length and horsepower limits remain in effect. Because this HMS action would remove all upgrade restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs, only the Council regulations would limit vessel upgrading for vessels issued LAPs for both Council-managed species and HMS. Thus, there would be no conflict between Council and HMS vessel upgrade restrictions. This action would simplify compliance for dually permitted vessels and provide greater flexibility for HMS permitted vessels.
        The overall reduction in pelagic longline fleet capacity, in combination with the totality of effort controls implemented since 1999, sufficiently limits the fishery's capacity. Vessel upgrading and related permit transfer restrictions are no longer necessary or relevant for the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery at this time. Thus, this proposed rule would remove all upgrading restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs. Although limited in scope, this action would ease a barrier to entry in the pelagic longline fishery, facilitate limited access permit transfers, provide increased business flexibility, and help vessel owners address safety issues.
        The proposed action would provide more flexibility for current permit holders by eliminating the upgrading restrictions for swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAP permit holders. Eliminating vessel upgrading restrictions would have short- and long-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or transfer swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs without concerns about exceeding the maximum upgrade limit for the permits.
        Removing the upgrading restrictions is not expected to affect the number of swordfish and tunas being landed by vessels, as these amounts are determined by established quotas and effort controls (including, for example, individual vessel quotas for bluefin tuna) not the size of the vessel. Thus, this action is expected to have no ecological impacts and would not result in additional interactions with protected resources, given the other restrictions on the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery.
        Request for Comments

        NMFS is requesting comments on any of the measures or analyses described in this proposed rule. NMFS is specifically requesting comments on its decision to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and on the analysis below that supports that decision and on our assessment that relieving the restrictions would have no ecological impacts. During the comment period, NMFS will hold one conference call and webinar for this proposed rule. The conference call and webinar will be held on August 23, 2016, from 2:30-4:30 p.m. EST. Please see the DATES and ADDRESSES headings for more information.

        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants on phone conferences to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; attendees may not interrupt one another; etc.). NMFS representative(s) will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be removed from the conference call.
        Classification
        Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS has made a preliminary determination that this action qualifies to be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NMFS' Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6), subject to further consideration after public comment. This action falls within the scope of effects already analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP, the 2012 Environmental Assessment prepared for the rulemaking on North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas and Management Measures (77 FR 45273, July 31, 2012), and the Final EIS for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Section 6.03a.3.(b)(2) of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 specifies that certain actions may be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis including minor changes to a management plan when those effects have already been analyzed and additional effects are not expected. This action will have no additional effects that were not already analyzed, and the action is not precedent-setting or controversial. It would not affect the number of swordfish and tunas being landed by vessels and would not result in additional interactions with protected resources, as these amounts are determined by the established quotas and effort controls, not the size of the vessel, and the effects of those established quotas and effort controls have already been analyzed.
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule will have no effects on any coastal use or resource, and a negative determination pursuant to 15 CFR 930.35 is not required. Therefore, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.33(a)(2), coordination with appropriate state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is not required. No changes to the human environment are anticipated because removing the vessel upgrading restrictions would not affect the number of swordfish and tunas being landed by vessels, as these amounts are determined by the established quotas and effort controls, not the size of the vessel.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) and its amendments. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. As discussed above, the purpose of this proposed rule is to remove vessel upgrading restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs to ease a barrier to entry in the pelagic longline fishery, facilitate limited access permit transfers, provide increased business flexibility, and help vessel owners address safety issues.
        Section 603(b)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Under SBA's regulations, an agency may develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the SBA's current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.
        NMFS considers all HMS pelagic longline permit holders to be small entities because these vessels have reported annual gross receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would apply to the 280 permit holders that were issued Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs in 2015, since these permit holders also already possess the required swordfish directed or incidental permits to fish with pelagic longline gear.
        The economic effects of this proposed rule to remove vessel upgrading restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs would likely not result in any significant adverse impacts on the 280 permit holders. The removal of vessel upgrading restrictions would reduce a regulatory burden that prevents fishermen from upgrading their vessels beyond established limits due to an outdated restriction. It would not result in any short-term costs to these small entities. This proposed rule would allow these permit holders to freely upgrade their vessels without being constrained by the length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage limits currently specified on their permits. In the short-term, it is likely that only a few permit holders will opt to invest in new vessels or vessel upgrades based on past experience with these kinds of requests. Those who invest in new vessels or upgrades in the short-term would potentially face lower transaction costs, since they would not have to potentially search for and acquire permits with higher upgrade capabilities. In addition, new entrants in the fishery would have more options in acquiring permits, since they would not be limited by vessel size. Current permit holders with permits with high length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage baselines might face slightly lower demand for their permits, and thus reduced value of their permits under this proposed rule because these permits can currently be transferred to more, and larger, vessels than permits with lower baseline specifications. However, since the implementation of Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) program under Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, much of the economic value of the swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category permit value has shifted from these permits to the actual IBQ shares bundled with those permits, because IBQ allocation is now required to fish with pelagic longline gear. Therefore, the likely economic impact on permit values of this proposed rule to remove vessel upgrade restrictions is likely very limited. In the long-term, removing the upgrading restrictions would allow greater flexibility for permit holders to upgrade their vessels and address safety issues. The removal of upgrading restrictions is not expected to result in disproportionate adverse effects on pelagic longline fishing operations of different sizes, and is actually likely to help smaller vessel owners slightly more than owners of larger vessels because they are more likely to have lower vessel upgrade limits associated with their permits. Overall, this proposed rule would likely only result in some minor positive impacts on small entity profitability.
        This action is not expected to result in a significant economic impact on the small entities currently subject to the vessel upgrading restrictions. Although limited in scope, this action would ease a barrier to entry in the pelagic longline fishery, facilitate limited access permit transfers, provide increased business flexibility, and help vessel owners address safety issues. Therefore, removing vessel upgrading restrictions for vessels issued swordfish directed and Atlantic tunas Longline category LAPs will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: July 21, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 635 as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

        1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 635.4, revise paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii) introductory text, (l)(2)(ii)(B), and (l)(2)(ii)(C) to read as follows:

          § 635.4
          Permits and fees.

          (l) * * *
          (2) * * *

          (i) Subject to the restrictions on upgrading the harvesting capacity of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, as applicable, and to the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner may transfer a shark or swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit to another vessel that he or she owns or to another person. Directed handgear LAPs for swordfish may be transferred to another vessel or to another person but only for use with handgear and subject to the upgrading restrictions in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section and the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section. Shark directed and incidental LAPs, swordfish directed and incidental LAPs, and Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits are not subject to the upgrading requirements specified in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section. Shark and swordfish incidental LAPs are not subject to the ownership requirements specified in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section.
          (ii) An owner may upgrade a vessel with a swordfish handgear LAP, or transfer such permit to another vessel or to another person, and be eligible to retain or renew such permit only if the upgrade or transfer does not result in an increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications.

          (B) Subsequent to the issuance of a swordfish handgear limited access permit, the vessel's horsepower may be increased, relative to the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP, through refitting, replacement, or transfer. Such an increase may not exceed 20 percent of the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP.
          (C) Subsequent to the issuance of a swordfish handgear limited access permit, the vessel's length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage may be increased, relative to the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP, through refitting, replacement, or transfer. An increase in any of these three specifications of vessel size may not exceed 10 percent of the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP. This type of upgrade may be done separately from an engine horsepower upgrade.

      [FR Doc. 2016-17646 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051; FRL-8020-2]
        RIN 2060-AJ78
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period and announcement of a public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, published on December 2, 2005, is being extended until February 23, 2006, and that a public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held on January 24, 2006.

          DATES:

            Comments. The comment period has been extended from January 17, 2006. Comments must now be received on or before February 23, 2006.

            Public Hearing. A public hearing is scheduled for January 24, 2006, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051.
          • Fax: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051.
          • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
          • Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.

            Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051. 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 e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            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 the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

            Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held on January 24, 2006, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. at the EPA Facility Complex at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms. Janet Eck, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Coatings and Consumer Products Group (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-7946.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Keith Barnett, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5605; facsimile number (919) 541-5600; e-mail address barnett.keith@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Regulated Entities. Entities potentially affected by the proposed amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the manufacturing of portland cement are those that manufacture portland cement. Regulated categories and entities include:

          Table 1.—Regulated Entities Table

            Category
            NAICS 1

            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            32731
            Owners or operators of portland cement manufacturing plants.

            State
            32731
            Owners or operators of portland cement manufacturing plants.

            Tribal Associations
            32731
            Owners or operators of portland cement manufacturing plants.

            Federal Agencies

              2

            None.

            1 North American Industry Classification System.

            2 None.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that may potentially be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Clearly mark the part or all the information you claim to be CBI. For CBI information submitted on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

          Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
        Comment Period
        We received a request to move the date for a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the NESHAP for portland cement manufacturing (70 FR 72330, December 2, 2005) from mid-December 2005 to January 24, 2006. We agreed to this request and are extending the comment period until 30 days after the public hearing. Therefore, the public comment period will now end on February 23, 2006, rather than January 17, 2006.
        How Can I Get Copies of the Proposed Amendments and Other Related Information?

        EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. In addition, information may be obtained from the Web page for the proposed rulemaking at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/pcempg.html.

          Dated: January 3, 2006.
          William L. Wehrum,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

      [FR Doc. 06-157 Filed 1-6-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BE70
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 35 would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP; and clarify the Council's intent regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 35 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, 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).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 35 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 35 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: nikhil.mehta@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 35 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 35
        Amendment 35 includes actions to remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP, and to clarify the Council's intent regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program.
        Remove Four Species From the FMP
        Black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster are currently in the FMP, but have extremely low landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off South Florida. Currently, NMFS does not manage these species in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); however, these species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters. As described in Amendment 35, there are currently different regulations for recreational bag limits, size limits, and catch levels for these species between the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Florida. Inconsistent regulations make enforcement difficult and may be confusing to the public. Amendment 35 would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from NMFS management in Federal waters of the South Atlantic to ensure that only species requiring Federal management are included in the FMP and to provide consistent regulations for these species across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries.
        Black snapper is part of the deep-water complex within the FMP. The deep-water complex currently includes black snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. If black snapper is removed from the FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) for the deep-water complex would be reduced from 170,279 lb (77,237 kg), round weight, to 169,896 lb (77,063 kg), round weight, a difference of 382 lb (173 kg), round weight.
        Dog snapper and mahogany snapper are part of the other snappers complex within the FMP. The other snappers complex currently includes cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper. If dog snapper and mahogany snapper are removed from the FMP, the other snappers complex ACL would be reduced from 1,517,716 lb (688,424 kg), round weight, to 1,513,883 lb (686,688 kg), round weight, a difference of 3,833 lb (1,739 kg), round weight.
        Dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper are not typically targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen; therefore, bycatch associated with harvest of these species is extremely low. Schoolmaster is currently designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species. The Council is not considering retaining dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper in the FMP as Ecosystem Component (EC) species, because the objective of the amendment is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across the jurisdictional boundaries of Gulf and South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. NMFS does not manage these species in Gulf Federal waters; therefore, retaining them as EC species would not create consistent regulations across jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, if these species are designated as EC species, the state of Florida would not be able to extend management authority for them into Federal waters.
        A stock assessment has not been performed for any of these species; however, there is no indication these stocks are depleted. Therefore, removing these stocks from the FMP is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects.
        Clarify Regulations for Golden Tilefish Endorsement Holders
        The final rule for Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013) established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. An endorsement is required to fish for golden tilefish with longline gear. Amendment 18B also established a golden tilefish hook-and-line quota and modified the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. The golden tilefish longline endorsement, sector quotas, and trip limits were implemented because the commercial ACL was being harvested rapidly with longline gear, and fishermen who had historically used hook-and-line gear to target golden tilefish were not able to participate in the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery. Establishing gear specific commercial quotas was intended to help ensure that fishermen fishing with each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota.

        At the time the golden tilefish longline endorsement and gear-specific quotas were established, the Council did not intend for longline endorsement holders to fish on the 500-lb (227-kg) gutted weight hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders to fish on the longline quota. NMFS and the Council are aware that, since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders are transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel to then fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear. Other longline endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement so that they are able to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. Therefore, the Council determined that they should clarify their intent and request NMFS modify the regulations for golden tilefish endorsement holders. Currently, the regulations state, “vessels with a golden tilefish longline endorsement are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” (50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii)). Amendment 35 and implementing regulations would clarify that “vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements anytime during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit.” Thus, a fisherman who owns a vessel with a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement would not be eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, hook-and-line trip limit, during that fishing year.

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 35 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted Amendment 35 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by April 5, 2016, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: February 2, 2016.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-02271 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 020412086-2086-01; I.D. 010202C]
        RIN 0648-AJ08
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagics Fisheries; Pacific Remote Island Areas; Permit and Reporting Requirements for the Pelagic Troll and Handline Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule that would establish Federal permit and reporting requirements for any U.S. fishing vessel that uses troll or handline fishing gear to harvest pelagic management unit species in waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (U.S. EEZ) around Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island and Midway Atoll.  These islands are referred to as the Pacific remote island areas (PRIA).  The purpose of this proposed rule is to monitor participation in the fishery and to obtain fish catch and fishing effort data (including bycatch data), including interactions with protected species, so that fishery management decisions are based on complete information.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted through June 20, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI  96814.  Copies of background material pertaining to this action may be obtained from Kitty Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St. Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI  96813.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the internet.  Send comments on the reporting burden estimate or other aspect of the collection-of-information requirements in this proposed rule to NMFS, PIAO and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC  20503 (Attn:  NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alvin Katekaru, PIAO, at 808-973-2937.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The collection and analysis of reliable data are needed to assess the status and health of fishery stocks, evaluate the effectiveness of management measures, determine the need for changes in the management regime, prevent overfishing, determine and minimize bycatch, document protected species interactions with fishing gear, and assess the potential impact of fishery interactions.  Other than for vessels registered for use with Federal Hawaii longline limited access permits, or Federal Western Pacific longline general permits, there are no specific regulations under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region applicable to vessels targeting pelagic species in the U.S. EEZ waters around the PRIA.  The PRIA or “U.S. island possessions in the Pacific” are the distant and mostly uninhabited U.S. islands in the central and western Pacific Ocean consisting of Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Wake Island, Kingman Reef, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, and Midway Atoll.  Midway Atoll, located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is not part of the State of Hawaii and is treated as one of the PRIA.
        In recent years, several troll and handline fishing vessels from Hawaii have targeted pelagic fish stocks off Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef.  This expansion of troll and handline fishing activity beyond the Hawaiian Archipelago to the U.S. EEZ around certain PRIA and the lack of any reporting requirements for these fisheries demonstrates the need to put in place reporting procedures in order to collect catch and bycatch data for these fisheries.  The proposed establishment of a permit requirement for the PRIA pelagic troll/handline fishery would serve to identify actual or potential participants in the fishery.  This would be an “open access” fishery, meaning any U.S. vessel would be eligible to receive a permit.
        The Council has recommended the establishment of a reporting requirement for all vessel operators who participate in the PRIA pelagic troll/handline fishery, except at Midway Atoll.  They would be required to use a new NMFS fish catch and effort reporting form created especially for the PRIA.  At Midway Atoll, troll/handline vessel operators (i.e., charter boat captains), who operate under the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge program, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), would continue to report their catch and effort data on existing fish catch reporting forms provided by the FWS.  NMFS and FWS will coordinate their efforts to obtain the necessary data from fishermen at Midway Atoll and avoid duplication of reporting regimes.
        Under this proposed rule NMFS would require vessel operators, except operators of vessels operating in the U.S. EEZ around Midway Atoll, to submit their catch reports to NMFS within 10 days after the completion of each fishing trip to the U.S. EEZ around the PRIA.  The 10-day requirement is to allow vessels to make fish landings at Palmyra Atoll and to potentially conduct another fishing trip enroute to the vessel’s homeport.  By landing at Palmyra Atoll there would be no need for these vessels to return to their home ports between trips and, in that case, the prompt transmittal of catch reports to NMFS would be infeasible.  For this reason NMFS proposes to allow the operators whose vessels are registered for use with PRIA troll/handline pelagic permits an extended reporting window.
        The regulatory text for this proposed rule would correct a typographical error in the prohibition on longline fishing within longline fishing areas at § 660.22(i) to reference § 660.27 instead of a redundant reference to § 660.17.  Also, a cross reference in § 660.21(l)(1) is revised to comport with the proposed redesignation of paragraphs in § 660.21.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          Based on historical records, it is estimated that two to three vessels from Hawaii, and three Midway Atoll-based vessels have fished in the U.S. EEZ around the PRIA in recent years.  Future increases in effort are difficult to predict; however, it appears unlikely that significant expansion in this fishery will occur in the future due to long travel distances to reach the PRIA fishing grounds.  It is estimated that there are approximately 5,000 fishing vessels that participate in the pelagic troll and handline fisheries in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; however, it is expected that this rule would impact less than 10 of the vessel operators.  Further, due to its purely administrative and record keeping nature, this proposed rule would not affect fishing operations directly and would require only relatively minor tasks related to permit application and reporting requirements.  The new reporting requirement would be largely similar to the existing requirements for other areas, which are familiar to the majority of likely fishery participants.  Eligibility criteria and application forms for the permit would be the same as those for other Federal western Pacific fishing permits.  No fee is associated with the PRIA pelagic troll and handline permit.  Estimated total annual cost to respondents for completing permit applications and required reports is $600 per year.  The proposed permitting and reporting demands are considered to be minimal, and, when  combined with the small number of individuals likely to be impacted, provide a basis for certification of this action as one not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        As a result, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required for this proposed rule and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).  These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval.  Public reporting burden for these collections of information is estimated at 30 minutes for a permit application and 5 minutes for a daily troll/handline log sheet.  These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

        Public comment is sought regarding:  Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  Send comments on the reporting burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirements in this proposed rule to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

        Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa,  Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing Gear, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 29, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

          2.  In § 660.12, the definitions for “Pelagic handline fishing,” “Pelagic troll fishing,” and “Pacific remote island areas (PRIA, or U.S. island possessions in the Pacific Ocean),” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

            § 660.12
            Definitions.

              Pacific remote island areas (PRIA, or U.S. island possessions in the Pacific Ocean) means Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, and Midway Atoll.

              Pelagic handline fishing means fishing for pelagic management unit species from a stationary or drifting vessel using hook and line gear other than longline gear.

              Pelagic troll fishing (trolling) means fishing for pelagic management unit species from a moving vessel using hook and line gear.

          3.  In § 660.14, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

            § 660.14
            Reporting and recordkeeping.
            (a) Fishing record forms. The operator of any fishing vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 660.21, 660.41, or 660.81 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data on report forms provided by the Regional Administrator.  All information specified on the forms must be recorded on the forms within 24 hours after the completion of each fishing day.  The original logbook form for each day of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator as required by this paragraph (a).  Each form must be signed and dated by the fishing vessel operator.
            (1) The operator of any vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 660.21(a) through (c), 660.41, or 660.81 must submit the original logbook form for each day of the fishing trip to the Regional Administrator within 72 hours of each landing of management unit species.
            (2) Except for a vessel that is fishing in the U.S. EEZ around Midway Atoll as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, any operator whose vessel is registered for use with a PRIA pelagic troll and handline fishing permit under § 660.21(d) must submit the original logbook form for each day of fishing within the U.S. EEZ around the PRIA to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of each landing of management unit species.
            (3) The operator of a vessel fishing in the U.S. EEZ around Midway Atoll and registered for use with a PRIA pelagic troll and handline fishing permit under § 660.21(d), must submit an appropriate reporting form as required and in a manner specified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for each day of fishing within the U.S. EEZ around Midway Atoll, which is defined as an area of the Pacific Ocean bounded on the east by 177°10′ W. long., on the west by 177°30′ W. long., on the north by 28°25′ N. lat., and on the south by 28°05′ N. lat.

          4.  In § 660.21, paragraphs (d) through (l) are redesignated as (e) through (m), newly redesignated paragraph (l)(1) is revised, and new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

            § 660.21
            Permits.

            (d) A fishing vessel of the United States must be registered for use with a PRIA pelagic troll and handline fishing permit if that vessel is used to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species using pelagic handline or trolling fishing methods in the U.S. EEZ around the PRIA.

            (l)(1) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by this section, the Regional Administrator may request additional information.  Upon receipt of sufficient information, the Regional Administrator will decide the appeal in accordance with the criteria set out in this part and in the fishery management plans prepared by the Council, as appropriate, based upon information relative to the application on file at NMFS and the Council and any additional information available; the summary record kept of any hearing and the hearing officer’s recommended decision, if any, as provided in paragraph (l)(3) of this section; and such other considerations as deemed appropriate.  The Regional Administrator will notify the appellant of the decision and the reasons therefor, in writing, normally within 30 days of the receipt of sufficient information, unless additional time is needed for a hearing.

          5.  In § 660.22, the phrase “U.S. possessions in the Pacific Ocean area” is revised to read “U.S. island possessions in the Pacific Ocean” each place that it appears, paragraph (i) is revised, and new paragraph (uu) is added to read as follows:

            § 660.22
            Prohibitions.

            (i) Fish with longline gear within a longline fishing prohibited area, except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under § 660.17 or § 660.27.

            (uu) Use a U.S. vessel employing pelagic handline or trolling methods to fish in the U.S. EEZ around the PRIA without a valid PRIA pelagic troll and handline fishing permit registered for use with that vessel.

      [FR Doc. 02-11026 Filed 5-3-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 212, 219, and 252
        [Docket DARS-2018-0035]
        RIN 0750-AJ21
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Inapplicability of Certain Laws and Regulations to Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2017-D010); Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that addresses the inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items. The comment period on the proposed rule is reopened for 60 days.

          DATES:
          For the proposed rule published on June 29, 2018 (83 FR 30646), submit comments by October 28, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D010, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2017-D010.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2017-D010” on any attached documents.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2017-D010 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Barbara J. Trujillo, OUSD(D&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Barbara J. Trujillo, telephone 571-372-6102.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        On June 29, 2018, DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 83 FR 30646 to implement the requirement of section 874 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Section 874 requires DoD to address the inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
        The comment period for the proposed rule is reopened 60 days, from August 28, 2018, to October 28, 2018, to provide additional time for interested parties to comment on the proposed DFARS changes.

          48 CFR Parts 212, 219, and 252
          Government procurement.

          Jennifer Lee Hawes,
          Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

      [FR Doc. 2018-18616 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 5001-06-P