        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255; Report No. 2985]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by CTIA.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before August 15, 2013. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 26, 2013.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Aaron Garza, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-1175, aaron.garza@fcc.gov <mailto:aaron.garza@fcc.gov>.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2985, released June11, 2013. The full text of Report No. 2985 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subjects: Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, FCC 13-64, published at 78 FR 32169, May 29, 2013, in PS Docket No. 11-153 and PS Docket No. 10-255, published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

      [FR Doc. 2013-18370 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 070215035-7035-01; I.D. 020907E]
        RIN 0648-AT62
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Framework Adjustment 1

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 1 (FW 1) to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP). FW 1 management measures were developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and propose to implement a vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirement for vessels participating in the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. The VMS requirement would replace the current telephone-based notification requirement necessary prior to departure on a surfclam or ocean quahog fishing trip. The intent of this action is to propose management measures that would improve the management and enforcement of regulations governing the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on April 4, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark on the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Framework 1 VMS Proposed Rule.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135.
          • E-mail: 0648AT62@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the email the following document identifier: “Comments on Framework 1.”
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          Copies of supporting documents, including the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. A copy of the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address above and to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail at David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Council voted on December 13, 2006, to recommend to NMFS that a VMS requirement for Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishing vessels, including Maine mahogany quahog vessels, be implemented for their respective fisheries. This action was originally approved by the Council as part of Amendment 13 to the FMP in 2003. However, the Council recommended that the Regional Administrator implement a VMS requirement for the fisheries when an economically viable system became available to the industry. Three vendors have been approved by NMFS for use in the Northeast Region. The costs of the VMS units have decreased since 2003 so that purchase and installation costs now range from approximately $3,150 to $4,200, and recurring monthly costs range from $25 to $100. As a result of the lower costs, the Council voted in June 2005 to begin the development of a framework adjustment to require the mandatory use of VMS for surfclams and ocean quahogs. The Council held two public meetings, on October 11, 2006, and December 13, 2006, to discuss the management measures contained in FW1 and, on December 13, 2006, the Council selected and approved the VMS management measures to submit to NMFS for approval and implementation.
        Proposed Measures

        A VMS requirement is being proposed for the surfclam and ocean quahog fishery in order to: (1) eliminate the requirement to notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement via telephone prior to beginning a fishing trip; (2) facilitate the monitoring of areas closed to fishing due to environmental degradation (e.g., harmful algal blooms and former dump sites); and (3) facilitate the monitoring of borders between state and Federal regulatory juridictions. The VMS requirement would include a fishing trip declaration prior to starting a fishing trip and automatic hourly polling of the vessel position. Proof of an installed and operational VMS unit would be a condition for the issuance of the applicable vessel permits, with some exceptions granted to the limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit. There are three commercial fishing vessel permit categories for these fisheries: An open access Atlantic surfclam permit (SF 1); an open access ocean quahog permit (OQ 6); and a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit (OQ 7). FW 1 management measures would implement a requirement for vessels participating in the fisheries to use a VMS to facilitate better monitoring and reporting in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. The VMS requirement would replace the current management measure that requires vessels fishing outside the Maine mahogany quahog fishery to call their local NOAA law enforcement office prior to departure on an Atlantic surfclam or ocean quahog fishing trip to provide vessel and trip information. Furthermore, the VMS requirement would facilitate the monitoring of state and Federal fishing areas, and areas closed to environmental degradation or harmful algal blooms. The VMS unit would be required of all vessels issued an Atlantic surfclam (SF 1) or ocean quahog (OQ 6) open access permit. For vessels issued a Maine mahogany quahog limited access permit (OQ 7), the VMS requirement would be delayed by 1 year from the effective date of the final rule to allow greater time for the participants in the smaller, artisanal fishery in Maine, to comply with the new requirement.
        Vessels required to use VMS under this action would declare their intended fishing activity via the VMS unit prior to crossing the vessel demarcation line, as specified at § 648.10, before beginning a fishing trip. Under this action, vessels would have their position automatically polled once per hour. Vessels would be able to power-down their VMS unit if one of the following conditions is met: (1) The vessel will be continuously out of the water for more than 72 hr, and the vessel signs out of the VMS program by obtaining a valid letter of exemption from the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator); or (2) the vessel declares out of the fishery and the VMS program for a minimum period of 30 consecutive days and the vessel signs out of the VMS program by obtaining a valid letter of exemption from the Regional Administrator, the vessel does not engage in any fisheries until the VMS unit is turned back on, and the vessel complies with all conditions and requirements of said letter.
        In addition to the management measures contained in FW 1, this proposed rule would clarify that federally permitted Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog dealers and processors must retain used ITQ cage tags for 60 days beyond the end of the calendar year. Previously, cage tags were required to be retained for an unspecified period of time, which created confusion when seafood dealers wished to dispose of used cage tags.
        Atlantic Surfclam (SF 1) and Ocean Quahog (OQ6) VMS Measures
        Effective upon implementation of this action, this VMS requirement would affect all vessel owners that apply for and are subsequently issued the SF 1 and/or OQ 6 open access permit. More than 1,500 vessels were issued these permits in 2006, however only approximately 40 vessels actually participated in this fishery in Federal waters. It is believed that many individuals apply for this permit because it is available to most vessels and there is no additional cost to vessel owners to obtain open access permits for fisheries in which they do not currently participate. Upon the effective date of the proposed measure, if the VMS requirement is not met, the SF 1 and/or OQ 6 permit will be cancelled until such time that the vessel comes into compliance with the management measures and reapplies for the permit.
        Maine Ocean Quahog (OQ 7) VMS Measures
        All vessels with a limited access OQ 7 permit would be granted an additional year from the effective date of a final rule implementing FW 1 to come into compliance with the VMS requirement. This additional year is proposed for the Maine mahogany quahog fishery because it operates in an area where shore-based electrical power may not currently be available. Vessel owners in this fishery often moor their vessels away from shore due to lack of shoreside facilities and, when shoreside docking facilities are available, electrical power may not be included. Thus, it is anticipated that this sector will have the additional burden of procuring an auxiliary power system (e.g., an extra battery, photovoltaic cells) in order to comply with the VMS requirement to maintain power to the VMS unit 24 hr per day. Since the revocation of an OQ 7 limited access permit could result in the permit becoming ineligible for renewal, special provision would be made for the implementation of the VMS requirement for the OQ 7 permit category (in addition to being effective 1 year from the effective date of the final rule implementing FW 1), in that the limited access permit would not be cancelled for failure to install a VMS unit as long as the vessel is not participating in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery. Once a vessel comes into compliance with the VMS requirement, the vessel owner must maintain an operational VMS unit onboard the vessel until such time that the permit is relinquished or the vessel meets a condition to power-down the VMS unit and receives authorization from the Regional Administrator.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that FW 1, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, an IRFA has been prepared, which describes the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this proposed rule, is found in the preamble to this document. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. This action proposes to implement a mandatory VMS requirement in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. This action was compared to five different alternatives, including a no action (status quo) alternative. The other, non-preferred alternatives included: (1) A mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels without a deferment of the requirement for Maine mahogany quahog vessels for the first year (Alternative 2a); (2) a mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels that includes a VMS power-down provision for all vessels moored or docked in the Maine mahogany quahog zone (Alternative 3a); (3) a mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels with an exemption to the VMS requirement to all vessels fishing exclusively in the Maine mahogany quahog zone (Alternative 3b); and (4) a mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels with an exemption to all vessels participating in the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery (Alternative 3c).
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply

        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial fishing entity as a firm with gross receipts not exceeding $3.5 million. In 2005, a total of 80 vessels were reported harvesting surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from the federally managed surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Thirty-two of the vessels were operating in the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery, and 48 vessels were participating in the open access surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ program. In 2005, average gross income for each species category was: (1) $728,780 per vessel for ocean quahog harvesters; (2) $846,186 per vessel for surfclam harvesters; and (3) $120,591 per vessel for the Maine mahogany quahog limited access fishery. Each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All 80 commercial fishing entities fall within the SBA size standard for small commercial fishing entities.
        Economic Impacts of This Proposed Action
        As of November 2006, a total of 62 vessels had reported participating in the 2006 Federal surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Of those vessels, 29 were not registered with NMFS as having an operational VMS unit on the vessel. The 33 vessels that have VMS likely have it installed as a result of a requirement for another fishery in which the vessel participates. Initial, one-time, purchase and installation costs for a VMS unit from one of the three vendors ranges from $1,800 - $3,800. Annual service costs are estimated to be between $360 and $960, depending on vendor and service plan. Thus, assuming current fishery participation levels, total costs in the first year of implementation of this proposed rule would be approximately $50,000 (includes purchase, installation, and annual service costs for 14 vessels) in total for all of the affected vessel owners. In the second year of implementation, when the limited access Maine mahogany quahog vessels would need to comply with the VMS requirement, the total cost would be approximately $77,000. This figure includes the purchase of a VMS unit and auxiliary battery (see below), installation, and annual service costs for 19 vessels. As discussed in the preamble, it is assumed that the vessels participating in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery do not have access to shore-based electrical power. In order to stay in compliance with keeping the VMS turned on 24 hr each day, including while moored or docked, it is estimated that the vessels will need to purchase an auxiliary battery to maintain power to the VMS unit. The one-time cost of an auxiliary battery is estimated to be $500 per vessel. Thus, the six vessels that already have VMS installed on their vessels would incur an additional cost of an auxiliary battery (the current VMS requirement for these vessels allows for the vessels to power-down the VMS unit when it is moored or docked). In addition, the annual service costs for the 14 vessels from the first year of implementation would also recur, at approximately $5,040. This brings the total cost across the whole fishery for the second year of implementation to $85,000.
        Approximately 62 vessels are currently active in these fisheries. However, many of these vessels already have VMS as a requirement of another fishery, such as the Atlantic sea scallop, Northeast multispecies, monkfish, and/or Atlantic herring fisheries. As a result of their current VMS status, these vessels were excluded from the analysis of the VMS purchase, installation, and service costs in years one and two of implementation. However, if the vessels that are already in compliance with the VMS requirement were to cancel their participation in those fisheries for which the VMS unit is also required, the total annual cost to the industry in year three and beyond (service costs only) would be approximately $23,000 (62 vessels x $360 in annual fees).
        The indirect economic impact of the proposed rule to entities, other than those directly impacted, is a slight increase in exvessel prices. The market for clam meats is relatively soft and quite competitive coast-wide, so it is unlikely that producers would be able to pass along much of the increased costs to processors and consumers.
        Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
        The Council analyzed five ocean quahog quota alternatives in addition to the preferred alternative, which are summarized in the introduction to this section. The range of alternatives are from a status-quo (no action) alternative to an alternative requiring compliance with the VMS requirement to begin for all vessels once a final rule implementing FW 1 is effective. The current, status quo, call-in notification is estimated to take 2 minutes (OMB Control Number 0648-0202). However, the call-in notification has been suspended for the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery since the establishment of this sector in 1998. In comparison to this status quo, each of the four non-preferred alternatives would result in slight increases in exvessel values, as all the alternatives contained a VMS requirement for all or part of the fishery. Alternative 2a is very similar to the preferred alternative except that it would not allow vessels participating in the Maine mahogany quahog limited access fishery to defer the VMS requirement for 1 year. Thus, the cost for this requirement would be similar to that of the preferred alternative except that the start-up costs ($116,450) would be borne by the whole industry in the first year of implementation. After the first year of implementation, the increase in vessel costs beyond status quo would be $11,880. Alternative 3a would also require all vessels to purchase and install a VMS unit. However, this alternative would allow vessels participating exclusively in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery to turn off their VMS units when moored or tied to the dock. Thus purchase and installation of an auxiliary power supply would not be necessary. This would result an initial additional cost of approximately $103,950 in the first year of the VMS requirement falling, to $11,880 each year afterward. The economic impacts of alternatives 3b and 3c would be the same in relation to the status quo. Both of these alternatives would exempt vessels operating in either the Maine mahogany quahog zone (Alternative 3b, area-based exemption) or the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery (Alternative 3c, permit-based exemption) from the VMS requirement in its entirety. The ITQ vessels that fish exclusively in the Maine mahogany quahog zone already have VMS installed on their vessels as a result of a requirement for another fishery. Thus the 14 actively participating ITQ vessels that do not have VMS installed would be the only vessels bearing the costs of these alternatives. These two alternatives have the smallest economic impact, an increase of $44,100 in the first year for initial VMS purchase and installation costs, and $5,500 in service and maintenance costs each year thereafter, in comparison to the other alternatives.
        Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

        This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements subject to review and approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This action would eliminate the collection currently approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0202. A new control number would be assigned to this new collection until such time that 0648-0202 may be modified. Annualized over a 3-yr period, the direct financial cost to the fishing industry for the purchase, installation, and service of equipment in order to comply with the VMS trip declaration requirement would be $73,491. For this proposed action the actual reporting burden (e.g., vessel trip declaration) would not change significantly from that currently approved under 0648-0202 because, although the reporting time for each vessel would be reduced, the total number of vessels required to report would increase, due to the inclusion of the Maine mahogany quahog fishery. The vessel owner or operator of a vessel participating in the ITQ program would no longer have to telephone a local port office prior to departure on a surfclam or ocean quahog trip and verbally give the following information: Name of the vessel; NMFS permit number assigned to the vessel; expected date and time of departure from port, whether the trip will be directed on surfclams or ocean quahogs, expected date, time, and location of landing; and name of individual providing notice. The reporting burden for this requirement was estimated at 2 min per response (OMB Control Number 0648-0202) when the reporting requirement was implemented in 1993 (58 FR 14342, March 17, 1993).
        Under this proposed rule, the vessel owner or operator would only be required to select the appropriate fishery displayed on the VMS monitor located in the wheelhouse of the vessel. All identifying information is transmitted with the selection and authorities would be able to monitor for themselves when the vessel departs and returns from the fishing trip. On the surfclam and ocean quahog trip declaration screen, there would be three options to choose from: (1) Atlantic surfclam ITQ trip; (2) ocean quahog ITQ trip; and (3) Maine mahogany quahog trip. It is estimated that choosing the appropriate trip declaration would take 1 min per response. In 2005, there were approximately 5,580 fishing trips taken by the entire industry. This would make the time burden for the VMS trip declaration 92 hr per year. When the time to respond to the providing proof of VMS installation, and time for requesting an exemption to turn off the VMS unit are considered, the annual reporting burden is 100 hr. The public's reporting burden for the collection-of information requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to a 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 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:February 27, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.2, a definition for “Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Program” and “Mahogany Quahog” are added in alphabetical order and the definition for “Vessel Monitoring System” is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.2
          Definitions.

            Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Program means, for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery, the annual individual allocation of quota specified at § 648.70.

            Mahogany Quahog see Ocean Quahog.

            Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) means a vessel monitoring system or VMS unit as set forth in § 648.9 and approved by NMFS for use on Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic herring, and Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog vessels, as required by this part.

        3. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(4)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.4
          Vessel permits.
          (a)* * *
          (4)* * *
          (ii) VMS Requirement. (A) Surfclam and ocean quahog open access permits. In order to be eligible for issuance of an open access surfclam or ocean quahog permit the vessel owner must have installed on the vessel an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria set forth in § 648.9. The vessel owner/operator must provide to the NMFS Northeast Region Permit Office a copy of the VMS vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation from a NMFS-approved VMS vendor as described in § 648.9.
          (B) Maine mahogany quahog limited access permit. In order to be eligible for issuance of a Maine mahogany quahog permit, the vessel owner must have installed on the vessel an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria set forth in § 648.9. By [DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], unless otherwise exempted under section § 648(a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) of this section. The vessel owner/operator must provide to NMFS a copy of the VMS vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation from a NMFS-approved VMS vendor as described in § 648.9.
          (1) Special VMS exemption for Maine mahogany quahog vessels. Vessel owners eligible to renew a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit may do so without proof of installation of a VMS, provided the vessel does not fish for, catch, or possess; or attempt to fish for, catch, or posses; Maine mahogany quahogs. Proof of VMS installation must be provided to NMFS Northeast Region Permit Office prior to departure on any fishing trip on which ocean quahogs may be caught or landed. Once a vessel issued a Maine mahogany quahog permit has elected to participate in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery, the vessel must keep the VMS unit turned on and functioning as specified under § 648.9. Once a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permitted vessel has participated in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery, this exemption no longer applies.
          (2) [Reserved]

        4. In § 648.9, paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(B) and (e) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.9
          VMS requirements.

          (c) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (B) For vessels fishing with a valid NE multispecies limited access permit, or a valid surfclam and ocean quahog permit specified at § 648.4(a)(4), the vessel owner signs out of the VMS program for a minimum period of 30 consecutive days by obtaining a valid letter of exemption pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the vessel does not engage in any fisheries until the VMS unit is turned back on, and the vessel complies with all conditions and requirements of said letter; or

          (e) New and replacement VMS installations. The vessel owner/operator required to use a VMS must provide to the NMFS Northeast Region Permit Office a copy of the VMS vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation prior to departure on a fishing trip requiring VMS. A VMS certification of installation form is available from the NMFS Regional Administrator. Should a VMS unit require replacement, a vessel owner must submit documentation to the Regional Administrator, within 3 days of installation and prior to the vessel's next trip, verifying that the new VMS unit is an operational, approved system as described under paragraph (a) of this section. Vessel owners required to use a VMS in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery, as specified at § 648.15(b), must confirm the VMS operation and communications service to NMFS by calling 978-281-9213 to ensure that position reports are automatically sent to and received by NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). For the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery, NMFS does not regard the fishing vessel as meeting the VMS requirements until automatic position reports and a manual declaration are received.

        5. In § 648.10, paragraphs (b)(1)(vii) and (b)(1)(viii) are added, and (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.10
          DAS and VMS notification requirements.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (vii) A vessel issued a surfclam (SF 1) or an ocean quahog (OQ 6) open access permit;
          (viii) Effective [DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] a vessel issued a Maine mahogany quahog (OQ 7) limited access permit, unless otherwise exempted under paragraph § 648.4(a)(4)(ii)(B)(1);

          (2) The owner of such a vessel specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, with the exception of a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section, must provide documentation to the Regional Administrator at the time of application for a limited access permit that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets the minimum performance criteria, unless otherwise allowed under this paragraph (b). If a vessel has already been issued a limited access permit without the owner providing such documentation, the Regional Administrator shall allow at least 30 days for the vessel to install an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria and for the owner to provide documentation of such installation to the Regional Administrator. The owner of a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit that fishes or intends to fish under a Category A or B DAS as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section, must provide documentation to the Regional Administrator that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets those criteria prior to fishing under a groundfish DAS. NMFS shall send letters to all limited access NE multispecies DAS and Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog permit holders and provide detailed information on the procedures pertaining to VMS purchase, installation, and use.

        6. In § 648.14, paragraph (a)(25) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.
          (a) * * *
          (25) Fail to comply with any of the notification requirements specified in § 648.15(b) including:
          (i) Fish for, land, take, possess, or transfer surfclams or ocean quahogs under an open access surfclam or ocean quahog permit without having provided proof to the Regional Administrator of NMFS that the vessel has a fully functioning VMS unit on board the vessel and declared a fishing trip via the VMS unit as specified at § 648.15(b);
          (ii) Beginning [DATE ONE YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] fish for, land, take, possess, or transfer ocean quahogs under a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit without having provided proof to the Regional Administrator of NMFS that the vessel has a fully functioning VMS unit on board the vessel and declared a fishing trip via the VMS unit as specified at § 648.15(b).

        7. In § 648.15, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.15
          Facilitation of enforcement.

          (b) Special notification requirements applicable to surfclam and ocean quahog vessel owners and operators. (1) Surfclam and ocean quahog open access permitted vessels. Vessel owners or operators issued an open access surfclam or ocean quahog open access permit for fishing in the ITQ Program, as specified at § 648.70, are required to declare their intended fishing activity via VMS prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line specified at § 648.10(a).
          (2) Maine mahogany quahog limited access permitted vessels. Beginning [DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], vessel owners or operators issued a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit for fishing for Maine mahogany quahogs in the Maine mahogany quahog zone, as specified at § 648.76, are required to declare via VMS, prior to departure on a fishing trip, into the Maine mahogany quahog zone their intended fishing activity, unless otherwise exempted under paragraph § 648.4(a)(4)(ii)(B)(1).
          (3) Declaration out of surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Owners or operators that are transiting between ports or fishing in a fishery other than surfclams and ocean quahogs must either declare out of fisheries or declare the appropriate fishery, if required, via the VMS unit, before beginning the trip. The owner or operator discontinuing a fishing trip in the EEZ or Maine mahogany quahog zone must return to port and offload any surfclams or ocean quahogs prior to commencing fishing operations in the waters under the jurisdiction of any state.
          (4) Inspection by authorized officer. The vessel permits, the vessel, its gear, and catch shall be subject to inspection upon request by an authorized officer.
          (5) Authorization for use of fishing trip notification via telephone. The Regional Administrator may authorize or require, the notification of a surfclam or ocean quahog fishing trip information via a telephone call to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement nearest to the point of offloading instead of the use of VMS. If authorized, the vessel owner or operator must accurately provide the following information prior to departure of their vessel from the dock to fish for surfclams or ocean quahogs in the EEZ: Name of the vessel; NMFS permit number assigned to the vessel; expected date and time of departure from port; whether the trip will be directed on surfclams or ocean quahogs; expected date, time, and location of landing; and name of individual providing notice. If use of a telephone call-in notification is authorized or required, the Regional Administrator shall notify affected permit holders through a letter, notification in the Federal Register, e-mail, or other appropriate means.

        8. In § 648.75, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.75
          Cage identification.

          (a) Tagging. Before offloading, all cages that contain surfclams or ocean quahogs must be tagged with tags acquired annually under paragraph (b) of this section. A tag must be fixed on or as near as possible to the upper crossbar of the cage for every 60 ft3 (1,700 L), or portion thereof, of the cage. A tag or tags must not be removed until the cage is emptied by the processor, at which time the processor must promptly remove and retain the tag(s) for 60 days beyond the end of the calendar year, unless otherwise directed by authorized law enforcement agents.

      [FR Doc. E7-3776 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 391
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0362 and FMCSA-2015-0419]
        Medical Review Board (MRB) Meeting: Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; announcement of a public MRB advisory committee meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA announces a meeting of its Medical Review Board (MRB) on Monday and Tuesday, August 22-23, 2016. The MRB will make recommendations to the Agency on the disposition of comments from medical professionals and associations, as well as safety advocacy, labor, and industry groups, to the Agency's and the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) of March 10, 2016, on safety-sensitive rail and commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers with moderate to severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Additionally, the MRB will review its previously issued report on OSA from 2012 to determine whether the report should be updated based on any changes to medical standards and practice or the comments received at the listening sessions and to the docket. Meetings are open to the public for their entirety, and the public will be allowed to comment during the proceedings.

          TIMES AND DATES:

          The meeting will be held on Monday and Tuesday, August 22-23, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), at the FMCSA National Training Center, 1310 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA, 6th floor. Copies of the task statement and an agenda for the entire meeting will be made available in advance of the meeting at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mrb.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-5221, mrb@dot.gov.

          Services for Individuals With Disabilities

          For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Eran Segev at (617) 494-3174, eran.segev@dot.gov, by Wednesday, August 17.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        The MRB is composed of five medical experts who each serve 2-year terms. Section 4116 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation, with the advice of the MRB and the chief medical examiner, to establish, review, and revise “medical standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.” The MRB operates in accordance with FACA under the terms of its charter, filed November 25, 2015.
        II. Meeting Participation
        Oral comments from the public will be heard during the meeting, subject to the discretion of the Chairman. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, August 17, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2008-0362 and FMCSA-2015-0419 for the MRB using any of the following methods:
        • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
        • Fax: 202-493-2251.
        • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
        • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          Issued on: August 2, 2016.
          Larry W. Minor,
          Associate Administrator for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2016-18726 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 120425420-2420-01]
        RIN 0648-BB92
        Fisheries of the United States; National Standard 1 Guidelines

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

          ACTION:

          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments; consideration of revision to National Standard 1 Guidelines.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to provide background information and request public comment on potential adjustments to the National Standard 1 Guidelines, one of 10 national standards for fishery conservation and management contained in Section 301 of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Since the guidelines were last updated in 2009, a number of issues regarding the application of the guidelines were identified by stakeholders and managers that may warrant their revision. This action provides the public with a formal opportunity to comment on the specific ideas mentioned in this ANPR, as well as any additional ideas and solutions that could improve provisions of the National Standard 1 Guidelines.

          DATES:
          Written comments regarding the issues in this ANPR must be received by 5 p.m., local time, on August 1, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0059”, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0059” in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Fax: 301-713-1193, Attn: Wesley Patrick.
          • Mail: Wesley Patrick; National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13436; Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Wesley Patrick, Fisheries Policy Analyst, National Marine Fisheries Service, 301-427-8566.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) contains 10 national standards for fishery conservation and management. Any fishery management plans (FMP) prepared under the MSA, and any regulation promulgated pursuant to the MSA to implement any such plan, must be consistent with these national standards. National Standard 1 (NS1) of the MSA states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.
        Section 301(b) of the MSA requires that the Secretary establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards to assist in the development of fishery management plans. Guidelines for NS1 are codified in 50 CFR 600.310. NMFS revised the NS1 Guidelines on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 3178) to reflect the requirements enacted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 for annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to end and prevent overfishing.
        From 2007 to 2012, the 46 Federal FMPs have been amended to implement ACLs and AMs to end and prevent overfishing. In the course of this work, a number of issues regarding the application of the NS1 Guidelines were identified that may warrant their revision. NMFS seeks public comments on these and any other issues related to NS1:
        1. Stocks in a fishery. The MSA requires that Councils develop FMPs for fisheries that require “conservation and management” (MSA 302(h)(1)). The MSA provides the Councils with wide latitude in defining the scope of an FMP. Some FMPs include a relatively small number of species, focusing on the primary target species of the fishery. In other FMPs, a much broader range of species are included. The NS1 Guidelines establish and define Ecosystem Component (EC) species and provide that EC species may be included in the FMP but are not considered stocks in the fishery and thus are not required to have biological reference points or ACLs. There has been considerable discussion about the criteria for classifying EC species and the utility of the EC species concept. Thus, revision of the guidance may be warranted to further describe criteria for classifying stocks in a fishery and EC species.
        2. Overfishing and multi-year impacts. The current NS1 Guidelines provide that overfishing must be determined either by comparing catch to the overfishing limit (OFL) or by comparing fishing mortality to the maximum fishing mortality threshold (§ 600.310 (e)(2)(ii)(A)). Overfishing determinations are made for the most recent year for which there is information. Stakeholders have expressed interest in exploring alternative definitions of overfishing that would take a longer, multi-year view of the impact of fishing on the stock's ability to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
        3. Annual catch limits and optimum yield. In some fisheries, implementation of the guidance on acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules, ACLs, and AMs has resulted in real or perceived reductions in catch. Questions have been raised about the relationship between ACLs and the objective of achieving the OY for a fishery. The MSA defines OY as being reduced from MSY to account for relevant economic, social, or ecological factors, and states that OY in an overfished fishery must provide for rebuilding the fishery (MSA 3(33)). There is interest from stakeholders in improving guidance to better address economic, social, and ecological considerations in the establishment of OY and to more clearly describe the relationship between ACL and OY.
        4. Mixed-stock fisheries and optimum yield. Management of mixed-stock fisheries is challenging, because some stocks are relatively more abundant or are more or less susceptible to overfishing than others. The MSA requires that overfishing be prevented, and that the OY for a fishery provide for rebuilding overfished stocks. Nonetheless, some stakeholders believe that ACL and rebuilding requirements prevent them from achieving OY of healthy stocks. Further guidance on how OY should be specified to balance the multiple considerations in mixed-stock fisheries may be warranted.
        5. Scientific uncertainty and management uncertainty. The NS1 Guidelines identify two types of uncertainty that should be addressed when setting catch limits and accountability measures: Scientific uncertainty and management uncertainty (§ 600.310 (f)). Scientific uncertainty is related to the uncertainty of calculating the true OFL, and is addressed by a Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) by setting ABC below the OFL. Management uncertainty is the uncertainty of controlling catch so that it does not exceed the ACL, and is addressed when setting AMs and in setting an annual catch target below the ACL. Some stakeholders believe that consideration of both scientific and management uncertainty causes ACLs to be overly precautionary. Further clarification on the consideration of scientific and management uncertainty may be warranted.
        6. Data poor stocks. Stocks without sufficient data to conduct a formal scientific stock assessment are considered to be data poor stocks. Establishing appropriate ACLs for data poor stocks can be challenging. The experience of the Councils and their SSCs in implementing ABCs and ACLs for data poor stocks may provide valuable information on which to base improvements in the NS1 Guidelines for data poor stocks.
        7. Acceptable biological catch control rules. The NS1 Guidelines require a Council to establish an ABC control rule for each stock and stock complex, based on scientific advice from its SSC (§ 600.310 (f)). ABC control rules are a specified approach to setting the ABC that addresses scientific uncertainty, and incorporate a policy decision on the acceptable level of risk that overfishing might occur. A variety of ABC control rules have been implemented and a review of those control rules could lead to improvements in the NS1 Guidelines. In addition, for some fisheries there is interest in implementing provisions that carry over unharvested allocations from one year to the next. Guidance may be needed on how to consider carry-over within ABC control rules.
        8. Catch accounting. Questions have been raised by managers about the types of “catch” that must be considered within the ABC and ACL, particularly in regard to catch resulting from exempted fishing permits and scientific research activities. The definition of catch in the NS1 Guidelines includes fish taken in commercial, recreational, subsistence, tribal, and other fisheries. Catch includes fish that are retained for any purpose, as well as mortality of fish that are discarded. In the final rule response to comment number 35 (74 FR 3718; January 16, 2009), NMFS stated that this definition would include allocations for scientific research and mortality from any other fishing activity. Additional guidance may be needed to clarify how to account for all sources of mortality (e.g., bycatch, scientific research catch, etc.) when establishing ABCs and ACLs.
        9. Accountability measures. AMs are management controls to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur. AMs must be tailored to the specific needs of a fishery, and are key to the success of ACL systems in ending and preventing overfishing. NMFS invites comments on the guidance for AMs.
        10. ACL exceptions. Under the MSA, stocks that have a life cycle of approximately 1 year and stocks subject to international agreements are not required to have ACLs. The NS1 Guidelines describe that the life cycle exception applies to “a stock for which the average length of time it takes for an individual to produce a reproductively active offspring is approximately 1 year and that the individual has only one breeding season in its lifetime” (§ 600.310 (h)(2)(i)). The NS1 Guidelines also describe that the international agreement exception applies to stocks that are subject to “any bilateral or multilateral treaty, convention, or agreement which relates to fishing and to which the United States is party” (§ 600.310 (h)(2)(ii)). NMFS invites comments on the guidance pertaining to these exceptions from the ACL requirements.
        11. Rebuilding progress and revising rebuilding plans. The current NS1 Guidelines address how NMFS should respond if a stock reaches the end of its rebuilding plan and is not fully rebuilt, or its rebuilding status is unknown. However, the guidelines do not address the situation that occurs during the course of a rebuilding plan when rebuilding progress is determined to be inadequate. Inadequate progress can result from a number of factors, including:
        a. Management measures that do not adequately control the fishery.
        b. Environmental factors that limit stock growth.
        c. Significant changes in the rebuilding target (Bmsy) resulting from a new stock assessment. NMFS intends to improve guidance on evaluating the progress of stocks in rebuilding plans and on revising the rebuilding plans in these situations.
        Public Comments
        To help determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify significant issues related to this action, NMFS is soliciting written comments on this ANPR. The public is encouraged to submit comments related to the specific ideas mentioned in this ANPR, as well as any additional ideas and solutions that could improve provisions of the NS1 Guidelines. In addition to considering revisions to the NS1 Guidelines, NMFS will consider whether it may be more appropriate to address some topics in technical guidance reports or policy directives than to change the guidelines codified at 50 CFR 600.310. NMFS welcomes comment on the appropriateness and utility of additional technical guidance reports and policy directives.

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

          Dated: April 27, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-10683 Filed 4-30-12; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1147]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Fayette County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Fayette County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions).

          DATES:
          This withdrawal is effective on December 12, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1147 to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On October 5, 2010, FEMA published a proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 61377, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Because FEMA has or will be issuing a Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, and if necessary a Flood Insurance Study report, featuring updated flood hazard information, the proposed rulemaking is being withdrawn. A Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations will be published in the Federal Register and in the affected community's local newspaper.

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

          Dated: November 20, 2013.
          Roy E. Wright,
          Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2013-29660 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 21
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0098; FF09M21200-134-FXMB1231099BPP0]
        RIN 1018-AZ19
        Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing Harvest of Light Goose Populations

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to reduce the information collection requirements for participants in the light goose conservation order, which authorizes methods of take to increase harvest of certain populations of light geese in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways, and to reduce the burden on State and tribal wildlife agencies that are required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to the Service. We are taking this action to eliminate information collection and reporting requirements that we believe to be unnecessary. This action would relieve requirements on certain individuals, States, and tribes.

          DATES:
          The comment period for this proposed rule closes April 21, 2014.

            Comments on the Information Collection Aspects of this Proposal: Comments on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule will be considered if received by March 20, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

            Written Comments on this Proposal: You may submit comments only by either one of the following two methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket FWS-R9-MB-2012-0098.
          • U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attention: FWS-R9-MB-2012-0098; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203-1610. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

            Comments on the Information Collection Aspects of this Proposal: Send comments specific to the information collection aspects of this proposed rule to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 2042-PDM, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail) or hope_grey@fws.gov (email). Please include “1018-0103” in the subject line of your comments. You may review the Information Collection Request online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

            Document Availability: You may obtain a copy of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) from our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/management/snowgse/tblcont.html, or by requesting one from the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          James Kelley at 612-713-5409.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Greater snow geese, lesser snow geese, and Ross's geese are referred to as “light” geese due to the light coloration of the white-phase plumage morph, as opposed to true “dark” geese such as the white-fronted or Canada goose. We include both plumage variations of lesser snow geese (white, or “snow” and dark, or “blue”) under the designation light geese. Dark phase Ross's geese exist but are uncommon.

        Various populations of light geese have undergone rapid growth during the past 30 years, and have become seriously injurious to their habitat, habitat important to other migratory birds, and agricultural interests. We believe that several of these populations have exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of their breeding and/or migration habitats and must be reduced. In 1999, we implemented regulations that authorized new methods of take and created a conservation order to increase harvest of certain populations of light geese in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (64 FR 7507; February 16, 1999). In 2008, we prepared an environmental impact statement and record of decision to revise the regulations to include the Atlantic Flyway (73 FR 65926; November 5, 2008). The regulations at § 21.60 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) include information collection and reporting requirements, which we discuss below, for the conservation order for light geese.
        Past changes to the light goose harvest regulations at 50 CFR 21.60 addressed two areas. The first authorized the use of two new hunting methods, electronic calls and unplugged shotguns, to harvest light geese during normal hunting season frameworks. New methods of take were allowed during a light-goose-only hunting season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. Authorization of new methods of take during light-goose-only seasons was allowed only during normal hunting season framework dates (September 1 to March 10), except as provided in 50 CFR part 21, as described below. Individual States and tribes were authorized to determine the exact dates such tools could be used. Persons utilizing new methods of take during light goose hunting seasons were required to possess a Federal migratory bird hunting stamp, to be registered under the Harvest Information Program, and to be in compliance with any additional State or tribal license and stamp requirements pertaining to hunting waterfowl.
        The second area revised subpart E of 50 CFR part 21 for the management of overabundant light goose populations. Under this subpart, we established a conservation order specifically for the control and management of light geese. Under the authority of this regulation, States and tribes could initiate aggressive harvest management strategies with the intent to increase light goose harvest without having to obtain an individual permit, which significantly reduced the administrative burden on State, tribal and Federal governments. This regulation enabled States and tribes, as a management tool, to use hunters to harvest light geese, by shooting in a hunting manner, inside or outside of the regular migratory bird hunting season framework dates of September 1 and March 10. Although a conservation order could be implemented at any time, we believe the greatest value of this regulation is the provision of a mechanism to increase harvest of light geese beyond March 10, the latest possible closing date for traditional migratory bird hunting seasons. This provision is especially effective in increasing harvest in mid-latitude and northern States during spring migration. The conservation order is not a hunting season, and implementation of such a regulation should not be construed as opening, re-opening, or extending any open hunting season contrary to any regulations promulgated under section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
        Conditions under the conservation order require that participating States and tribes inform participants acting under the authority of the conservation order of the conditions that apply to the regulation. In order to minimize or avoid take of nontarget species, States and tribes may implement this action only when all waterfowl (including light goose) and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. In addition to authorizing electronic calls and unplugged shotguns, the conservation order does not impose daily bag limits for light geese and allows shooting hours for light geese to end one-half hour after sunset.
        Under the regulations at 50 CFR 21.60, States and tribes must keep annual records of activities carried out under the authority of the conservation order. We required the reported information to help us to assess the effectiveness of light geese population control methods and strategies, and to assess whether or not additional population control methods are needed. We believe that sufficient information has been collected since 2000 to allow us to properly evaluate the effectiveness of new methods of take for harvesting light geese. While we are not proposing to eliminate all of the information collection requirements of the conservation order, we believe that the requirements can be simplified, thus reducing the burden on individuals participating in the conservation order, who must provide information to State wildlife agencies, and on State and Tribal wildlife agencies, which are required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to the Service. Currently, 50 CFR 21.60(f)(8) requires States and tribes to keep annual records of the following activities carried out under the authority of the light goose conservation order:
        (i) The number of persons participating in the conservation order;
        (ii) The number of days people participated in the conservation order;
        (iii) The number of persons who pursued light geese with the aid of a shotgun capable of holding more than three shells;
        (iv) The number of persons who pursued light geese with the aid of an electronic call;
        (v) The number of persons who pursued light geese during the period one-half hour after sunset;
        (vi) The total number of light geese shot and retrieved during the conservation order;
        (vii) The number of light geese taken with the aid of an electronic call;
        (viii) The number of light geese taken with the fourth, fifth, or sixth shotgun shell;
        (ix) The number of light geese taken during the period one-half hour after sunset; and
        (x) The number of light geese shot but not retrieved.
        During 2000-2011, an average of 52,672 hunters in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (combined) spent 250,079 days afield each year during conservation order periods (Table 1). An average of 3,815 hunters in the Atlantic Flyway spent 13,424 days afield during conservation order periods each year from 2009-2011. The annual average harvest of light geese during the conservation order harvest was 697,367 birds in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (combined), and 39,100 birds in the Atlantic Flyway. Half of all conservation order participants chose to utilize electronic calls (51%) and unplugged shotguns (50%), whereas only 28% chose to pursue light geese during the period one-half hour after sunset.

          Table 1—Light Goose Conservation Order Hunter Numbers, Days Spent Afield, Light Goose Harvest, and Harvest by Various Methods of Take

            Geographic area
            Number of hunters
            Days afield
            Light goose harvest
            Light goose harvest by method of take
            Electronic calls
              (%)

            Unplugged shotguns
              (%)

            Shooting 1/2
              hour after sunset (%)

            Central and Mississippi flyways combined, 2000 2011
            52,672
            250,079
            697,367
            275,074 (39.4)
            185,881 (26.7)
            91,558 (13.1)

            Atlantic Flyway, 2009 2011
            3,815
            13,424
            39,100
            15,830 (40.5)
            6,096 (15.6)
            4,558 (11.7)

        As shown in Table 1, above, electronic calls were used to take approximately 40% of the light geese during the conservation order in the 3 Flyways. Unplugged shotguns were used to take nearly 27% of the light goose harvest in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (combined), but only about 16% in the Atlantic Flyway. Just under 13% of light geese were harvested in the period one-half hour after sunset, compared to the other methods of take. However, it should be noted that two or more methods of take can be utilized simultaneously while pursuing light geese during the conservation order.
        These results indicate that the new methods of take authorized during the conservation order have been successful in increasing harvest of light geese in the United States. Although some methods appear to be utilized more by hunters than others, we believe that no changes are needed to the conservation order's authorized methods of take. However, we believe that we no longer need to require States and tribes to collect detailed information on methods of take used to harvest light geese. Public comments from Flyway Councils received during our last renewal of the information collection requirements (see 76 FR 66952; October 28, 2011) indicated that Councils wanted a discontinuation of collection of information on methods of take as well. Therefore, we propose to revise 50 CFR 21.60(f)(8) to require that States and tribes to keep annual records of only the following activities carried out under the authority of the light goose conservation order:
        (i) The number of persons participating in the conservation order;
        (ii) The number of days people participated in the conservation order;
        (iii) The number of light geese shot and retrieved during the conservation order;
        (vii) The number of light geese shot but not retrieved.
        This level of information collection would continue to allow us to monitor the efficacy of our efforts to increase the harvest of light goose populations that have been deemed overabundant. During our last information collection renewal (see 76 FR 66952; October 28, 2011), the Flyway Councils also commented that the burden of collection of such information should be transferred to the Service from the States. While we agree that having the Service collect such information would provide uniformity in survey sampling, budgetary constraints currently prevent us from initiating new harvest survey efforts for light geese.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review—Executive Order 12866 and 13563
        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
        Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed regulation change would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, so a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        This proposed rule would reduce the information collection requirements for participants in the light goose conservation order and reduce the burden on State and tribal wildlife agencies that are required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to the Service. It would have no impact on economic activities already associated with the light goose conservation order itself, and therefore would not have an economic effect (benefit) on any small entities.
        This is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)). It would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        a. This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. This rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
        c. This rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following:

        a. This rule would not affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required.

        b. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. It is not a significant regulatory action.
        Takings
        This proposed rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, a takings implication assessment is not required.
        Federalism
        This proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a federalism impact summary statement under Executive Order 13132. It would not interfere with any State's ability to manage itself or its funds. No significant economic impacts are expected to result from the proposed regulations change.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
        The Office of Management and Budget has approved the current information collection requirements in 50 CFR Part 21 and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0103, which expires January 31, 2015. This proposal revises the information collection requirements, and OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We 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.

          OMB Control Number: 1018-0103.

          Title: Conservation Order for Light Geese, 50 CFR 21.60.

          Service Form Number(s): None.

          Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

          Description of Respondents: State and tribal governments; individuals who participate in the conservation order.

          Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

          Frequency of Collection: Annually.

            Activity/requirement
            Annual No. of respondents
            Total annual responses
            Completion time per response
            Total annual burden hours

            States—collect information, maintain records, prepare annual report
            39
            39
            45 hours
            1,755

            Participants—provide information to States
            21,538
            21,538
            8 minutes
            2,872

            Total
            21,577
            21,577

            4,627

          Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $78,000, primarily for State and tribal overhead costs (materials, printing, postage, etc.)
        We expect a maximum of 39 States and tribes to participate under the authority of the conservation order each year it is available. States and tribes must keep records of activities carried out under the authority of the conservation order. We believe that this recordkeeping requirement is necessary to ensure that those individuals carrying out control activities are authorized to do so. The States and tribes must submit an annual report summarizing the activities conducted under the conservation order. Reported information helps us to assess the effectiveness of light geese population control methods and strategies, and assess whether or not additional population control methods are needed. However, we believe that the number of elements in the information collection requirement can be reduced while maintaining a core of elements that allow us to monitor the number of participants in the conservation order and resulting harvest of birds. We propose that 50 CFR 21.60(f)(8) be revised to require that information be collected only on the number of:
        • Persons participating in the conservation order;
        • Days people participated in the conservation order;
        • Light geese shot and retrieved during the conservation order; and
        • Light geese shot but not retrieved.
        Each State and tribe determines how they collect data from participants. Though there is no common form or method, the States and tribes have shared their forms and there is commonality. Some States require participants to obtain a permit to participate in the conservation order, others do not. Post-harvest survey questions and questionnaire delivery methods differ among States and tribes. States measure harvest and hunter activity through the use of mail questionnaires, phone surveys, hunter diaries, online data entry, and so forth. Differences also exist within similar survey types, such as the proportion of participants surveyed and the type and number of followup contacts.
        As part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting burden associated with this proposed information collection. We specifically invite comments concerning:
        • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
        • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
        • 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 on respondents.

        Send comments specific to the information collection aspects of this proposed rule to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 2042-PDM, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail) or hope_grey@fws.gov (email). Please include “1018-0103” in the subject line of your comments. See the DATES and ADDRESSES sections for specific instructions.
        Public Comments

        The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final regulations for managing harvest of light goose populations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.

        We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
        For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rule.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the availability of a Final EIS on light goose management on July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38577), and we published the same on July 18, 2007 (72 FR 39439), followed by a 30-day public review period. The EPA reviewed the Final EIS and stated that they did not identify any environmental concerns with our preferred alternative, and that the document provided adequate documentation of the potential environmental impacts. The EPA assigned a rating of Lack of Objection to the Final EIS. The Final EIS is available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
        Endangered Species Act
        Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, 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 previously completed section 7 consultation under the ESA for the rule that authorized the light goose regulations (73 FR 65926). This proposed rule would only affect information collection and reporting requirements, and we have determined that a section 7 consultation is not necessary.
        Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211
        Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, and would not adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action is not a significant energy action, so no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        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), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have determined that this rule has very little effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes. This proposal would reduce the information collection and reporting requirements associated with the light goose conservation order, but we expect this reduction would have very little effect on tribes due to low participation rates.

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

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

          PART 21—[AMENDED]

        1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 703-712.

        2. Amend § 21.60 by:
        a. Revising paragraphs (f)(8)(i) through (f)(8)(iv) to read as follows; and
        b. Removing paragraphs (f)(8)(v) through (f)(8)(x).

          § 21.60
          Conservation order for light geese.

          (f) * * *
          (8) States and tribes must keep annual records of activities carried out under the authority of the conservation order. Specifically, information must be collected on:
          (i) The number of persons participating in the conservation order;
          (ii) The number of days people participated in the conservation order;
          (iii) The number of light geese shot and retrieved during the conservation order; and
          (iv) The number of light geese shot but not retrieved.

          Dated: November 22, 2013.
          Michael Bean,
          Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2014-03446 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [FRL-6869-5]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances; Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed direct final deletion of the Cliff/Dow Dump Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL).

          SUMMARY:

          The EPA proposes to delete the Cliff/Dow Dump Superfund site (Site) from the NPL and requests public comment on this action. The NPL constitutes appendix B to part 300 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. EPA has determined that the Site currently poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, as defined by CERCLA, and therefore, further remedial measures under CERCLA are not appropriate. We are publishing this proposed rule without prior notification because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no dissenting comments. A detailed rationale for this proposal is set forth in the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. If no dissenting comments are received, the deletion will become effective. If EPA receives dissenting comments, the direct final action will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning this action must be received by October 18, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to Kenneth Glatz, Remedial Project Manager, or Gladys Beard, Associate Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604. Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the public docket which is available for viewing at the Site Information Repositories at the following locations: U.S. EPA Region 5, Administrative Records, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Il 60604 (312)-886-0900, the Peter White Public Library, 217 N. Front St., Marquette, MI 49855, until September 22, 2000, the University, Quad 2 Central Area After September 22 and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Knapps Center, Lansing, Michigan 48933.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kenneth Glatz Remedial Project Manager, at (312) 886-1434 or Gladys Beard Associate Remedial Project Manager at (312) 886-7253, or Bruce VanOtteren, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30426, Lansing, MI, 48909. Written correspondence can be directed to Ms. Beard at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (SR-6J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

          Dated: September 6, 2000.
          David A. Ullrich,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

      [FR Doc. 00-23642 Filed 9-15-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P