        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 15-98, RM-11748; DA 15-481]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Providence, Rhode Island

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by WJAR Licensee, LLC (the Licensee), the licensee of WJAR(TV), channel 51, Providence, Rhode Island, requesting the substitution of channel 50 for channel 51 at Providence. While the Commission instituted a freeze on the acceptance of full power television rulemaking petitions requesting channel substitutions in May 2011, it subsequently announced that it would lift the freeze to accept such petitions for rulemaking seeking to relocate from channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary relocation agreement with Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees. The Licensee has entered into such a voluntary relocation agreement with T-Mobile USA, Inc. and states that operation on channel 50 would remove any potential interference with authorized wireless operations in the adjacent Lower 700 MHZ A Block.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 11, 2015, and reply comments on or before May 19, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Clifford M. Harrington, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeremy Miller, Jeremy.Miller@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1507.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 15-98, adopted April 21, 2015, and released April 21, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.). To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Barbara A. Kreisman,
          Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

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

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

          § 73.622
          [Amended]

        2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Rhode Island, is amended by adding channel 50 at Providence and removing channel 51 at Providence.

      [FR Doc. 2015-09728 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF49
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To List the Tibetan Antelope as Endangered Throughout Its Range

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 12-month finding that a petition to list the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) as endangered throughout its range pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act, or ESA), is warranted. The best available information indicates that the total population of Tibetan antelope has declined drastically over the past three decades. This decline has resulted primarily from overutilization for commercial purposes and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Habitat impacts, especially those caused by domestic livestock grazing, appear to be a contributory factor in the decline, and could have potentially greater impacts in the near future. Accordingly, we herein propose to list the Tibetan antelope as endangered, pursuant to the Act. This proposed rule, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to this species. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this proposal.

          DATES:
          Comments and information may be submitted until January 5, 2004. Public hearing requests must be received by November 20, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments, information, and questions to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, VA 22203 USA; or by fax, 703-358-2276; or by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov. Comments and supporting information will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the above address.

          To request copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife or inquire about prohibitions or permits, write to: Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, VA 22203 USA. Alternatively, you may contact us by telephone, 703-358-2104 or toll free at 1-800-358-2104; or by fax, 703-358-2276; or by e-mail, Managementauthority@fws.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eleanora Babij at the above address; or by telephone, 703-358-1708; or by fax, 703-358-2276; or by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species has presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following receipt of the petition (this finding is referred to as the “90-day finding”) and published promptly in the Federal Register. If the 90-day finding is positive (i.e., the petition has presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted), Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to commence a status review of the species if one has not already been initiated under the Service's internal candidate assessment process. In addition, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act also requires the Service to make a finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions (this finding is referred to as the “12-month finding”). The 12-month finding is also to be published promptly in the Federal Register.
        Natural History
        The Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii sensu Wilson and Reeder 1993) is a medium-sized bovid endemic to the Tibetan Plateau in China (Tibet Autonomous Region, Xinjiang/Uygur Autonomous Region, and Qinghai Province) and small portions of India (Ladakh) and western Nepal (although there is no evidence that they still occur in Nepal). The Tibetan antelope is also known by its Tibetan name “chiru.” These two common names will be used interchangeably in this document.

        Adult males are characterized by long, slender, antelope-like black horns. Although the Tibetan antelope has been placed in the subfamily Antilopinae, recent morphological and molecular research indicates that it is most closely allied to the goats and other members of the subfamily Caprinae (Gentry 1992, Gatesy et al. 1992, both cited in Ginsberg et al.1999). The species is uniquely adapted to the high elevation and cold, dry climate of the Tibetan Plateau (Schaller 1998). The sexes segregate almost completely during the spring and early summer (May and June), when adult females and their female young migrate north to certain calving grounds and return south by late July or early August, covering distances as far as 300 kilometers (km) each way (Schaller 1998). Seasonal migrations constitute a critical aspect of the chiru's ecology and help define the ecosystem as a whole.
        Previous Federal Action

        On October 6, 1999, the Service received a petition from the Wildlife Conservation Society (Joshua R. Ginsberg, Ph.D., Director, Asia Program, and George B. Schaller, Ph.D., Director of Science) and the Tibetan Plateau Project of Earth Island Institute (Mr. Justin Lowe, Director) requesting that the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) be listed as endangered throughout its entire range. The petition was actually dated October 7, 1999, but was received via e-mail the previous day.

        On April 14, 2000, the Service made a positive 90-day finding on the Wildlife Conservation Society/Tibetan Plateau Project petition (i.e., the Service found that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted). That finding was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24171), thereby initiating a public comment period and status review for the species. The public comment period remained open until June 26, 2000. We received 272 comments during the public comment period, including 1 from a range country government (People's Republic of China), 4 from non-governmental conservation organizations, 41 (letters) from individuals, 86 (postcards) from individuals, and 1 letter-petition signed by 140 individuals. All comments fully supported an endangered listing for the Tibetan antelope, although only five comments provided any new information on the status of or threats to the species. Particularly important among these was the letter from Mr. Zhen Rende, Director General of the CITES Management Authority of China, in which he expressed strong support for an endangered listing for the Tibetan antelope under the ESA.
        In our 90-day finding, we stated that we had used all relevant literature and information available at that time (April 2000) on current status of and threats to the Tibetan antelope. Since then, a limited amount of relevant new information has become available as a result of the status review and public comment period. That information has been incorporated, as appropriate, in this 12-month finding.
        Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
        Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species on the basis of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to the Tibetan antelope are as follows:
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
        Tibetan antelope are endemic to the high Tibetan Plateau. Most of their range lies above 4,000 meters (m) in elevation, but they occur at elevations as low as 3,250 m in parts of Xinjiang (Schaller 1998). They prefer flat to rolling topography and alpine steppe or similar semiarid plant associations (Schaller 1998). They occasionally occur in alpine desert steppe habitats, at least on a seasonal basis, but are not known to have occurred in Qinghai's Qaidam Basin (Schaller 1998). They do not occur in alpine meadow areas receiving greater than 400 millimeters (mm) annual precipitation (Schaller 1998).
        Although the current east-west distribution of chiru appears much as it was described a century ago by Bower (1894, cited in Schaller 1998), that distribution is now fragmented where previously it was continuous. Schaller (1998) determined that chiru no longer occur, or occur in low numbers, in several areas where early explorers noted them to be abundant. The current range is divided into two areas: A northern one of about 490,000 square kilometers (km2) and a central one of about 115,000 km2. Distribution between the two areas was continuous until recent decades, and there may still be rare contact near the western end. However, current chiru populations in the central Chang Tang of the Tibet Autonomous Region are highly fragmented and occur in small, scattered herds. The range has also contracted in eastern Qinghai Province (Schaller 1998).

        Changes in Chinese government policy have led to increasing human development and activity on the Tibetan Plateau, including transportation development (roads and railways), resource extraction activities (minerals, oil, and gas), permanent settlement of traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists, and rangeland use for domestic livestock grazing (Ginsberg et al. 1999). These activities have already adversely modified or destroyed Tibetan antelope habitat in some areas and threaten to modify or destroy habitat over a large area in the near future.

        Nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists have grazed a mix of domestic livestock (primarily sheep, goats, yaks, and some horses) on the Tibetan Plateau for millennia in relative harmony with the environment (Miller 2000, 2002). These livestock can directly and indirectly compete with Tibetan antelope for available vegetation resources, both within and outside established protected areas (Schaller 1998, Ginsberg et al. 1999). In recent decades, as a result of government policy changes, excessive livestock grazing has degraded or destroyed chiru habitat in some areas, and could eventually lead to the destruction of some portion of the species' range through physical displacement and/or overgrazing, which may contribute to desertification (Ginsberg et al. 1999, Miller 2001). Recent changes in Chinese Government policy have resulted in an attempt to permanently settle many Tibetan pastoralists, with a resultant proliferation of rangeland fencing on portions of the Plateau (Miller 2000, Los Angeles Times 2002). Livestock frequently graze year-round in antelope habitat, and increasingly, nomads are fencing for winter-spring grazing and fodder production, thereby excluding chiru from the fenced grassland resources. Tibetan antelope need open range to survive (Miller and Schaller 1997). Enclosure and conversion of grasslands disrupt antelope habitat, posing a particular threat in the spring, when weakened chiru are attempting to rebuild their energy reserves, and in the fall, as antelope are preparing for the harsh winter.
        The Tibetan Plateau has extensive gold deposits. Gold mining can have significant impacts on chiru habitat and lead to increased poaching. Mining degrades or destroys chiru habitat through environmental contamination and disturbance, and through pollution of surface waters [U.S. Embassy, China (USEC) 1996]. Illegal mining activity also opens another avenue for profiting from poaching (USEC 1996). Bleisch (1999) noted that illegal gold mining camps in the Arjin Shan Reserve in Xinjiang have served as bases for poachers and have provided them with essential logistical support and access. Without this support, poachers would have a difficult time operating in these remote regions. As a result, “poaching has already had a profound impact on the chiru population of the reserve. Several areas where calving females formerly congregated are now empty of chiru during the calving season” (Bleisch 1999). In 2002, Rick Ridgeway and Galen Rowell spent 2 weeks on foot locating an unknown calving ground in the western Chang Tang only to discover that its location was less than 2 days' overland drive from a new gold mine that had sprung up in the previous few months (Ridgeway 2003). They wrote:

          That same dirt road [a 60-mile dirt road built by miners in the previous 3 months] gives us an easy way home, as we cart toward our waiting vehicle. But it could also give poachers easy access to the calving grounds. From the mine we estimate a four-wheel-drive vehicle could make it cross-country in 2 days.... With the chiru's calving grounds suddenly vulnerable, we feel a new urgency to report our findings.

        Governments may periodically enforce mining bans in sensitive areas, and have done so in Tibet, but in general it is difficult to control illegal miners over extensive areas of remote lands with poor road access. Tibet has reserves of many other valuable minerals, among them uranium, copper, and cesium, and mining of these minerals may also impact chiru habitat and lead to poaching.

        Oil exploration and some production have commenced within the chiru's range, and pose threats of destroying habitat; polluting the environment with toxic production chemicals, effluents, and emissions; increasing disturbance levels; and increasing the incidence of poaching by drawing additional settlers into the region (Ginsberg et al. 1999). In 2001, Chinese researchers announced the discovery of a potentially huge oil and gas deposit, extending over 100 km in length, in the Qiangtang Basin of the Tibet Autonomous Region (Global Policy Forum 2001). The deposit could potentially produce hundreds of millions of tons of oil.
        Construction of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, currently in progress, threatens to destroy important Tibetan antelope habitat, and, perhaps more importantly, significantly disrupt chiru migration corridors in southwestern Qinghai Province. One news service report mentioned that construction on the railway, the first to link the Tibet Autonomous Region with the rest of China, was temporarily suspended in June 2002 because up to 1,000 migrating chiru were unable to cross the construction area (People's Daily 2002, Xinhuanet 2002a). All activity was stopped and construction workers removed from the area until these animals had passed the construction site. Although the news service report mentioned that “a passage specially for animals will be set aside when the railway is built, so as to ensure the free migration for wildlife in the locality,” it is not certain how successful such a passage would be in ensuring freedom of movement for thousands of migrating chiru.

        Three contiguous protected areas have been established to protect Tibetan antelope populations and habitat in western China: Chang Tang Nature Reserve (approximately 334,000 km2 in the Tibet Autonomous Region), Kekexili (aka Kokoxili or Hoh Xil) National Reserve (approximately 45,000 km2 in Qinghai Province), and Arjin Shan Reserve (45,000 km2 in Xinjiang Province). A fourth protected area, Xianza Reserve (40,000 km2 in the Tibet Autonomous Region), also includes some chiru habitat. These reserves are only partially effective in protecting the chiru and its habitat due to a combination of inadequate management, limited enforcement capacity, an influx of settlers, and domestic livestock grazing [International Fund for Animal Welfare/Wildlife Trust of India (IFAW/WTI) 2001]. Miller (1997) has noted that, while many of the protected areas in the Tibetan Plateau region encompass high-elevation rangelands, protected areas at lower grassland elevations are scarce. It has been difficult for reserve staffs to keep poachers and illegal gold miners out, a fact that prompted the Qinghai Provincial Government in late 1999 to close the Kekexili Reserve to all activities that were not expressly authorized in advance by the State Forestry Administration (SFA) (China Daily 1999).
        The Chang Tang Reserve staff lacks the funding, experience, personnel, and equipment to adequately prevent chiru poaching and other threats to the species (SFA 1998). Formerly nomadic pastoralists are establishing settlements within the Chang Tang Reserve, and immigrants from other parts of the Plateau are moving into protected areas. Increased human presence, whether temporary nomadic aggregations or permanent human settlements, can adversely affect Tibetan antelope habitat and be a detrimental disturbance factor.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        There are no accurate estimates of Tibetan antelope numbers from the past, although the few early western explorers who ventured onto the Tibetan Plateau noted the presence of large herds in many areas (Schaller 1998). For example, Rawling (1905, cited in Schaller 1998) noted: “Almost from my feet away to the north and east, as far as the eye could reach, were thousands upon thousands of doe antelope with their young * * *. Everyone in camp turned out to see this beautiful sight, and tried, with varying results, to estimate the number of animals in view. This was found very difficult * * * as we could see in the extreme distance a continuous stream of fresh herds steadily approaching; there could not have been less than 15,000 or 20,000 visible at one time.” Bonvalot (1892), Wellby (1898), Deasy (1901), and Hedin (1903, 1922) made similar observations (all references cited in Schaller 1998). Schaller (1999) has suggested that upwards of 1 million Tibetan antelope roamed the Tibetan Plateau as recently as 40 to 50 years ago. Historical population estimates of 500,000 to 1,000,000 appear to be reasonable based on the limited information available.

        Although data on the current population dynamics of chiru are fragmentary and preliminary (Schaller 1998), it is clear that the total population has declined drastically in the past 30 years and is continuing to decline at an alarming rate. Schaller (1998) estimated that the total population in the mid-1990s may have been as low as 65,000-75,000 individuals. More recent estimates from China quote a population figure of 70,000, although the scientific basis for the estimate is not given (Xinhuanet 2002b). If one assumes that the historical population of chiru was 500,000 individuals (an apparently conservative estimate), then the most recent estimate of 70,000 represents a population decline of greater than 85 percent.

        The principal cause of the Tibetan antelope population decline has been poaching on a massive scale for the species' fur (wool), known in trade as shahtoosh (“king of wool”), which is one of the finest animal fibers known (Ginsberg et al. 1999). Shahtoosh is processed into high-fashion scarves and shawls in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir; these items are greatly valued by certain people of wealth and fashion around the world. The international demand for chiru fiber and shahtoosh products is the most serious threat to the continued existence of the Tibetan antelope. Although overall mortality rates are not known, poaching mortality was estimated to be as high as 20,000 individuals per year (SFA 1998). Poaching appears to have declined in some areas in recent years (Xinhuanet 2002a), most likely because there are not enough animals to warrant an organized poaching effort. But Chinese officials acknowledge that “poaching is still far from being eradicated in China.” (Xinhuanet 2002c). Annual recruitment of young has been estimated at around 12 percent (Schaller 1998). If one assumes that the total population of chiru is 70,000 individuals and that the population is currently declining at a rate of 1,000-3,500 individuals per year (admittedly a rough estimate, given available data), then the species could go extinct within the next 20 to 70 years. The species' role as the dominant native grazing herbivore of the Tibetan Plateau ecosystem has already been significantly diminished, and its influence on ecosystem structure and function would likely be substantially reduced or eliminated well before the species actually goes extinct.
        Although the shahtoosh trade has existed for centuries, killing of Tibetan antelope on a widespread, commercial basis probably began only in the 1970s or 1980s, resulting from an increase in international consumer demand and increased availability of vehicles on the Tibetan Plateau. Schaller and Gu (1994) noted that, with the increasing availability of vehicles beginning three decades ago, “truck drivers, officials, military personnel and other outsiders also began to shoot wildlife * * *.” Most chiru poaching takes place in the Arjin Shan, Chang Tang, and Kekexili Nature Reserves by a variety of hunters, including local herders, residents, officials, military personnel, gold miners, and truck drivers (Schaller 1993, Schaller and Gu 1994). Organized, large-scale poaching rings have developed in some areas. Poachers always kill Tibetan antelope to collect their fiber. No cases of capture-and-release wool collection are known, nor is naturally shed fiber collected from shrubs and grass tufts, as is often claimed (primarily by people within the shahtoosh industry). Poachers shear the hides, and collect and clean the under-fur of the antelope, or sell the hides to dealers who prepare the shahtoosh (Wright and Kumar 1997).

        Schaller speculated that, during the 1980s and 1990s, tens of thousands of chiru were killed for their wool (Ginsberg et al. 1999). One chiru carcass yields about 125-150 grams (gm) of fiber. In the winter of 1992, an estimated 2,000 kilograms (kg) of wool reached India, and consignments of 600 kg were seized (and released) in India during 1993 and 1994 (Bagla 1995, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). This amount alone represents 17,000 chiru. In October 1998, 14 poachers in the Tibet Autonomous Region were convicted of collectively killing 500 chiru and purchasing 212 hides, and were sentenced to 3 to 13 years imprisonment (Xinhua 1998, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). The largest enforcement action to date within China, involving several jurisdictions and dubbed the “Hoh Xil Number One Action” by Chinese authorities, resulted in the arrest of 66 poachers and the confiscation of 1,658 chiru hides in April and May 1999 (Liu 1999, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). The IFAW/WTI (2001) report lists 77 known seizures of chiru hides, raw shahtoosh, and finished shahtoosh scarves. Recent documented seizures have been of 39 kg of raw fiber in March 2001 along the Tibet-Nepal border (IFAW/WTI 2001) and 80 shahtoosh shawls in New Delhi in March 2002 [Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI) News 2002]. Most recently, a consignment of 211 kg of raw shahtoosh was seized by wildlife officials in Delhi in early April 2003 (A. Kumar, WTI, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, Division of Scientific Authority, April 6, 2003). This quantity of raw wool represents the killing of almost 1,800 chiru.
        Shahtoosh is smuggled out of China by truck or animal caravan, through Nepal or India, and into the State of Jammu and Kashmir in India. This is in violation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as well as domestic laws of the countries involved. The shahtoosh industry in the Srinagar region of Jammu and Kashmir is controlled by a wealthy, influential group of 12 to 20 families (Wright and Kumar 1997). There are about 100 to 120 family-run manufacturing operations that employ upwards of 20,000 people who prepare, weave, and finish the raw shahtoosh into scarves and shawls (IFAW/WTI 2001). The scarves are sold throughout India and smuggled abroad in violation of Indian law, CITES, and domestic legislation in many of the importing countries (Wright and Kumar 1997). Shahtoosh products have been made in Jammu and Kashmir for centuries, but the current high levels of poaching are a result of consumer demand in the West, including the United States.

        Chiru are also killed for their horns (used in traditional medicinal practices), hides, and meat (Ginsberg et al. 1999), although these uses are secondary to the use of fiber.
        C. Disease or Predation

        Schaller (1998) documented Tibetan antelope mortality caused by disease and predators such as the wolf (Canis lupus), snow leopard (Uncia uncia), lynx (Lynx lynx), brown bear (Ursus arctos), and domestic dog (Canis familiaris). He suggested that wolf predation may at one time have been a substantial mortality factor for chiru, particularly on the calving grounds. At the present time, neither disease nor predation is considered to threaten or endanger the species in any portion of its range. However, one or both of these factors may become more significant as populations decline and become increasingly fragmented because of other mortality factors.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        The Tibetan antelope was listed in Appendix II of CITES in 1975; it was transferred to Appendix I in 1979. All three countries that comprise the species' natural geographic range—China, Nepal, and India—are CITES Parties. The only reservation ever held on the species was taken by Switzerland in 1979 and withdrawn in October 1998. The Tibetan antelope is protected at a national level by China, Nepal, and India.

        In China, the chiru is a Class 1 protected species under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife (1989), which prohibits all killing except by special permit from the central government. Although China has expended considerable effort and resources in an attempt to control poaching, it has been unable to do so (SFA 1998) because of the magnitude of the poaching, the extensive geographic areas involved, and the high value of shahtoosh, which gives poachers great incentive to continue their illegal activities. On several occasions, China has appealed to other governments and organizations to eliminate the demand for and production of shahtoosh products, most recently at the 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope held in Xining, China, in October 1999 and in a Resolution adopted at the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in Kenya in April 2000 (Resolution Conf. 11.8). China re-iterated its commitment to Tibetan antelope conservation at the 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in Santiago, Chile, in November 2002 (Resolution Conf. 11.8 Rev. COP12 and Decision 12.40).
        In Nepal, the chiru is listed as an endangered species under Schedule I of Nepal's National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973) (Wright and Kumar 1997). Smugglers use Nepal as a transit route from China to India (Government of Nepal 1999), and recent investigations by WWF Nepal Program and TRAFFIC India have documented the routes used. Although Nepal has made some effort to stop the illegal trade, including the confiscation of several shahtoosh shipments, it has been unable to eliminate or control the trade. This has, in part, resulted from the lack of CITES-implementing legislation at a national level (Government of Nepal 1999). In its national report to the International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope in October 1999, the Government of Nepal indicated that it had recently prepared CITES-implementing legislation, which was awaiting approval by the Government (Government of Nepal 1999). That legislation apparently had not yet been enacted as of the 46th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (SC) in March 2002 (SC46 Doc. 11.1).

        In India, the chiru is listed on Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972), which prohibits hunting and trade in any part of the species (Wright and Kumar 1997). The northern Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir has a separate wildlife act, The Jammu and Kashmir Wild Life Protection Act (1978) (J&K Act), which is independent of national law. Chiru are listed on Schedule II of the J&K Act. Trade in Schedule II species, including shahtoosh, is permitted under certain conditions. The J&K Act specifies that state permission is required to possess Schedule II wildlife products, that unlicensed dealers are prohibited from selling these products, and that licensed dealers are required to report to the government any import of Schedule II animal products (Ginsberg et al. 1999). Despite the fact that no shahtoosh dealers have ever been licensed (Government of India 1999), the production and sale of shahtoosh shawls and other products have continued in Jammu and Kashmir. On May 1, 2000, in response to public interest litigation filed by the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir ruled that the shahtoosh trade was in violation of the J&K Act, CITES, and India's Export-Import Policy (IFAW/WTI 2001). The Government of Jammu and Kashmir set about to bring its law into compliance with national legislation and CITES, but that has not yet been completed, and the shahtoosh trade has continued. In May 2001, WPSI and WTI filed a contempt of court petition against the Jammu and Kashmir Government.
        Sale of shahtoosh shawls occurs elsewhere in India as well, although prohibited by national law. And, despite the fact that CITES and India's Customs Law prohibit the commercial import and export of shahtoosh and shahtoosh products, raw shahtoosh fiber still enters India and finished products still leave. Indian authorities have made a number of seizures of raw fiber and finished products over the years (Wright and Kumar 1997, Government of India 1999), but, because of the conflict with Jammu and Kashmir, have been unable to end the production of shahtoosh products.
        In the United States, the Appendix-I listing for the Tibetan antelope has not been adequate to control the import and sale of shahtoosh products. Although several investigations have revealed a market for shahtoosh products in the United States, the first successful prosecution was in 2001. On May 29, 2001, a Los Angeles-based clothier agreed to pay a $175,000 civil settlement for importing and selling shahtoosh shawls in violation of the ESA and the Lacey Act (Press Release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of New Jersey, dated May 29, 2001).
        CITES provisions of the Endangered Species Act prohibit engaging in trade contrary to CITES and the possession of any specimen traded contrary to CITES. Thus, once a shahtoosh shawl is successfully smuggled into the United States, enforcement officers must prove the unlawful import in order to seize that shawl. Listing the Tibetan antelope under the Act would prohibit the sale or offering for sale of shahtoosh products in interstate or foreign commerce. This would give U. S. prosecutors additional means of fighting shahtoosh smuggling and the illegal market within the United States.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
        Tibetan antelope are known to have died from exposure and malnutrition associated with severe winter weather (Schaller 1998). A blizzard in Qinghai Province killed a disproportionate number of young and yearlings, and resulted in reproductive failure in the following year.
        Summary of Findings

        The Service has reviewed the information presented in the original petition, the literature cited in that petition, all public comments received, and other available literature and information. On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, the Service's 12-month finding is that the petitioned action is warranted. The best available information indicates that the total population of Tibetan antelope has declined drastically over the past three decades. This decline has resulted primarily from overutilization for commercial purposes and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Habitat impacts, especially those caused by domestic livestock grazing, appear to be a contributory factor in the decline, and could have potentially greater impacts in the near future. Accordingly, we herein propose to list the Tibetan antelope as endangered throughout its range, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Public comments on this proposed rule will be solicited, as will peer review (see subsequent sections of this Federal Register document).
        Available Conservation Measures
        Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals.

        Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of their actions within the United States or on the high seas on any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, and on critical habitat of an endangered or threatened species, if any is designated. Because the Tibetan antelope is not native to the United States, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat for the species, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(h). With respect to the Tibetan antelope, no Federal activities, other than the issuance of CITES import and export permits, are currently required. Listing of the Tibetan antelope as endangered under the Act would require the issuance of ESA import and export permits by the Service's Division of Management Authority (DMA), and consequently a consultation with the Service's Division of Scientific Authority (DSA) under Section 7 of the Act prior to the issuance of any permit.
        The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of prohibitions and exceptions that generally apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), within U.S. territory or on the high seas, import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees or agents of the Service, and State conservation agencies. The interstate commerce prohibitions will be especially useful to the Service's efforts to curtail any illegal shahtoosh trade within the United States.

        Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are available for scientific research purposes, for enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of otherwise lawful activities. Because the Tibetan antelope is listed in Appendix I of CITES, a CITES permit is already required for import to or export from the United States. Under this rulemaking, an ESA permit would also be required for import or export of Tibetan antelopes to the United States. Prior to issuance of a permit, DMA would need to consult with DSA under Section 7 of the Act, as well as make its own determination that the application satisfies the permit-issuance criteria (i.e., research or enhancement of propagation or survival).
        Public Comments Solicited
        The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposal will be based on the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat to this species. Final action on this proposed rule will take into consideration the comments and any additional information received by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final action that differs from this proposal.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Commenters may request that we withhold their home addresses, and we will honor these requests to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we may also withhold a commenter's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public comment in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

        The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of the publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to: Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
        Peer Review

        In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek expert opinions of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register to these peer reviewers.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
        This rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 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.
        References Cited

          Bagla, P. 1995. Sustainable tigers? BBC Wildlife 15(5): 55.
          Bleisch, W. 1999. Pers. Comm. to the Tibetan Plateau Project via e-mail.
          Bonvalot, G. 1892. Across Tibet. Cassell, New York.
          Bower, H. 1894. Diary of a journey across Tibet. Macmillan, New York.
          China Daily. 1999. Qinghai closes nature reserve. December 30, 1999.
          Deasy, H. 1901. In Tibet and Chinese Turkestan. Longmans Green, New York.
          Gatesy, J., D. Yelon, R. DeSalle, and E. Vrba. 1992. Phylogeny of the Bovidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia), based on mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9: 433-446.
          Gentry, A. 1992. The subfamilies and tribes of the family Bovidae. Mammal Review 22: 1-32.

          Ginsberg, J. R., G. B. Schaller, and J. Lowe. 1999. Petition to list the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) as an endangered species pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Wildlife Conservation Society and Tibetan Plateau Project.

          Global Policy Forum. 2001. Potentially massive oil and gas find in Tibet. September 5, 2001. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/China/2001/0905disc.htm)
          Government of India. 1999. Chiru and shahtoosh. Paper presented by S.C. Sharma at 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope, Xining, China. October 1999.
          Government of Nepal. 1999. Some facts, problems and working strategies of shahtoosh trade in Nepal. Paper presented by T. Maskey at 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope, Xining, China. October 1999.
          Hedin, S. 1903. Central Asia and Tibet. 2 vols. Hurst and Blackett, London.

          Hedin, S. [1922]. 1991. Southern Tibet. Vols. 3 and 4. Reprinted by B. R. Publ. Corp., Delhi.

          IFAW/WTI (International Fund for Animal Welfare and Wildlife Trust of India). 2001. Wrap up the trade: An international campaign to save the endangered Tibetan antelope. 79 pp.
          Liu, J. 1999. China resolves to end chiru poaching. China Daily, June 30, 1999.
          Los Angeles Times. 2002. Progress hems in nomadic herders of Tibet. August 10, 2002.
          Miller, D. J. 1997. A photo essay of Himalayan and Tibetan pastoralism. In: Rangelands and pastoral development in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.
          Miller, D. J. 2000. Tough times for Tibetan nomads in Western China: Snowstorms, settling down, fences, and the demise of traditional nomadic pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples 4(1): 83-109.
          Miller, D. J. 2001. Poverty among Tibetan nomads in western China: Profiles of poverty and strategies for poverty reduction. Paper prepared for Tibet Development Symposium, May 4-6, 2001, Brandeis University.
          Miller, D. J. 2002. The importance of China's nomads. Rangelands 24(1): 22-24.
          Miller, D. J., and G. B. Schaller. 1997. Conservation threats to the Chang Tang wildlife reserve, Tibet. Ambio 26(3).
          People's Daily. 2002. Railway construction makes way for rare antelope. August 7, 2002.
          Rawling, C. 1905. The great plateau. Edward Arnold, London.
          Ridgeway, R. 2003. 275 miles on foot through the remote Chang Tang. National Geographic Magazine 203: 104-125.
          Schaller, G. B. 1993. In a high and sacred realm. National Geographic Magazine 184.
          Schaller, G. B. 1998. Wildlife of the Tibetan steppe. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 373 pp.
          Schaller, G. B. 1999. Natural history of Tibetan antelope. Paper presented by G.B. Schaller at 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope, Xining, China. October 1999.
          Schaller, G. B. and B. Gu. 1994. Comparative ecology of ungulates in the Aru Basin of northwest Tibet. National Geographic Research and Exploration 10: 266-293.
          SFA (State Forestry Administration). 1998. Conservation status of the Tibet antelope. China State Forestry Administration. December 1998. 4 pp.

          USEC (United States Embassy China). 1996. Gold mining in China: Taming the wild west. USEC Web site (http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/english/sandt/goldw.htm).
          Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder. 1993. Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference. 2nd ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC 1206 pp.
          WPSI News (Wildlife Protection Society of India). 2002. 80 shahtoosh shawls seized in Delhi. March 18, 2002.
          Wright, B. and A. Kumar. 1997. Fashioned for extinction: An expose of the shahtoosh trade. Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi. 48 pp.
          Xinhua. 1998. Tibet punishes poachers. October 28, 1998.
          Xinhuanet. 2002a. Railway suspended for Tibetan antelope migration. June 26, 2002.
          Xinhuanet. 2002b. China curbs poaching of Tibetan antelopes. October 29, 2002.
          Xinhuanet. 2002c. Extinction of Tibetan antelopes “very possible” if poaching persists: expert. August 19, 2002.
          Zhen, R. 2000. For future of [the] Tibetan antelope: Proceedings of the 1999 International Workshop on Conservation and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope held in Xining, China in October, 1999. 147 pp.

        Author
        The primary author of this proposed rule is Dr. Kurt A. Johnson, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17— [AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

          2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in alphabetical order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

            § 17.11
            Endangered and threatened wildlife.

            (h) * * *

                Species
                Common name
                Scientific name
                Historic range
                Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
                Status
                When listed
                Critical habitat
                Special rules

                  Mammals

                *         *         *         *         *         *         *

                Antelope, Tibetan (Chiru)

                  Pantholops hodgsonii

                China, India, Nepal
                Entire
                E

                NA
                NA

                *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            Dated: August 21, 2003.
            Marshall P. Jones,
            Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-25207 Filed 10-3-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [RME-OAR-2005-MD-0002; FRL-7904-3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Clarification of Visible Emissions Exception Provisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland Department of the Environment for the purpose of clarifying exception provisions of the visible emissions regulations for several source categories. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule 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 on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by May 26, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number RME-OAR-2005-MD-0002 by one of the following methods:
          A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          B. Agency Web Site:
            http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          C. E-mail:
            morris.makeba@epa.gov.

          D. Mail: RME-OAR-2005-MD-0002, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
          E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. RME-OAR-2005-MD-0002. 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.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 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 RME, regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are 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 RME or 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.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the RME index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by e-mail at miller.linda@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information on the SIP revision to clarify exceptions to visible emissions requirements, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

          Dated: April 19, 2005.
          Richard J. Kampf,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 05-8318 Filed 4-25-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 6 and 19
        [FAR Case 2009-038, Docket 2010-0095; Sequence 1]
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Tribal Consultation; Justification and Approval of Sole-Source 8(a) Contracts

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of tribal consultation and outreach meetings and request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) will hold tribal consultation and outreach meetings to discuss rulemaking associated with section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2010, Public Law 111-84. Section 811 addresses requirements for the justification and approval of sole-source contracts over $20 million under the 8(a) small business development program. Presentations made during the meetings will be taken into consideration by the FAR Council as it develops changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 811.

          DATES:

          The meetings will be held during the month of October in Washington, DC, Albuquerque, NM, and Fairbanks, AK. For more detailed information about the consultation registration procedures, dates, location, times, and agendas, please see http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/section811.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For questions about registration, the submission of comments, or for clarification of the subject matter of the consultation and outreach, submit them to the e-mail address identified at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/section811.html. Please put “Consultation Questions” in the subject line of the e-mail.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Additional Information

          Procedures for the consultation and outreach: The FAR Council respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representatives of the tribal communities that are interested in attending the consultation and outreach meeting preregister and indicate whether they would like to make a presentation during the meeting. Registration is on a first-come first-served basis. To pre-register, please go to http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/section811.html and send an e-mail to the address identified on the site with your name, organization affiliation, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and fax number, and indicate which consultation and outreach session you are interested in attending. Please put “Consultation Registration” in the subject line of the e-mail.

          Formal oral presentations: The purpose of these consultations and outreach is to encourage meaningful dialogue with tribal officials regarding the development of federal acquisition policy when implementing section 811 of the NDAA 2010. In addition, participants interested in making formal oral presentations during the meeting should provide the following information by the preregistration deadline stated on http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/section811.html: Name, organization affiliation, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and fax number. Based on the number of registrants requesting time for presentations, the FAR Council may ask participants to limit the length of their formal presentations so that all attendees wishing to speak have the opportunity to be heard and there is adequate time for discussion.

          Written comments: The FAR Council welcomes written statements from attendees making formal oral presentations, other attendees, and members of the tribal communities who are unable to attend the meeting but wish to share their views on the development of regulations to implement section 811. Written comments may be submitted to the e-mail address identified at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/section811.html. Please provide your name, organization affiliation, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and fax number. Please put “Consultation Comments” in the subject line of the e-mail. Parties wishing to have their written comments shared at the meeting should ensure comments are received by the deadlines stated on Web site.

          Meeting accommodations: The meeting is physically accessible to persons with disabilities. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Special Assistance Contact via the telephone number or e-mail address listed on http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/section811.html.

        B. Background
        Section 811 of the FY 2010 NDAA establishes a new requirement for Federal agencies to justify a sole-source contract award to a business under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) business development program, including businesses owned by Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, if the sole-source award is to exceed $20 million. The 8(a) program enables contract awards to be made to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns using the Small Business Administration (SBA) as the prime contractor to the requiring agency.
        Section 811 states that a sole-source justification must include the following information: (1) A description of the needs of the agency concerned for the matters covered by the contract, (2) a specification of the statutory provision providing the exception from the requirement to use competitive procedures in entering into the contract, (3) a determination that the use of a sole-source contract is in the best interest of the agency concerned, (4) a determination that the anticipated cost of the contract will be fair and reasonable, and (5) such other matters as the head of the agency concerned shall specify. Before an award can be made, the justification must be approved by an appropriate official, as specified in statute. Section 811 does not require a justification and approval (J&A) if the contract award is equal to or less than $20 million. Similar to the handling of J&As for other sole-source awards, J&As prepared pursuant to section 811 must be made public within 14 days after contract award is made. Finally, section 811 requires that the FAR—the government-wide regulation governing the Federal acquisition process—be revised to reflect its revisions.
        The FAR Council is responsible for overseeing the development and maintenance of the FAR, including changes to implement section 811. Its members include the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, who serves as the chair of the Council and is a senior official in the Office of Management and Budget, and senior acquisition officials from the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        The FAR Council believes the conduct of tribal consultation and outreach in connection with section 811 will be a valuable component of its deliberations in preparing to implement this law, which includes contracting with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. As explained in E.O. 13175, Tribal consultation is a critical component of a sound and productive Federal-Tribal relationship. The President's Memorandum of November 5, 2009 underscores this Administration's commitment to regular and meaningful consultation with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications. The FAR Council seeks tribal consultation and outreach in connection with section 811 to allow for constructive dialogue and an opportunity for the FAR Council to hear the views of the tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Elders and elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives on how this law may affect the ability of Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations to receive Federal contracts under the 8(a) Program. Officials from the Small Business Administration will also participate in the consultation and outreach.

        Attendees who plan to make oral presentations during the meeting are also encouraged to provide a written copy of their statements and any supplementary material they believe is relevant and will assist the FAR Council in its deliberations. Electronic or digitized copies are especially welcomed. FAR Council members or other officials representing the FAR Council may ask questions of individuals making formal oral presentations during the meeting to clarify or further explain their statements. The FAR Council will analyze the presentations, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. Following consultation and outreach and analysis of comments from the tribal community, the FAR Council will prepare a rule for review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Members of the public at large, as well as tribal officials, will have the opportunity to provide written comments on FAR changes to implement section 811, which will be considered by the FAR Council, before a final rule is promulgated.

          Dated: August 26, 2010.
          Edward Loeb,
          Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

      [FR Doc. 2010-21743 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 229
        [Docket No. 030221039-3039-01; I.D. 081602B]
        RIN 0648-AQ04
        Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations that implement the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) to identify gear modifications that sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement to western North Atlantic right whales (right whales) under the Dynamic Area Management (DAM) program and, as such, would allow NMFS to utilize the option of allowing gear with certain modifications within a DAM zone.  Specifically, NMFS proposes to identify Seasonal Area Management (SAM) anchored gillnet and lobster trap/pot gear as gear that could be allowed within a DAM zone.  NMFS also includes in this proposed rule a provision to clarify one of the SAM gear modification requirements (600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link) for lobster trap gear in Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that overlap with a SAM area.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. EST on April 3, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments on this proposed rule to Mary Colligan,  Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.  Comments will not be accepted if sent via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review for this action can be obtained from the ALWTRP website listed under the Electronic Access portion of this document.  Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting summaries, and progress reports on implementation of the ALWTRP may be obtained by writing Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 or Katherine Wang, NMFS, Southeast Region, 9721 Executive Center Dr., St.Petersburg, FL 33702-2432.  For additional ADDRESSES and web sites for document availability see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast Region, 978-281-9145; or Patricia Lawson, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/whaletrp/.  Copies of the most recent marine mammal stock assessment reports may be obtained by writing to Richard Merrick, NMFS, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543 or can be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.wh.whoi.edu/psb/sar2001.pdf.  In addition, copies of the documents entitled “Defining Triggers for Temporary Area Closures to Protect Right Whales from Entanglements: Issues and Options” and “Identification of Seasonal Area Management Zones for North Atlantic Right Whale Conservation” are available by writing to Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 or can be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/whaletrp/.

        Background
        The ALWTRP (50 CFR 229.32) is a multi-faceted plan that includes area closures, gear requirements in areas open to fixed gear fishing, gear research to develop new modifications to current practices and/or fishing techniques, a right whale Sighting Advisory System, and a disentanglement program to free whales caught in fishing gear.

        As part of the ALWTRP, NMFS issued a final rule to implement the Dynamic Area Management (DAM) program (67 FR 1133, January 9, 2002; 67 FR 65722, October 28, 2002), which clarified its authority under 50 CFR 229.32 to temporarily restrict the use of lobster traps and/or anchored gillnet gear in areas where right whales aggregate.  The DAM program establishes criteria and procedures to temporarily restrict lobster trap and anchored gillnet gear on an expedited basis within defined areas (i.e. DAM zone) north of 40° N. latitude in order to further reduce risk of entanglement to right whales by such gear.  When the criteria for establishing a DAM zone are triggered, NMFS may implement fishing restrictions within the DAM zone through publication in the Federal Register.
        Factors NMFS would consider in deciding what restrictions to implement within the DAM zone include: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.  Once a DAM zone is identified, the regulations allow NMFS to: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow modified lobster trap and anchored gillnet gear within a DAM zone for a 15-day period; and/or (3) issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period, and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period.  NMFS may either extend or shorten the duration of the DAM zone depending on the presence or absence of right whales in the DAM zone.
        While the DAM final rule did envision, at some point in the future, that DAM zones could be implemented with gear modifications, it did not identify specific gear modifications that would sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement to right whales.  Therefore, no gear modifications were included within the analysis that supported the DAM rulemaking.  This proposed rule would identify acceptable gear that could be allowed under the DAM program.  This proposed rule, if adopted, would complete the regulatory actions planned and described in the recent amendments to the ALWTRP, which included the Seasonal Area Management (SAM) program (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002; 67 FR 65722, October 28, 2002), expanded gear modifications (67 FR 1300, January 10, 2002; 67 FR 15493, April 2, 2002), as well as the DAM program.
        Proposed Lobster Trap and Anchored Gillnet Gear Modifications for Use in DAM Zones
        On January 9, 2002, NMFS established a SAM program (67 FR 1142) to protect predictable annual congregations of right whales in the waters east of Cape Cod and seaward to the outer limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  Under the SAM program, NMFS defined two areas (SAM West and SAM East) and required gear modifications for lobster trap and anchored gillnet gear within these defined areas.  The interim final rule restricts lobster trap and anchored gillnet gear set within each SAM area to those types designated as Level II or Low Risk Gear, which is defined as gear where death or serious injury resulting from entanglement would be highly unlikely.  The requirements under the SAM program are more stringent than, and in addition to, the gear modifications currently required under the ALWTRP for Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters, Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Offshore Lobster Waters, and Other Northeast Gillnet Waters.
        The information and analysis provided in the proposed rule for the SAM program (66 FR 59394, November 28, 2001) demonstrates that the gear modifications, including replacing floating line with neutrally buoyant and/or sinking  line, installing additional weak links, reducing breaking strengths for weak links and limiting the number of buoy lines (i.e. allowing only one buoy line) prevent serious injury or mortality to right whales.  NMFS estimated that the SAM requirements resulted in approximately an 85-percent reduction in floating line for offshore lobster gear and 50-percent reduction in vertical line for gillnet and lobster gear.  Thus, the SAM gear modifications reduce both the potential for interaction through a significant reduction in floating and vertical line, and the potential for serious injury or mortality through the incorporation of additional weak links at reduced breaking strengths.
        -As the DAM program was developed in advance of the SAM program, NMFS was not able to identify or analyze SAM gear as part of the DAM program.  This proposed rule identifies and analyzes the SAM gear as gear that could be used under the DAM program.  NMFS believes that Level II or Low Risk gear modifications are appropriate to allow in a DAM zone because this gear has been determined to sufficiently reduce risk of entanglement of right whales.  NMFS maintains that the data available and presented in the SAM proposed rule provides sufficient evidence that fishing with SAM modified gear in a DAM zone is unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality of a right whale.

        This proposed rule would identify SAM modified gear as gear that could be allowed under the DAM program.  NMFS analyzed additional management alternatives when deciding which type of gear modification to allow within the DAM zone (see ADDRESSES section for a copy of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Classification section's summary of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which describes other alternatives considered).  NMFS seeks comments from the public on this proposed rule and these alternatives.

        The proposed gear modifications to the ALWTRP DAM program are described below.  These requirements are more stringent than, and in addition to, the gear modifications currently required under the ALWTRP for the Offshore Lobster Waters, Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Southern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters, Great South Channel Restricted Lobster Area (July 1 through March 31), Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area (lobster trap and gillnet area descriptions), Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area (lobster trap and gillnet area descriptions; May 16 through December 31), Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area (July 1 through March 31), Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area (July 1 through March 31), Mid-Atlantic Coastal Waters (gillnet area description) and Other Northeast Gillnet Waters and are consistent with the gear restrictions implemented under the SAM program.  Time periods are incorporated to clarify when critical habitat areas are subject to the DAM program, which, as described (66 FR 50160, October 2, 2001; 67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002) and implemented by NMFS, are time periods when the requirements for critical habitat areas are no more conservative than the surrounding waters.  Additionally, proposed SAM gear modification requirements under the DAM program are applicable to ALWTRP management areas north of 40° N. latitude where a DAM zone could be triggered.
        Lobster Trap Gear
        In addition to the universal gear and gear marking requirements, fishermen utilizing lobster trap gear within the portion of the  Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Southern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters, Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area (May 16 through December 31), and Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area that overlap with a DAM zone may be required to utilize all the following gear modifications when a DAM zone is in effect:
        1. Groundlines and buoy lines must be made entirely of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line.  Floating groundlines and buoy lines are prohibited;
        2. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys; and
        3. Fishermen utilizing lobster trap gear within the DAM zone must have no more than one buoy line per trawl string.  This buoy line must be at the northern or western end of the trawl string depending on the direction of the set.
        In addition to the universal gear and gear marking requirements, fishermen utilizing lobster trap gear within the portion of the  Great South Channel Restricted Lobster Area (July 1 through March 31) and Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with a DAM zone may be required to utilize all the following gear modifications when a DAM zone is in effect:
        1. Groundlines and buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line.  Floating groundlines and buoy lines are prohibited;
        2. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys; and
        3. Fishermen utilizing lobster trap gear within the DAM zone must have no more than one buoy line per trawl string.  This buoy line must be at the northern or western end of the trawl string depending on the direction of the set.
        Anchored Gillnet Gear
        In addition to the universal gear and gear marking requirements, fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portion of the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters, Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area (May 16 through December 31), Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area, Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area (July 1 through March 31), Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area (July 1 through March 31), and Mid-Atlantic Coastal Waters that overlap with a DAM zone may be required to utilize all the following gear modifications when a DAM zone is in effect:
        1. Groundlines and buoy lines must be made of sinking or neutrally buoyant line.  Floating groundlines and buoy lines are prohibited;
        2. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg) must be placed at all buoys;
        3. Each net panel must have a total of 5 weak links with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg) each.  Net panels are typically 50 fathoms in length, but the weak link requirements would apply to all variations in panel size.  These weak links must include 3 floatline weak links.  The placement of the weak links on the floatline must be as follows: one at the center of the net panel and one each as close as possible to each of the bridle ends of the net panel.  The remaining 2 weak links must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at the panel ends;
        4. Fishermen utilizing gillnets within the DAM zone must have no more than one buoy line per net string.  This buoy line must be at the northern or western end of the gillnet string depending on the direction of the set; and
        5. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the number of net panels, must be securely anchored with the holding power of at least a 22 lb (10.0 kg) Danforth style anchor at each end of the net string.
        Clarification of Weak Link Requirement for Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that Overlap with SAM Areas-NMFS includes in this proposed rule a provision clarifying that lobster trap gear in Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that overlap with a SAM area must have a weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) at all buoys. Prior to the SAM rulemaking, the ALWTRP regulations already required a 600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link for all lobster gear in the Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters, and it was one of a suite of required options in the Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters.   Although the proposed rule for SAM discussed the relationship between the proposed SAM restrictions and the existing gear requirements within the ALWTRP, the description of the SAM lobster trap gear requirements did not explicitly articulate the weak link requirement for the portions of the Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters overlapped by the SAM areas.  NMFS noted this discrepancy in the preamble to the SAM interim final rule (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002) and intended to correct this oversight in the interim final rule.  However, although NMFS discussed these changes in the preamble of the interim final rule, NMFS inadvertently omitted this clarification from the regulatory text of the SAM interim final rule.  To dispel confusion NMFS may have caused in the SAM rulemaking, this action would amend the ALWTRP regulations to state explicitly that lobster trap gear in Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that overlap with a SAM area must have a weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) at all buoys as part of the required SAM gear modifications.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        This proposed rule would identify gear modifications that sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement to right whales under the DAM program.  The objective of this proposed rule, issued pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), is to reduce the level of serious injury and mortality of right whales in East Coast lobster trap and finfish gillnet fisheries.  The small entities affected by this proposed rule are anchored gillnet and lobster trap fishermen fishing north of 40° N. latitude.  Since DAM is used to respond to unusual and unexpected sightings of right whales, it is difficult for NMFS to predict exactly where DAM zones may be implemented in the future.  Therefore, providing an accurate estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected is problematic.  In the northeast, there are potentially 7,147 vessels fishing lobster gear and 312 vessels fishing sink gillnet gear (Bisack, 2000).  However, NMFS does not expect that number of vessels to be affected by any one DAM zone because of the limited size and duration of a DAM zone.  Data from aerial surveys in 2000 were used to retrospectively evaluate the use of the recommended DAM triggers.  Based on the analysis of this data, six DAM zones would have been triggered in 2000.  Four of the six hypothetical DAM zones would have been subsumed under the Seasonal Area Management (SAM) program and the other DAM zone would have occurred in Canadian waters, which are outside of U.S. jurisdiction.  Therefore the impacts were assessed with respect to one hypothetical DAM zone from June 20 to July 6, 2000.  For example, based on 2000 right whale sightings data and 2000 Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data, from June 20th to July 6th the proposed rule would have affected 45 lobster and sink gillnet vessels (29 lobster vessels and 16 sink gillnet vessels), which represents 0.4 percent of the vessels (0.004=29/7,147 lobster vessels) associated with the lobster fleet and 5.1 percent of the vessels (0.051=16/312 sink gillnet vessels) associated with the sink gillnet fleet in the northeast.  This proposed rule contains no reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements.  There are no relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
        Four alternatives, including a status quo or no action alternative, the preferred alternative (PA), and two other alternatives were evaluated using a retrospective analysis based on 2000 right whale sightings data and 2000 VTR data.  Under all alternatives, from June 20th to July 6th, 45 vessels, of which 29 were lobster vessels and 16 were sink gillnet vessels, were affected by a DAM zone.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        1. NMFS considered a “no action” or status quo alternative that would result in no changes to the current measures under the ALWTRP.  For the status quo, the economic impact analysis considered a complete closure to lobster and sink gillnet gear when a DAM is implemented.  In the worst case scenario, a vessel would choose not to fish and therefore incur revenue losses plus the cost of moving their gear.  Under status quo, if a lobster vessel chose not to fish outside the DAM zone, annual revenues would be reduced by 5 percent if these vessels chose not to fish from June 20th to July 6th.  It is important to note that this represents forgone revenues for one DAM zone, and a vessel could be subject to multiple DAM zones or closures that are extended in time and space.  Annual forgone revenues would be reduced by approximately 9 percent for a sink gillnet vessel if they also chose not to fish outside the DAM zone from June 20th to July 6th.
        2. The Preferred Alternative would allow SAM gear modifications to be used under the DAM program.  SAM gear modifications include, amongst other requirements, the use of neutrally buoyant or sinking line on all ground lines and buoy lines and restricts fishermen to one endline (buoy line) per trawl or string.  Under the proposed rule, if a vessel converts its gear,  Class I (length less than 35 feet (10.66m)) and Class II (length between 35 and 50 feet (15.2m)) vessels fishing lobster gear will have profits reduced by a minimum of 3 percent (maximum of 9 percent) and 1 percent (maximum of 2 percent), respectively.  A Class I (length less than 40 feet (12.2m)) and Class II (greater than 40 feet (12.2m)) vessel fishing sink gillnet gear will have profits reduced by a minimum of 0.4 percent (maximum of 0.7 percent) and 1.2 percent (maximum of 1.9 percent), respectively.
        3. NMFS considered an alternative (Non-preferred alternative (NPA) 1) that would implement SAM gear modifications with two endlines (buoy lines) and floating line on the bottom third of each endline.  Vessels fishing both lobster and sink gillnet gear have been grouped by size classes.  Under the NPA 1 plan, if a vessel converts its gear,  Class I (length less than 35 feet (10.66m)) and Class II (length between 35 and 50 feet (15.2m)) vessels fishing lobster gear will have profits reduced by a minimum of 3 percent (maximum of 10 percent) and 1 percent (maximum of 3 percent), respectively.  A Class I (length less than 40 feet (12.2m)) and Class II (greater than 40 feet (12.2m)) vessel fishing sink gillnet gear will have profits reduced by a minimum of 0.4 percent (maximum of 0.7 percent) and 1.5 percent (maximum of 2.2 percent), respectively.
        4. NMFS considered an alternative (NPA 2) that would implement SAM gear modifications with two endlines (buoy lines).  Thus, this alternative would allow lobster trap and anchored gillnet fishermen to retain a second end line on each end of the lobster trap or gillnet trawl.  Vessels fishing both lobster and sink gillnet gear have been grouped by size classes.  Under the NPA 2 plan, if a vessel converts its gear,  Class I (length less than 35 feet (10.66m)) and Class II (length between 35 and 50 feet (15.2m)) vessels fishing lobster gear will have profits reduced by a minimum of 3.5 percent (maximum of 10.7 percent) and 1 percent (maximum of 3 percent), respectively.  A Class I (length less than 40 feet (12.2m)) and Class II (greater than 40 feet (12.2m)) vessel fishing sink gillnet gear will have profits reduced by a minimum of 0.5 percent (maximum of 0.7 percent) and 1.6 percent (maximum of 2.3 percent), respectively.
        NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal management program of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states.  This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.  No state disagreed with our conclusion that this proposed  rule is consistent with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program for that state.
        This proposed rule contains policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.  Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs will provide notice of the proposed action to the appropriate official(s) of affected state, local, and/or tribal governments.

        This proposed rule would also clarify that vessels in Northern Inshore State and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters must install and use a 600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link at each buoy when fishing in SAM West during the time it overlaps the Norther Inshore State and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters.  Requiring a 600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link in those waters rather than a 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) weak link would benefit right whales since more right whales would be able to break a 600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link and each whale would have to exert less force since the breaking strength is lower. The impacts of this proposed requirement on small entities falls within the scope of the regulatory flexibility analyses performed in conjunction with the original SAM proposed and interim final rules.  The December 2001 SAM EA/RIR analyzed impacts of requiring a 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) weak link, rather than a 600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link.  The cost of a 600 lb (272.4 kg) weak link is similar or less than the cost of the 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) weak link used in the analysis and the effects of using a 600 lb weak link on fishing operations were considered and analyzed while promulgating the December 21, 2000, interim final rule (65 FR 80368).  Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(a) and (c), no further analysis is required.  Copies of the SAM EA/RIR are available upon request.  (see ADDRESSES.)

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229

        Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  February 25, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 229 as follows:

            PART 229—AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972
          -1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

        -

          2. In § 229.32, paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(B) is revised and paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii) is added to read as follows:

            § 229.32
            Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

            (g) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (iii) * * *

            (B) Allow fishing within a DAM zone with anchored gillnet and lobster trap gear, provided such gear satisfies the requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(B)(1) and (g)(4)(i)(B)(2). These requirements are in addition to requirements found in § 229.32 (b) through (d) but supercede them when the requirements in paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(B)(1) and (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) are more restrictive than those in § 229.32 (b) through (d).  Requirements for anchored gillnet gear in Other Northeast Gillnet Waters are as specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(1) and requirements for lobster trap gear in Offshore Lobster Waters, Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters and Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters are as specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2).  Requirements for anchored gillnet gear in Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area (May 16 through December 31), Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area, Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area (July 1 through March 31), Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area (July 1 through March 31), and Mid-Atlantic Coastal Waters are the same as requirements for Other Northeast Gillnet Waters.  Requirements for lobster trap gear in Southern Nearshore Lobster Waters, Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area (May 16 through December 31) and Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area are the same as requirements for Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters and Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters.  Requirements for lobster trap gear in the Great South Channel Restricted Lobster Area (July 1 through March 31) are the same as requirements for Offshore Lobster Waters.

            (4) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (B) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (ii) Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters areas buoy weak links-  All buoy lines must be attached to the buoy with a weak link having a maximum breaking strength of up to 600 lb (272.4 kg).  Weak links may include swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate diameter, hog rings, rope stapled to a buoy stick, or other materials or devices approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 03-4897 Filed 3-3-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S