        NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
        45 CFR Part 613
        RIN 3145-AA43
        Proposed Changes to Exemptions Under CFR Part 613—Privacy Act Regulations

          AGENCY:
          National Science Foundation.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Part 613.5 Exemptions will be amended to add (g) Statistical records. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4), the Foundation hereby exempts the systems of records entitled “Doctorate Records Files,” “Doctorate Work History Files,” and “National Survey of Recent College Graduates & Follow-up Files” from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f).

          DATES:
          June 30, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Address all comments concerning this notice to Leslie Jensen, National Science Foundation, Office of the General Counsel, Room 1265, Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Leslie Jensen: (703) 292-8060.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        You may submit comments by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to ljensen@nsf.gov.

        Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Identify all comments sent in electronic e-mail with subject line: Comments to proposed changes.

          Lawrence Rudolph,
          General Counsel.

          List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 613
          Privacy.

        For the reason stated in the preamble, the National Science Foundation proposes to revise 45 CFR Part 613 as follows:

          PART 613—PRIVACY ACT REGULATORY

            Sec.
            613.1
            General provisions
            613.2
            Requesting access to records
            613.3
            Responding to requests for access to records
            613.4
            Amendment of records
            613.5
            Exemptions
            613.6
            Other rights and services

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 552a.

            § 613.1
            General Provisions.

            This part sets forth the National Science Foundation procedures under the Privacy Act of 1974. The rules in this part apply to all records in systems of records maintained by NSF that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals, as defined in the Privacy Act, may request access to records about themselves and request amendment or corrections of those records. All Privacy Act requests for access to records are also processed under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (as provided in Part 612 of this chapter), which gives requesters the benefit of both statutes. Notice of systems of records maintained by the National Science Foundation are published in the Federal Register.

            § 613.2
            Requesting access to records.
            (a) Where to make a request. You may make a request for access to NSF records about yourself by appearing in person at the National Science Foundation or by making a written request. If you choose to visit the Foundation, you must contact the NSF Security Desk and ask to speak with the Foundation's Privacy Act Officer in the Office of the General Counsel. Written requests should be sent to the NSF Privacy Act Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, VA 22230. Written requests are recommended, since in many cases it may take several days to determine whether a record exists, and additional time may be required for record(s) retrieval and processing.
            (b) Description of requested records. You must describe the records that you seek in enough detail to enable NSF personnel to locate the system of records containing them with a reasonable amount of effort. Providing information about the purpose for which the information was collected, applicable time periods, and name or identifying number of each system of records in which you think records about you may be kept, will help speed the processing of your request. NSF publishes notices in the Federal Register that describe the systems of records maintained by the Foundation. The Office of the Federal Register publishes a biennial “Privacy Act Compilation” that includes NSF system notices. This compilation is available in many large reference and university libraries, and can be accessed electronically at the Government Printing Office's Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/PrivacyAct.shtml.

            (c) Verification of identity. When requesting access to records about yourself, NSF requires that you verify your identify in an appropriate fashion. Individuals appearing in person should be prepared to show reasonable picture identification such as driver's license, government or other employment identification card, or passport. Written requests must state your full name and current address. You must sign your request and your signature must be notarized, or submitted by you under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain information about these required elements for requests from the NSF Privacy Act Officer, Suite 1265, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, or from the NSF Home Page under “Public & Media Information—FOIA and Privacy Act” at http://www.nsf.gov/home/pubinfo/foia.htm. In order to help agency personnel in locating and identifying requested records, you may also, at your option, include your social security number, and/or date and place of birth. An individual reviewing his or her record(s) in person may be accompanied by an individual of his or her choice after signing a written statement authorizing that individual's presence. Individuals requesting or authorizing the disclosure of records to a third party must verify their identify and may specifically name the third party and identify the information to be disclosed.
            (d) Verification of guardianship. When making a request as the parent or guardian of a minor or as the guardian of someone determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be incompetent, for access to records about that individual, you must establish:
            (1) The identity of the record subject, by stating individual's name and current address and, at your option, the social security number and/or date and place of birth of the individual;
            (2) Your own identity, as required in paragraph (c) of this section;
            (3) That you are the parent or guardian of that individual, which you may prove by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing your parentage or by providing a court order establishing your guardianship; and
            (4) That you are acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.
            (e) The procedures of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall also apply to requests made pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3).

            § 613.3
            Responding to requests for access to records.
            (a) Timing of responses to requests. The Foundation will make reasonable effort to act on a request for access to records within 20 days of its receipt by the Privacy Act Officer (excluding date of receipt, weekends, and legal holidays) or from the time any required identification is received by the Privacy Act Officer, whichever is later. In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Foundation will include only records in its possession as of the date of receipt. When the agency cannot complete processing of a request within 20 working days, the Foundation will send a letter explaining the delay and notifying the requester of the date by which processing is expected to be completed.
            (b) Authority to grant or deny requests. The Privacy Act Officer, or his or her designee in the office with responsibility for the requested records, is authorized to grant or deny access to a Foundation record.
            (c) Granting access to records. When a determination is made to grant a request for access in whole or part, the requester will be notified as soon as possible of the Foundation's decision. Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged fee to any agency within 30 days of the date of billing, NSF may require the requester to pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee, before NSF  begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request from that requester.
            (1) Requests made in person. When a request is made in person, if the records can be found, and reviewed for access without unreasonable disruption of agency operations, the Foundation may disclose the records to the requester directly upon payment of any applicable fee. A written record should be made documenting the granting of the request.
            If a requester is accompanied by another person, the requester shall be required to authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the other person.
            (2) Request made in writing. The Foundation will send the records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fee.
            (d) Denying access to records. The requester will be notified in writing of any determination to deny a request for access to records. The notification letter will be signed by the Privacy Act Officer, or his or her designee, as the individual responsible for the denial and will include a brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any Privacy Act exemption(s) applied in denying the request.
            (e) Fees. The Foundation will charge for duplication of records requested under the Privacy Act in the same way it charges for duplication under the Freedom of Information Act (see 45 CFR 612.10). No search or review fee may be charged for the record unless the record has been exempted from access under Exemptions (j)(2) or (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.

            § 613.4
            Amendment of records.
            (a) Where to make a request. An individual may request amendment of records pertaining to him or her that are maintained in an NSF Privacy Act system of records, except that certain records described in paragraph (h) of this section are exempt from amendment. Request for amendment of records must be made in writing to the NSF Privacy Act Officer, National Science Foundation, Suite 1265, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
            (b) How to make a request. Your request should identify each particular record in question, state the amendment you want to take place, and specify why you believe that the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. You may submit any documentation that you think would be helpful. Providing an edited copy of the record(s) showing the desired change will assist the agency in making a determination about your request. If you believe that the same information is maintained in more than one NSF system of records you should include that information in your request. You must sign your request and provide verification of your identity as specified in 613.2(c).
            (c) Timing of responses to requests. The Privacy Act Officer, or his or her designee, will acknowledge receipt of request for amendment within 10 working days of receipt. Upon receipt of a proper request the Privacy Act Officer will promptly confer with the NSF Directorate or Office with responsibility for the records to determine if the request should be granted in whole or part.
            (d) Granting request for amendment. When a determination is made to grant a request for amendment in whole or part, notification to the requester will be made as soon as possible, normally within 30 working days of the Privacy Act Officer receiving the request, describing the amendment made and including a copy of the amended record, in disclosable form.
            (e) Denying request for amendment. When a determination is made that amendment, in whole or part, is unwarranted, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the Inspector General, if it pertains to records maintained by the Office of the Inspector General, or to the attention of the General Counsel, if it pertains to other NSF records. If the General Counsel or Inspector General or their designee agrees with the determination that amendment is not warranted, the Privacy Act Officer will notify the requester in writing, normally within 30 working days of the Privacy Act Officer receiving the request. The notification letter will be signed by the Privacy Act Officer or his or her designee, and will include a statement of the reason(s) for the denial and how to appeal the decision.
            (f) Appealing a denial. You may appeal a denial of a request to amend records to the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1265, Arlington, VA 22230. You must make your appeal in writing and it must be received by the Office of the General Counsel within ten days of the receipt of the denial (weekends, legal holidays, and the date of receipt excluded). Clearly mark your appeal letter and envelope “Privacy Act Appeal.” Your appeal letter must include a copy of your original request for amendment and the denial letter, along with any additional documentation or argument you wish to submit in favor of amending the records. It must be signed by you or your officially designated representative.
            (g) Responses to appeals. The General Counsel, or his or her designee, will normally render a decision on the appeal within thirty working days after proper receipt of the written appeal by the General Counsel. If additional time to make a determination is necessary you will be advised in writing of the need for an extension.
            (1) Amendment appeal granted. If on appeal the General Counsel, or his or her designee, determines that amendment of the record should take place, you will be notified as soon as possible of the Foundation's decision. The notification will describe the amendment made and include a copy of the amended record, in disclosable form.
            (2) Amendment appeal denied—Statement of disagreement. If on appeal the General Counsel, or his or her designee, upholds a denial of a request for amendment of records, you will be notified in writing of the reasons why the appeal was denied and advised of your right to seek judicial review of the decision. The letter will also notify you of your right to file with the Foundation a concise statement setting forth the reasons for your disagreement with the refusal of the Foundation to amend the record. The statement should be sent to the Privacy Act Officer, who will ensure that a copy of the statement is placed with the disputed record. A copy of the statement will be included with any subsequent disclosure of the record.
            (h) Records not subject to amendment. The following records are not subject to amendment:
            (1) Transcripts of testimony given under oath or written statements made under oath;
            (2) Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, judicial proceedings, or quasi-judicial proceedings, which are the official record of those proceedings;
            (3) Pre-sentence records that originated with the courts; and

            (4) Records in systems of records that have been exempted from amendment under Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) by notice published in the Federal Register.

            § 613.5
            Exemptions.
            (a) Fellowships and other support. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the Foundation hereby exempts from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d) any materials which would reveal the identity of references of fellowship or other award applicants or nominees, or reviewers of applicants for Federal contracts (including grants and cooperative agreements) contained in any of the following systems of records:
            (1) “Fellowships and Other Awards,”
            (2) “Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records,”
            (3) “Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records,” and
            (4) “Reviewer/Fellowship and Other Awards File and Associated Records.”
            (b) OIG Files Compiled for the Purpose of a Criminal Investigation and for Related Purposes. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the Foundation hereby exempts the system of records entitled “Office of Inspector General Investigative Files,” insofar as it consists of information compiled for the purposes of a criminal investigation or for other purposes within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a, except for subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), and (i).
            (c) OIG and ACA Files Compiled for Other Law Enforcement Purposes. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the Foundation hereby exempts the systems of records entitled “Office of Inspector General Investigative Files” and “Antarctic Conservation Act Files” insofar as they consist of information compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f).
            (d) Investigations of Scientific Misconduct. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), the Foundation hereby exempts from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d) any materials which would reveal the identity of confidential sources of information contained in the following system of records: “Debarment/Scientific Misconduct Files.”
            (e) Personnel Security Clearances. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the Foundation hereby exempts from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d) any materials which would reveal the identity of confidential sources of information contained in the following system of records: “Personnel Security.”
            (f) Applicants for Employment. Records on applicants for employment at NSF are covered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) government-wide system notice “Recruiting, Examining and Placement Records.” These records are exempted as claimed in 5 CFR 297.501(b)(7).
            (g) Statistical records. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4), the Foundation hereby exempts the systems of records entitled “Doctorate Records Files,” “Doctorate Work History Files,” and “National Survey of Recent College Graduates & Follow-up Files” from the application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f).
            (h) Other Records. The Foundation may also assert exemptions for records received from another agency that could properly be claimed by that agency in responding to a request.

            § 613.6
            Other rights and services.
            Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the Privacy Act.

      [FR Doc. 05-10701  Filed 5-27-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7535-01-M


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 0612242929-7038-01]
        RIN 0648-AT93
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Precious Corals Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Black coral resources in the Au'au Channel, Hawaii, have declined, possibly due to fishing pressure and alien invasive species. Current fishing regulations impose size requirements for the harvest of living black coral colonies of 48 inches (122 cm) in height or one inch (2.54 cm) in stem diameter. Current regulations also exempt certain fishermen from the minimum stem diameter requirement, allowing the harvest of black coral with a 3/4 inch (1.91 cm) stem diameter by anyone who reported black coral harvests to the State of Hawaii within the five years prior to April 17, 2002. This proposed rule would remove that exemption, and is intended to reduce the impacts of fishing on Au'au Channel black coral resources.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by September 6, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “AT93BlackCoral”, by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: AT93BlackCoral@noaa.gov. Include “AT93” in the subject line of the message. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a file size of 10 megabytes.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.
          The regulatory amendment is available from Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St. 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karla Gore, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2273.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the World Wide Web at the Office of the Federal Register:
        www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
        Background
        The fishery for black coral in Federal waters around Hawaii is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Precious Corals of the Western Pacific Region (FMP). The FMP was developed by the Council under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Regulations implementing the FMP appear at Subpart F of 50 CFR part 665 and subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
        Black corals are slow-growing and have low rates of natural mortality and recruitment. Natural populations are relatively stable and a wide range of age classes is generally present. These life-history characteristics (longevity and many year classes) have two important consequences with respect to exploitation: the response of the population to over-harvesting is drawn out over many years, and, because of the longevity of individuals and the associated slow rates of turnover in the populations, a long period of reduced fishing effort is required to restore the ability of the stock to produce at the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) if a stock has been over-exploited for several years.
        Since the harvesting of Hawaii black coral began in the late 1950s, generally fewer than 10 fishermen have been active in the fishery at any time. Participation has probably been limited by the relatively small market for black coral in Hawaii, and by the dangers of fishing operations--harvesting is done by hand using scuba at depths as great as 230 ft (70 m). Most of the catch comes from the Au'au Channel, south of Maui. Three commercial black coral harvesters are permitted by the State of Hawaii, and one is Federally-permitted. Nonetheless, landings of black coral have increased over the past two decades, and landings in the last seven years have comprised 58 percent of the total catch since 1985.

        Black coral biomass in the Au'au Channel decreased almost 25 percent between 1976 and 2001. The causes of the reduction in biomass appear to be a combination of fishing pressure and the invasion of Carijoa riisei, an alien species of snowflake coral that smothers black coral colonies. The purpose of this proposed rule is to reduce the impacts of fishing on black coral resources in Federal waters of the Au'au Channel.
        Current regulations at 50 CFR 665.86(b)(1) contain minimum size requirements for the harvest of black coral colonies in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Hawaii. Colonies must be 48 inches (122 cm) tall or one inch (2.54 cm) in stem diameter. The stem measurement must be made no closer than one inch (2.54 cm) from the top of the living holdfast. Current regulations also contain a provision at 50 CFR 665.86(b)(2) that exempts certain fishermen from the minimum stem diameter requirement, allowing the harvest of black coral with a 3/4 inch (1.91 cm) stem diameter by anyone who reported harvests to the State of Hawaii within the five years prior to April 17, 2002. In response to concerns about the declining black coral resource, the Council examined a range of alternatives and has recommended removing that exemption, limiting all further harvests of live black corals to those colonies that are at least 48 inches (122 cm) tall or one inch (2.54 cm) in stem diameter.
        At its 129th Meeting on October 18, 2005, the Council voted to recommend that NMFS amend the regulations governing the minimum size requirements for the black coral fishery in Hawaii to remove the stem diameter exemption. The revised regulations would require that all harvested living black coral have a stem diameter of one inch (2.54 cm) or a height of 48 inches (122 cm). The Council prepared a regulatory amendment that contains background information on the issue, biological and economic impact analyses, and proposed regulatory changes.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS, based on the Council's analysis, prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.

        There are three permitted vessels in the fishery, but only two have reported landings in Hawaii. Both vessels are considered to be small entities under the Small Business Administration definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are not independently-owned or operated, are not dominant in its field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million. Specific net revenues by individual vessels cannot be presented in this IRFA due to confidentiality restraints, but the potential economic impacts are discussed below. There are no disproportionate impacts between vessels participating in the fishery based on home port, vessel size, or gear type.
        Description of Alternatives
        Six alternatives were considered by the Council. Preferred Alternative 3 would remove the minimum size exemption provision; the minimum stem diameter requirement of one inch (2.54 cm) and minimum height of 48 inches (122 cm) would be in effect for all participants fishing in EEZ waters of the Au'au Channel. Under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, the black coral fishery would continue to be conducted according to existing regulations. Alternative 2 would modify existing regulations to remove the black coral minimum height requirement. Alternative 4 would modify existing regulations to remove the black coral minimum base diameter requirement and the exemption. Alternative 5 would modify existing regulations to remove the minimum height requirement, and remove the base diameter exemption. Alternative 6 would modify existing regulations to establish a moratorium for black coral harvest in the Au'au Channel for five years, during which time scientific research would be conducted on recruitment and stock recovery.
        Economic Impacts of Alternatives
        The preferred Alternative 3, which would remove the exemption from minimum size requirements, and Alternative 6, which would implement a 5-year moratorium on black coral landings, would cause adverse economic impacts to the three entities that comprise the current fishery because they would not be allowed to harvest black coral in the way they are now allowed to under the current management regime, thus potentially limiting their landings. It is estimated that black coral harvesters would be impacted by a reduction of approximately 15 percent gross receipts under Alternative 6, and could be impacted by as much as a 15 percent reduction in gross receipts under the preferred Alternative 3. A 15 percent reduction would occur only if all corals currently harvested in Federal waters are harvested under the base requirement exemption. Otherwise, gross receipt reductions of 0 to 15 percent would occur under the preferred alternative depending upon the relative contribution of currently exempted products to the overall harvest. All other alternatives described above, excluding the no-action Alternative 1, which represents no change in net benefits to the affected small entities, could yield potential beneficial impacts to the fishery participants relative to the proposed alternative. However, these alternatives were not chosen since they would not be consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the MSA in that they would weaken the regulatory protection to black corals resources by removing size restrictions.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian Natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 31, 2007.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        l. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 665.86, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 665.86
          Size restrictions.

          (b) Black Coral. Live black coral harvested from any precious coral permit area must have attained either a minimum stem diameter of 1 inch (2.54 cm), or a minimum height of 48 inches (122 cm).

      [FR Doc. E7-15209 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
        RIN 2126-AB20
        Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public listening session.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session to solicit information, concepts, ideas, and comments on Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) and the issue of driver harassment. Specifically, the Agency wants to know what factors, issues, and data it should consider as it addresses the distinction between productivity and harassment: what will prevent harassment from occurring; what types of harassment already exist; how frequently and to what extent harassment happens; and how an electronic device such as an EOBR, capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment. This session will be held in Louisville, Kentucky (KY), and will allow interested persons to present comments, views, and relevant new research that FMCSA should consider in development of the final rule. This listening session will be recorded and a transcript of the session will be placed in the docket for FMCSA's consideration. The listening session will also be webcast via the Internet.

          DATES:
          The listening session will be held on Friday, March 23, 2012, at the Mid-America Trucking Show in Louisville, KY. The listening session will run from 10 a.m.-12 p.m., with a break between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., and continue from 2 p.m.-4 p.m. local time, or earlier, if all participants wishing to express their views have done so.

          ADDRESSES:
          The listening session will be held at the Kentucky Exposition Center (KEC), 937 Phillips Lane, Louisville, KY 40209, South Wing, Meeting Room C-101.

            Internet Address for Live Webcast. FMCSA will post specific information on how to participate via the Internet on the FMCSA web site at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov in advance of the listening session.
          You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0167 using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

          Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line.

            Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information concerning the listening session or the live webcast, please contact Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor for Policy, FMCSA, (202) 385-2395, Shannon.Watson@dot.gov.
          Should you need sign language interpretation or other assistance to participate in this listening session, also contact Ms. Shannon L. Watson, at the above phone number, by Thursday, March 8, 2012, to allow us to arrange for such services. There is no guarantee that services requested on short notice can be provided.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        On February 13, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of intent in the Federal Register announcing the Agency's plan for the Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents rulemaking (EOBR 2) by working towards preparing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) (77 FR 7562). In this notice, FMCSA stated it would do the following: (1) Hold listening sessions on the issue of driver harassment; (2) task the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to assist in developing material to support this rulemaking, including technical specifications for EOBRs and their potential to be used to harass drivers; and (3) conduct research by surveying drivers, carriers, and vendors regarding harassment issues.
        The following discussion summarizes the recent regulatory history of the agency's EOBR program:
        EOBR 1
        On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued a final rule (EOBR 1) (75 FR 17208) that provided new technical requirements for EOBRs. The EOBR 1 final rule also required the limited, remedial use of EOBRs for motor carriers with significant hours-of-service (HOS) violations. The EOBR 1 final rule required a motor carrier found to have a 10 percent violation rate for any HOS regulation listed in Appendix C of 49 CFR part 385 during a single compliance review to install and use EOBRs on all of its CMVs for a period of 2 years. The compliance date for the rule was June 4, 2012.

        The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) challenged the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. OOIDA raised several concerns relating to EOBRs and their potential use for driver harassment. On August 26, 2011, the Court vacated the entire final rule. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n et al. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d. 580 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court held that, contrary to statutory requirements, the Agency failed to address the issue of driver harassment, including how EOBRs could potentially be used to harass drivers and ways to ensure that EOBRs were not used to harass drivers. The basis for the decision was FMCSA's failure to directly address a requirement in 49 U.S.C. 31137(a) which reads as follows:

          USE OF MONITORING DEVICES. If the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation about the use of monitoring devices on commercial motor vehicles to increase compliance by operators of the vehicles with hours of service regulations of the Secretary, the regulation shall ensure that the devices are not used to harass vehicle operators. However, the devices may be used to monitor productivity of the operators.

        The court's expectation about how the Agency should address harassment and productivity under the statutory directive included the following:

          In addition, an adequate explanation that addresses the distinction between productivity and harassment must also describe what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring. The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist, how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment. A study of these problems with EOBRs already in use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices, might be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs might have on driver harassment (Id. at 588-89).

        As a result of the vacatur, carriers relying on electronic devices to monitor HOS compliance are currently governed by the Agency's previous rules regarding the use of automatic on-board recording devices (49 CFR 395.15). The requirements set forth in 49 CFR 395.15 were not affected by the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding the technical specifications set out in 49 CFR 395.16 in the EOBR 1 Final Rule.
        Meeting Participation and Information FMCSA Seeks From the Public
        The listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks will be limited to five minutes each. The public may submit material to the FMCSA staff at the session for inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-2010-0167. FMCSA will docket the transcription of the listening session that will be prepared by an official court reporter.

        FMCSA tasked the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) with addressing harassment through Task 12-01, titled, “Measures to Ensure Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) Are Not Used to Harass Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Operators”. MCSAC held public meetings on this task on February 7-8, 2012, and based on its deliberations, submitted a report to the FMCSA Administrator on February 8, 2012. This report is available for review at: http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/meeting.htm and the public docket, FMCSA-2010-0167. The questions posed to MCSAC will be used as a template for public comment and discussion at the listening session.
        The comments sought from the questions below may be submitted in written form at the session and summarized verbally, if desired:
        1. In terms of motor carriers' and enforcement officials' monitoring or review of drivers' records of duty status (RODS), what would constitute driver harassment? Would that definition change based on whether the system for recording HOS is paper or electronically based? If so, how? As a starting point, the Agency is interested in potential forms of harassment, including but not limited to those that are: (1) Not prohibited already by current statutes and regulations; (2) distinct from monitoring for legitimate business purposes (e.g., efforts to maintain or improve productivity); and (3) facilitated or made possible solely by EOBR devices and not as a result of functions or features that motor carriers may choose to purchase, such as fleet management system capabilities. Is this interpretation appropriate? Should it be broader? Or narrower?

        2. Are there types of driver harassment to which drivers are uniquely vulnerable if they are using EOBRs rather than paper logs? If so, what and how would use of an EOBR rather than a paper log make a driver more susceptible to harassment? Are there ways in which the use of an EOBR rather than a paper log makes a driver less susceptible to harassment?

        3. What types of harassment are motor carrier drivers subjected to currently, how frequently, and to what extent does this harassment happen? How would an electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier guard against (or fail to guard against) this kind of harassment? What experience have motor carriers and drivers had with carriers using EOBRs as compared to those who do not use these devices in terms of their effect on driver harassment or complaints of driver harassment?
        4. What measures should the Agency consider taking to eliminate the potential for EOBRs to be used to harass drivers? Are there specific functions and capabilities of EOBRs that should be restricted to reduce the likelihood of the devices being used to harass vehicle operators?
        5. Motor carriers are often responsible for managing their drivers and equipment to optimize efficiency and productivity and to ensure transportation services are provided in accordance with a planned schedule. Carriers commonly use electronic devices, which may include but are not limited to EOBRs, to enhance productivity and optimize fleet operation. Provided such devices are not used to coerce drivers into violating Federal safety regulations, where is the line between legitimate productivity measures and inappropriate oversight or actions that may be construed as harassment?
        II. Alternative Media Broadcasts During and Immediately After the Listening Session on March 23, 2012

        FMCSA will webcast the listening session on the Internet. Specific information on how to participate via the Internet and the telephone access number will be on the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov. FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and a separate transcription of the listening session that will be prepared by an official court reporter.

          Issued on: February 24, 2012.
          William A. Bronrott,
          Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2012-4876 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [WT Docket No. 10-254; DA 13-6]
        Comment Deadline Extended for Updated Information and Comment on Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) extends the time within which to file comments on the Public Notice seeking updated information and comment on review of hearing aid compatibility regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before January 22, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 10-254, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail.

          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jennifer Flynn, Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0612 or by email Jennifer.Flynn@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WT Docket No. 10-254, DA 13-6, released January 3, 2013. The full text of the Order is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 202-488-5300 or 800-378-3160 (voice), 202-488-5562 (TTY), 202-488-5563 (fax), or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 13-6. The Comment Deadline Extended for Updated Information and Comment Sought on Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations
          Public Notice is available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/document/hearing-aid-compatibility-review-additional-comments-sought and related documents are also available by using the search function for WT Docket No. 10-254 on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web page at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
        Summary
        1. On November 27, 2012, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public Notice in which it granted, on its own motion, an extension of time to file comments in its ongoing review of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules (77 FR 72294, December 5, 2012). That Public Notice set the deadline for filing comments on January 7, 2013.
        2. On December 31, 2012, the law firm of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP (BloostonLaw) filed a request to extend the comment deadline until January 22, 2013. BloostonLaw states that the extension will alleviate the “conflicting time demands” on counsel who must both file comments in this proceeding and prepare Form 655 reports that are due from service providers on January 15, 2013. BloostonLaw further states that the January 7th comment deadline will deprive the Commission and the public of the benefit of comments based on experiences encountered during the Form 655 reporting window.
        3. The Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time, 47 CFR 1.46(a). However, given the proximity of the filing deadline to the end of the Form 655 filing window, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau finds that an extension of time for filing comments is warranted.
        Procedural Matters

        Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by email or facsimile, or if delivered as paper copy, by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set forth above for paper filings), to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM or (202) 488-5563 (facsimile).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Jane E. Jackson,
          Associate Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2013-00552 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 721
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225; FRL-9923-81]
        RIN 2070-AJ99
        Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances; Significant New Use Rule; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register January 21, 2015, concerning long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances and perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) chemical substances. This document extends the comment period for 90 days, from March 23, 2015, to June 26, 2015. The comment period is being extended because EPA received several comments asserting that there may be significant implications for the supply chain and it is critical that interested stakeholders have sufficient time to respond to the proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2885) is extended. Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225, must be received on or before June 26, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2885) (FRL-9915-63).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Toni Krasnic, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0984; email address: krasnic.toni@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register proposed rule of January 21, 2015. This proposed rule for LCPFAC chemical substances is proposing to designate as a significant new use manufacturing (including importing) or processing of an identified subset of LCPFAC chemical substances for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing uses. For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make inapplicable the exemption for persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances as part of articles. In addition, EPA is also proposing to amend a SNUR for PFAS chemical substances that would make inapplicable the exemption for persons who import PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on March 23, 2015, to June 26, 2015.

        To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of January 21, 2015. If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: March 9, 2014.
          Wendy C. Hamnett,
          Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

      [FR Doc. 2015-05958 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
        30 CFR Parts 870 and 872
        RIN 1029-AC47
        Coal Production Fees and Fee Allocation

          AGENCY:
          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          In response to a request from the trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, we are extending the comment period for the proposed rule published in the September 17, 2004, Federal Register concerning fees and fee allocations under the abandoned mine reclamation program provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act).

          DATES:

            Electronic or written comments: We will accept written comments on the proposed rule until 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, on December 16, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment on the proposed rule, you may submit your comments by any of the following methods to the address indicted:
          • E-mail: osmregs@osmre.gov. Please include docket number 1029-AC47 in the subject line of the message.
          • Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 210, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Please identify the comments as pertaining to docket number 1029-AC47.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http//www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions provided at http://www.regulations.gov under the “How to Comment” heading for this rule.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dennis Rice, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: (202) 208-2829. E-mail address: drice@osmre.gov. You will find additional information concerning OSM, fees on coal production, and Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, and abandoned mine reclamation in general on our home page at http://www.osmre.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On September 17, 2004, we published a proposed rule setting forth procedures and criteria for the establishment of fees under section 402(b) of SMCRA. That section of the Act provides that, when the rates set forth in section 402(a) of the Act expire, the fee for coal produced after that date “shall be established at a rate to continue to provide for the deposit referred to in subsection (h) [of section 402 of SMCRA].” Section 402(h) requires the annual transfer of certain estimated Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund earnings to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund. The proposed rule also contained revisions to the regulations governing allocation and disposition of fee collections and other Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund income. For a full explanation of the proposed rule, please refer to the rule text and preamble published at 69 FR 56132-56144.
        At the time the rule was published, the fee rates set forth in section 402(a) of the Act would have expired on September 30, 2004. However, a continuing resolution enacted on September 30, 2004, extended those rates through November 20, 2004. See section 125 of Public Law 108-309. Further continuing resolutions or appropriations legislation may provide for additional extensions of the statutory rates or revisions thereof.

        The comment period on the proposed rule was originally scheduled to close on November 16, 2004. However, by letter dated November 10, 2004, the trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund requested a 30-day extension of that deadline. We are granting that request, which means that all interested persons may submit electronic or written comments until December 16, 2004, in accordance with the instructions provided in DATES and ADDRESSES above and in Part X of the preamble to the September 17, 2004, rule (see 69 FR 56140).

          Dated: November 18, 2004.
          Jeffrey D. Jarrett,
          Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

      [FR Doc. 04-26195  Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-05-M


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 090206144-9186-01]
        RIN 0648-AX49
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fisheries; 2009 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2009 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery, including state-by-state commercial quotas, a recreational harvest limit, and recreational possession limits for Atlantic bluefish off the east coast of the United States. The intent of these specifications is to establish the allowable 2009 harvest levels and possession limits to attain the target fishing mortality rate (F), consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on March 17, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AX49, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov,
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Regional Administrator.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on 2009 Bluefish Specifications.”

          Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The regulations implementing the FMP are prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. Regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.160. The management unit for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean.
        The FMP requires that the Council recommend, on an annual basis, total allowable landings (TAL) for the fishery, consisting of a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit (RHL). A research set aside (RSA) quota is deducted from the bluefish TAL (after any applicable transfer) in an amount proportional to the percentage of the overall TAL as allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors. The annual review process for bluefish requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review and make recommendations based on the best available data, including, but not limited to, commercial and recreational catch/landing statistics, current estimates of fishing mortality, stock abundance, discards for the recreational fishery, and juvenile recruitment. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes a recommendation to the Northeast Regional Administrator (RA). This FMP is a joint plan with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission); therefore, the Commission meets during the annual specification process to adopt complementary measures.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to assure they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not. NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in the Federal Register. After considering public comment, NMFS will publish final specifications in the Federal Register.
        In July 2008, the Monitoring Committee and SSC met to discuss the updated estimates of bluefish stock biomass and project fishery yields for 2009. In August 2008, the Council approved the SSC and Monitoring Committee's recommendations and the Commission's Bluefish Board (Board) adopted complementary management measures.
        Proposed Specifications
        Updated Model Estimates

        According to Amendment 1 to the FMP (Amendment 1), overfishing for bluefish occurs when F exceeds the fishing mortality rate that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), or the maximum F threshold to be achieved. The stock is considered overfished if the biomass (B) falls below the minimum biomass threshold, which is defined as 1/2 BMSY. Amendment 1 also established that the long-term target F is 90 percent of FMSY (FMSY = 0.19, therefore Ftarget = 90 percent of FMSY = 0.17), and the long-term target B is BMSY = 324 million lb (146,964 mt). The rebuilding plan established through Amendment 1 stipulates that the target fishing mortality rate (Ftarget) in 2009 be set at F = 0.31 (based upon earlier estimates of FMSY, which was updated by the 41st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC-41) in 2005), or the status quo fishing mortality rate (F2007), whichever is less.

        An age-structured assessment program (ASAP) model for bluefish was approved by SARC-41 in 2005 to estimate F and annual biomass. The ASAP model was updated for the purpose of estimating the current status of the bluefish stock; i.e., 2007 biomass and F estimates, in order to enable the Monitoring Committee and SSC to recommend 2009 specifications using landings information and survey indices through the 2007 fishing year. The results of the assessment update were as follows: (1) An estimated stock biomass for 2007, B2007 = 339.2 million lb (153,843 mt); and (2) projected yields for 2009 using Ftarget = F2007 = 0.15. Based on the updated 2007 estimate of bluefish stock biomass, the bluefish stock is not considered overfished: B2007 = 339.2 million lb (153,843 mt) is greater than the minimum biomass threshold, 1/2 BMSY = 162 million lb (73,526 mt), and is actually above BMSY. The bluefish stock, therefore, appears to be fully rebuilt. Estimates of fishing mortality have declined from 0.41 in 1991 to 0.15 in 2007. The new model results also conclude that the Atlantic stock of bluefish is not experiencing overfishing; i.e., the most recent F (F2007 = 0.15) is less than the maximum F overfishing threshold specified by SARC-41 (FMSY = 0.19).
        2009 TAL

        The FMP specifies that the bluefish stock is to be rebuilt to BMSY over a 9-year period (i.e., by the year 2010). The FMP requires the Council to recommend, on an annual basis, a level of total allowable catch (TAC) consistent with the rebuilding program in the FMP. An estimate of annual discards is deducted from the TAC to calculate the TAL that can be made during the year by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors combined. The TAL is composed of a commercial quota and a RHL. The FMP rebuilding program requires the TAC for any given year to be set based either on the target F resulting from the stock rebuilding schedule specified in the FMP (0.31 for 2009), or the F estimated in the most recent fishing year (F2007 = 0.15), whichever is lower. Therefore, the 2009 recommendation is based on an estimated F of 0.15. An overall TAC of 34.081 million lb (15,459 mt) was recommended as the coast-wide TAC by the Council at its August 2008 meeting to achieve the target fishing mortality rate, (F = 0.15) in 2009, and to ensure that the bluefish stock continues to remain above the long-term biomass target, BMSY.
        The proposed TAL for 2009 is derived by subtracting an estimate of discards of 4.725 million lb (2,143 mt), the average discard level from 2005-2007, from the TAC. After subtracting estimated discards, the 2009 TAL would be approximately 4 percent greater than the 2008 TAL, or 29.356 million lb (13,316 mt). Based strictly on the percentages specified in the FMP (17 percent commercial, 83 percent recreational), the commercial quota for 2009 would be 4.991 million lb (2,227 mt), and the RHL would be 24.366 million lb (11,052 mt) in 2009. In addition, up to 3 percent of the TAL may be allocated as RSA quota. The discussion below describes the recommended allocation of TAL between the commercial and recreational sectors, and the proportional adjustments to account for the recommended bluefish RSA quota.
        Proposed Commercial Quota and Recreational Harvest Limit
        The FMP stipulates that, in any year in which 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), the commercial quota may be increased up to 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt) as long as the recreational fishery is not projected to land more than 83 percent of the TAL in the upcoming fishing year, and the combined projected recreational landings and commercial quota would not exceed the TAL. At the Monitoring Committee meeting in July 2008, Council staff estimated projected recreational landings for the 2009 fishing year by using simple linear regression of the recent (2001-2007) temporal trends in recreational landings. At that time, recreational landings were projected to reach 24.719 million lb (11,212 mt) in 2009. Therefore, projected 2009 recreational landings were slightly greater than the initial 2009 RHL. As such, a transfer of quota to the commercial sector could not occur based on those data, resulting in a significantly reduced commercial quota for 2009. Any amount of transfer would likely have caused the TAL to be exceeded. This option, therefore, represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council in its specifications document.
        However, the Council also recommended that, if later projections based on more complete data indicate that recreational harvest is below 83 percent of the TAL, the difference be transferred to the commercial sector in the final specifications. NMFS Northeast Regional Office staff recently updated the recreational harvest projection using Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) data through Wave 5 of 2008, and estimated the recreational harvest to be approximately 19.528 million lb (8,858 mt), or 67 percent of the TAL. Following the Council's recommendation, this would allow for a transfer to the commercial fishery of 4.838 million lb (2,194 mt), increasing the commercial quota from 4.991 million lb (2,227 mt) to 9.828 million lb (4,458 mt). This commercial quota is 27 percent greater than the 2008 quota, and 86 percent greater than actual 2008 commercial landings.
        RSA
        A request for proposals was published to solicit research proposals to utilize RSA in 2008 based on research priorities identified by the Council (February 8, 2008; 73 FR 7528). One research project that would utilize bluefish RSA has been preliminarily approved by the RA and forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office. Therefore, a 97,750-lb (44,339-kg) RSA quota is proposed for use by this project, or other potential research projects, during 2009. This proposed rule does not represent NOAA's approval of any RSA-related grant award, which will be included in a subsequent action. Consistent with the allocation of the bluefish RSA, the proposed commercial quota for 2009 would be adjusted to 9.731 million lb (4,414 mt) and the proposed RHL to 19.528 million lb (8,858 mt). Therefore, NMFS proposes a commercial quota of 9.731 million lb (4,414 mt), an RHL of 19.528 million lb (8,858 mt), and an RSA quota of 97,750 lb (44,339 kg) for the 2009 bluefish fishery.
        Proposed Recreational Possession Limit
        The Council recommends, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the current recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person to achieve the RHL.
        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        The proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2009 commercial quota are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP. These quotas do not reflect any adjustments for quota overages that may have occurred in some states in 2008. Any potential deductions for states that exceeded their quota in 2008 will be accounted for in the final rule.

          Table 1. Proposed Bluefish Commercial State-by-State Allocations for 2009 (including RSA deductions).

            State
            Percent Share
            2009 Commercial Quota (lb)
            2009 Commercial Quota (kg)

            ME
            0.6685
            65,049
            29,506

            NH
            0.4145
            40,333
            18,295

            MA
            6.7167
            653,575
            296,462

            RI
            6.8081
            662,469
            300,496

            CT
            1.2663
            123,219
            55,892

            NY
            10.3851
            1,010,533
            458,378

            NJ
            14.8162
            1,441,702
            653,956

            DE
            1.8782
            182,760
            82,900

            MD
            3.0018
            292,093
            132,493

            VA
            11.8795
            1,155,945
            524,337

            NC
            32.0608
            3,119,709
            1,415,100

            SC
            0.0352
            3,425
            1,554

            GA
            0.0095
            924
            419

            FL
            10.0597
            978,869
            444,015

            Total
            100.0001
            9,730,601
            4,413,801

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the SUMMARY. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        No large entities participate in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate effects on small versus large entities. Information on costs in the fishery are not readily available and individual vessel profitability cannot be determined directly. Therefore, changes in gross revenues were used as a proxy for profitability. In the absence of quantitative data, qualitative analyses were conducted.
        The participants in the commercial sector were defined using two sets of data. First, the Northeast dealer reports were used to identify any vessel that reported having landed 1 lb (0.45 kg) or more of bluefish during calendar year 2007 (the last year for which there is complete data). These dealer reports identified 709 vessels that landed bluefish in states from Maine to North Carolina. However, this database does not provide information about fishery participation in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify 856 vessels1 that landed bluefish in North Carolina and 586 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast. Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast in 2007. In recent years, approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels may have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.

            1 Some of these vessels were identified in the Northeast dealer data; therefore, double counting is possible.

        The IRFA in the Draft EA analyzed three alternatives (including the no action/status quo alternative) for allocating the TAL between the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery. Consistent with the FMP's rebuilding schedule and the status of the resource as assessed by the revised SARC-41 report and the updated model projections, Alternative 1 was based on an overall TAL of 29.356 million lb (13,316 mt) and included an RSA quota of 97,750 lb (44,339 kg). Alternative 2 applies F = 0.17 based on a rebuilt bluefish stock, resulting in a TAL of 32.205 million lb (14,608 mt). Alternative 3, the no action/status quo alternative, includes an overall TAL of 28.156 million lb (12,771 mt). The preferred NMFS alternative, not analyzed in the Draft EA, also applies the TAL used in the Council's preferred alternative: 29.356 million lb (13,316 mt). Outside of the difference in the overall TAL specification, the alternatives differed only in the manner in which the TAL was allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors.
        Alternative 1 would allocate 4.974 million lb (2,256 mt) to the commercial sector and 24.285 million lb (11,015 mt) to the recreational sector, reflecting the percentage allocations specified in the FMP (i.e., the 17-percent commercial/83-percent recreational sector split). Alternative 2 would allocate 7.486 million lb (3,396 mt) to the commercial sector and 24.719 million lb (11,212 mt) to the recreational sector. Alternative 3 would allocate 7.678 million lb (3,483 mt) to the commercial sector and 20.380 million lb (9,244 mt) to the recreational sector, reflecting the commercial harvest level that was in place in 2008 (i.e., status quo). The NMFS preferred alternative, not included in the Draft EA, would allocate 9.731 million lb (4,414 mt) to the commercial sector and 19.528 million lb (8,858 mt) to the recreational sector (Table 2), consistent with the Council's recommendation to utilize the recent updated projection for 2009 recreational harvest.

          Table 2. Proposed 2009 Atlantic Bluefish Specification Alternatives for TAL, Commercial Quota, and RHL (million lb).

            TAL
            Commercial Quota
            RHL

            Alternative 1
            29.356 (13,316 mt)
            4.974 (2,256 mt)
            24.285 (11,015 mt)

            Alternative 2
            32.205 (14,608 mt)
            7.486 (3,396 mt)
            24.719 (11,212 mt)

            Alternative 3
            28.156 (12,771 mt)
            7.678 (3,483 mt)
            20.380 (9,244 mt)

            NMFS Preferred
            29.356 (13,316 mt)
            9.731 (4,414 mt)
            19.528 (8,858 mt)

        For the commercial sector, the recommended coast-wide quota is approximately 26 percent higher than the 2008 commercial quota, and 86 percent higher than 2008 commercial landings. Based on available data, approximately 32 percent of the TAL was not harvested during the 2008 fishing year. Only one state, New York, fully harvested its initial bluefish quota and received allocation transfers from other states in 2008. Four additional states, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and North Carolina, harvested more than 50 percent of their bluefish quotas, while the remaining states only harvested between 0 and 40 percent of their allocations. Given these recent trends in landings, it is unlikely that the proposed TAL will be fully harvested in 2009, resulting in no overall coastwide economic impacts on the bluefish fishery. The economic impacts of the NMFS preferred alternative are therefore likely to be neutral or positive relative to the status quo and other alternatives. For states that did not harvest their quotas in 2008, the proposed 2009 quotas are also not expected to result in any detrimental impacts. For states that exceeded their initial quota allocations in 2008, but received quota transfers from other states, the apparent economic losses would likely be mitigated by quota transfers during 2009, therefore resulting in no overall impacts. For states that exceeded their post-transfer quota allocations in 2008, any economic impacts would be solely due to the overage in landings.
        Impacts on individual commercial vessels were assessed by conducting a threshold analysis using the dealer reports for the 709 vessels that landed bluefish from Maine through North Carolina in 2007. For Alternative 1, the 2009 commercial quota would be approximately 35 percent lower than in 2008. The analysis projected that there would be no revenue change for 36 vessels, while 602 vessels could incur slight revenue losses of less than 5 percent. Approximately 71 vessels would incur revenue losses of more than 5 percent, including 16 vessels that would incur revenue losses of at least 40 percent. The majority of these vessels have home ports in New York and New Jersey. Of the 71 vessels that may experience revenue losses of at least 5 percent, 30 percent had gross sales of $1,000 or less, and 58 percent had gross sales of $10,000 or less, indicating that dependence on income from fishing for some of these vessels is very small.
        The impacts of Alternative 1 on commercial vessels in the South Atlantic were assessed using trip ticket data. The analysis concluded that, as a consequence of the 2009 allocation compared to 2007 landings, there would be revenue losses of 3.1 percent for vessels that land bluefish in North Carolina, but no loss of revenue for vessels that land in Florida.
        The analysis of Alternative 2, which includes a 2.5-percent reduction in the commercial quota from 2008, concluded that there would be no revenue change for 147 vessels, while 513 vessels could incur slight revenue losses (less than 5 percent). Another 46 vessels could incur revenue losses of between 5 percent and 29 percent, while 3 vessels could incur revenue losses of greater than 29 percent. Most of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses of greater than 5 percent had home ports in New York and New Jersey. The analysis of impacts of Alternative 2 on commercial vessels in the South Atlantic concluded that no revenue reduction would be expected for vessels that land bluefish in North Carolina or Florida.
        The analysis of Alternative 3, which maintains the status quo for commercial quota, concluded that there would be no change in revenue for 147 vessels, while 517 vessels could incur slight revenue losses (less than 5 percent). Another 45 vessels could incur revenue losses of between 5 percent and 49 percent, and zero vessels would incur revenue losses of greater than 49 percent. The analysis of impacts of Alternative 3 on vessels in the South Atlantic concluded that no revenue reduction would be expected for vessels that land bluefish in North Carolina or Florida.
        For the recreational sector of the fishery, there were no negative revenue impacts projected to occur with regard to the RHL, because the level considered in each alternative is equal to or above the recreational landings projected for 2009 (19.528 million lb (8,858 mt)). The recommended RHL is lower than the other alternatives, and lower than the RHL implemented in 2007 (21.163 million lb (9,599 mt)) and 2008 (20.414 million lb (9,260 mt)). This reduction in RHL, however, is commensurate with an apparent decline in recreational bluefish harvest during 2008, and projected to continue in 2009. Although there is very little empirical evidence regarding the sensitivity of charter/party anglers to regulation, it is anticipated that the proposed harvest levels will not affect the demand for charter/party boat trips.
        The IRFA also analyzed the impacts on revenues of the proposed RSA amount and found that the social and economic impacts are minimal. Assuming that the full RSA of 97,750 lb (44,339 kg) is landed and sold to support the proposed research project (a supplemental finfish survey in the Mid-Atlantic), then all of the participants in the fishery would benefit from the anticipated improvements in the data underlying the stock assessments. Because the recommended overall commercial quota is higher than 2008 landings, no overall negative impacts are expected in the commercial sector. Based on recent trends in the recreational fishery, recreational landings will more than likely remain below the recommended harvest level in 2009.

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

          Dated: February 23, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-4284 Filed 2-27-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S