        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057; FF09M21200-134-FXMB1231099BPP0]
        RIN 1018-AY87
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2013-14 Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; supplemental.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2013-14 hunting season. This supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their March meetings.

          DATES:

            Comments: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2013-14 duck hunting seasons on or before June 22, 2013. Following subsequent Federal Register notices, you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 27, 2013, and for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2013.

            Meetings: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory bird hunting on June 19 and 20, 2013, and for late-season migratory bird hunting and the 2014 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska on July 31 and August 1, 2013. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

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

            Meetings: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240; 703-358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Regulations Schedule for 2013
        On April 9, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 21200) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed early-season frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in early August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 16, 2013, and for late seasons on or about September 14, 2013.
        Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
        The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet June 19-20, 2013, to review information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 2013-14 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.

        At the July 31-August 1, 2013, meetings, the Committee will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2013-14 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop recommendations for the 2014 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska.
        In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed.
        Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
        Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated.
        • Atlantic Flyway Council: July 18-19, Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT.
        • Mississippi Flyway Council: July 25-26, Biddle Hotel and Conference Center, Bloomington, IN.
        • Central Flyway Council: July 25-26, The Lodge at Sierra Blanca, Ruidoso, NM.
        • Pacific Flyway Council: July 26, Siena Hotel, Reno, NV.
        Review of Public Comments

        This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 9, 2013, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the preliminary proposals and do not include recommendations that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no recommended alternatives. Our responses to some Flyway Council recommendations, but not others, are merely a clarification aid to the reader on the overall regulatory process, not a definitive response to the issue. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks.
        We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items identified in the April 9 proposed rule. Only those categories requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations are discussed below.
        1. Ducks
        Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management.
        A. General Harvest Strategy

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.

          Service Response: As we stated in the April 9 Federal Register, the final AHM protocol for the 2013-14 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
        B. Regulatory Alternatives

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2012-13.

          Service Response: As we stated in the April 9 Federal Register, the final regulatory alternatives for the 2013-14 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
        D. Special Seasons/Species Management
        i. September Teal Seasons

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils recommended that the daily bag limit be increased from 4 to 6 teal in the aggregate during the Special September teal season. The Atlantic Flyway Council also recommended that we allow Maryland to adjust existing shooting hours during the Special September teal season from sunrise to one-half hour before sunrise on an experimental basis during 2013-15 seasons.
        vi. Scaup

          Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended modifying the “moderate” regulatory alternative for the States of the Central Flyway from a 74-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit to a 74-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit. The Council recommended no changes to the “restrictive” and “liberal” alternative.
        2. Sea Ducks

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the Service amend the annual waterfowl hunting regulations at 50 CFR 20.105 to allow the shooting of crippled waterfowl from a motorboat under power in New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in those areas described, delineated, and designated in their respective hunting regulations as special sea duck hunting areas.
        4. Canada Geese
        A. Special Seasons

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended increasing the daily bag limit in Minnesota from 5 geese to 10 geese during the special September season in certain areas of the State.
        B. Regular Seasons

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose seasons in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2013, and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan be September 11, 2013.
        9. Sandhill Cranes

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended implementation of a 3-year experimental 60-day sandhill crane season in Tennessee beginning in the 2013-14 season.
        The Central Flyway Council recommended increasing the season length in North Dakota's eastern sandhill crane hunting zone (Area-2) from 37 to 58 days in length.
        The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommend using the 2013 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of 771 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 3-year running average for 2010-12.
        16. Mourning Doves

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States within the Eastern Management Unit population of mourning doves resulting in a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit. The daily bag limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination.

        The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the standard (or “moderate”) season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2013-14 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit. They also recommended that the Special White-winged Dove Area be expanded to Interstate Highway 37 in the 2013-14 season.
        The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of doves, which represents no change from last year's frameworks.
        The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils also recommended that the present interim mourning dove harvest strategy be replaced by a new national mourning dove harvest strategy for implementation beginning with the 2014-15 season. The new strategy uses a discrete logistic growth model based on information derived from the banding program, the Harvest Information Program, and the mourning dove parts collection survey to predict mourning dove population size in a Bayesian statistical framework. The method is similar to other migratory bird strategies already in place and performs better than several other modeling strategies that were evaluated by the National Mourning Dove Task Force. The strategy uses mourning dove population thresholds to determine a regulation package for mourning doves for each year.
        23. Other

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended increasing the possession limits for sora and Virginia rails from 2 to 3 times the aggregate daily bag limit, consistent with the Council's proposed bag limits for all other migratory game birds during normal established hunting seasons.
        The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended increasing the possession limit from 2 to 3 times the daily bag limit for doves.
        The Pacific Flyway Councils recommended increasing the possession limit from 2 to 3 times the daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons, special September Canada goose seasons, snipe, falconry, and Alaska seasons for brant, sandhill cranes, and geese (except dusky Canada geese).
        The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service increase the possession limit from 2 times to 3 times the daily bag limit for all migratory game bird species and seasons except for Canada geese or other overabundant species for which no current possession limits are currently assigned (e.g., light geese), where there would continue to be no possession limits. The Council also recommended no change for those species that currently have permit hunts (e.g., cranes and swans). The Council recommends these changes be implemented beginning in the 2013-14 season. New and/or experimental seasons could have different possession limits if justified. The Council further recommended that possession limits not apply at one's personal permanent residence and specifically recommended language to modify 50 CFR 20.39 to do so.

          Service Response: The issue of possession limits was first raised by the Flyway Councils in the summer of 2010. At that time, we stated that we were generally supportive of the Flyways' interest in increasing the possession limits for migratory game birds and appreciated the discussions to frame this important issue (75 FR 58250; September 23, 2010). We also stated that we believed there were many unanswered questions regarding how this interest could be fully articulated in a proposal that satisfies the harvest management community, while fostering the support of the law enforcement community and informing the general hunting public. Thus, we proposed the creation of a cross-agency Working Group, chaired by the Service, and comprised of staff from the Service's Migratory Bird Program, State Wildlife Agency representatives, and Federal and State law enforcement staff, to develop a recommendation that fully articulates a potential change in possession limits. This effort would include a discussion of the current status and use of possession limits, which populations and/or species/species groups should not be included in any proposed modification of possession limits, potential law enforcement issues, and a reasonable timeline for the implementation of any such proposed changes.
        After discussions last year at the January SRC meeting, and March and July Flyway Council meetings, the Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended that the Service increase the possession limit from 2 times to 3 times the daily bag limit for all migratory game bird species and seasons except for those species that currently have possession limits of less than 2 times the daily bag limit (e.g., some rail species), permit hunts (e.g., cranes and swans), and for overabundant species for which no current possession limits are assigned (e.g., light geese), beginning in the 2013-14 season (77 FR 58444; September 20, 2012). These recommendations from the Councils are one such outgrowth of the efforts started in 2010. With the new recommendation from the Mississippi Flyway Council and the additional input and recommendations from all four Flyway Councils from their March 2013 Council meetings, we plan to prepare a proposal for the SRC's consideration and discussion at the June 19-20 SRC meeting for the 2013-14 hunting seasons.
        Additionally, as we discussed in the April 9 proposed rule (78 FR 21200), when our initial review of possession limits was instituted in 2010, we also realized that a review of possession limits could not be adequately conducted without expanding the initial review to include other possession-related regulations. In particular, it was our belief that any potential increase in the possession limits should be done in concert with a review and update of the wanton waste regulations in 50 CFR 20.25. We believed it prudent to review some of the long-standing sources of confusion (for both hunters and law enforcement) regarding wanton waste. A review of the current Federal wanton waste regulations, along with various State wanton waste regulations, has been recently completed, and we anticipate publishing a proposed rule this summer to revise 50 CFR 20.25.
        Lastly, we recognize that there are other important issues surrounding possession that need to be reviewed, such as termination of possession (as recommended by the Mississippi Flyway Council). However, that issue is a much larger and more complex review than the wanton waste regulations and the possession limit regulations. We anticipate starting a review of termination of possession regulations upon completion of changes to the wanton waste and possession limits regulations.
        Public Comments
        The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

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

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

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
        For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is significant because it will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
        An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2007-08 season, (2) Issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08 season. For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, and the 2012-13 seasons. At this time, we are proposing no changes to the season frameworks for the 2013-14 season, and as such, we will again consider these three alternatives. However, final frameworks will be dependent on population status information available later this year.

        Recently, new economic data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey has become available. As such, we are currently updating our previous economic analysis and plan to have it available for public review and comment later this summer. Until such time as our new analysis is available, we will continue to make the 2008-09 analysis available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.
        Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        Other Required Determinations
        Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the proposed rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive orders, see our April 9, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 21200):
        • National Environmental Policy Act;
        • Endangered Species Act;
        • Regulatory Flexibility Act;
        • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
        • Paperwork Reduction Act;
        • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
        • Executive Orders 12630, 12988, 13175, 13132, and 13211.

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

        Authority
        The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2013-14 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

          Dated: June 3, 2013.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2013-14070 Filed 6-13-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 062703B]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

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

          ACTION:
           Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

           NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that an application to issue EFPs for up to 100 commercial lobster vessels, submitted by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MEDMR), contains all the information required by the regulations governing exempted experimental fishing under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and, therefore, warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under these EFPs would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the American lobster (lobster) fishery under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) and is within the scope of earlier analyses of the impacts.  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue 100 EFPs.  Therefore, NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator has made a preliminary decision to issue EFPs that would allow up to 100 current federally permitted lobster and/or Maine state lobster/crab license-holders to conduct fishing operations otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the lobster fishery.
          Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:
           Comments on this notification must be received on or before July 24, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
           Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MEDMR Jonah crab EFP Proposal.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
          Copies of the Draft 2003 Amendment to the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the 2003/2004 Experimental Jonah Crab Fishery in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Nearshore Lobster Management Area 1, as well as the May 2002 environmental assessment that it amends are available from the Northeast Regional Office at the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Bonnie Van Pelt, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9244.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator intends to issue EFPs to allow up to 100 commercial lobster vessels to use up to 200 modified lobster traps per vessel to target Jonah crabs (Cancer borealis) within the EEZ portion of Nearshore Lobster Management Area 1 (NLMA1).  The EFPs would facilitate the collection of data on modified lobster trap designs (side-entry and top-entry) to establish acceptable lobster bycatch thresholds and allow for the development of an exempted, species-specific Jonah crab trap.  Specifically, the EFPs would allow these vessels to fish 200 traps above their 800-trap allocation and exempt them from the lobster fishery regulations at 50 CFR part  697:   (1) Permit, tagging, and trap limit requirements under § 697.4(a) and (d), and § 697.19(a)(2) and (c); (2) temporary possession of lobster less than the minimum carapace size specified at § 697.20(b)(1) and (2) for data collection purposes; (3) trap tag identification requirements at § 697.21(a)(2); and (4) deployment and gear configuration requirements at § 697.21(b)(2).
        The MEDMR submitted a request for a renewal of the 2002/2003 Jonah crab experiment on March 10, 2003.  Additional information and data required to supplement the application was received on June 10, 2003.  The original application anticipated the need for 2 additional years beyond the first year in order to gauge the effectiveness of the gear modifications and collect the data necessary to support a potential permanent exemption to the lobster gear regulations.  Along with the bycatch reduction objective, complementary goals of the EFP would be to:  (1) contribute to the development of year-round Jonah crab markets; (2) provide additional economic opportunities for lobster and crab fishermen who are currently being held to a maximum trap limit; and (3) provide important biological and demographic data on the Jonah crab resource, thus contributing to baseline information on the Jonah crab life cycle and population structure.
        The proposed experimental fishery would take place from September 15, 2003, to September 15, 2004, in the EEZ portion of NLMA1 described at 50 CFR 697.18(a)(1).  The proposed EFP would require that the experimental gear employ escape vents that are larger (and in greater numbers) than standard lobster traps.  The side- and top-entry trap dimensions would be the same as that which was authorized for the initial EFP.
        Comparing the top-entry, side-entry, and standard lobster trap designs, the MEDMR logbook data thus far suggest that a modified side-entry trap may be the best design for targeting Jonah crabs with negligible lobster bycatch (and other regulated species), indicating that the proposed experimental traps are extremely selective for the targeted species.  There were 88 sublegal and 17 legal lobster caught in 3,360 side-entry trap hauls (3,900 total experimental trap hauls thus far).  All lobster bycatch was returned to the sea alive.  The catch of Jonah crabs under the EFP was small when contrasted with Maine landings in the crab fishery as a whole (approximately 36,000 lb (7257 kg) of Jonah crabs caught under the EFP with 9.5 million lb (4309 mt) caught overall--0.4 percent of the total landings).
        All lobsters caught incidentally to the catch of Jonah crabs, as well as all crabs smaller than the MEDMR minimum size of 5 inch (127 mm) carapace width, and all other bycatch, would continue to be returned to the sea promptly after data collection.  The MEDMR remains committed to providing the same level of observer coverage as in the previous year's experiment (2 trips per month).  Observer data would continue to complement the information collected by participants through the MEDMR-supplied logbooks, along with detailed fisheries information (e.g., bycatch information, molt condition, etc.).
        The August 13, 2002, Biological Opinion on the Jonah crab EFP analyzed impacts on protected resources over the anticipated time frame of the experiment (1 year initially and renewal for 2 additional years).  The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that was developed for this fishery as a result of the consultation (neutrally buoyant line on all experimental traps during the June-October time frame) would remain in effect during the 2003/2004 EFP.  As was the case previously, EFP participants would be required to comply with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan requirements in effect at the time of the experiment.  The 2002/2003 EFP had the potential to deploy 2,000 additional vertical lines, assuming an additional 20,000 traps (200 traps x 100 participants) with a 10-trap minimum per vertical line.  In 2002-2003, actual participation levels were 15 percent of the authorized maximum and the number of traps set per fisher ranged from 20-100 experimental traps.  No interactions with protected species or marine mammals were reported during the 2002/2003 EFP.  The proposed EFP would not represent a change or redistribution of effort, therefore further consultation is not necessary.
        The EA prepared for the 2002 Jonah crab EFP concluded that the activities conducted under the 2002/2003 EFP were consistent with the goals and objectives of the lobster fishery under the ACFCMA and would have no negative environmental impacts including impacts to essential fish habitat, marine mammals, and protected species.  The draft 2003 Amendment to the 2002 EA makes a preliminary determination that the proposed experimental fishery, including cumulative effects, would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
        Based on the results of the EFPs, this action may lead to future rulemaking.

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

          Dated: July 3, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-17380 Filed 7-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
        [EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0252; FRL-8446-2]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Clean Air Interstate Rule Nitrogen Oxides Annual Trading Program

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Texas on August 4, 2006, as the Texas Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Annual Abbreviated SIP. The abbreviated SIP revision EPA is proposing to approve includes the Texas methodologies for allocation of annual NOX allowances for Phase 1 of CAIR, the control periods 2009 through 2014, and for allocating allowances from the compliance supplement pool (CSP) in the CAIR NOX annual trading program. EPA is proposing to determine that the Texas CAIR NOX Annual Abbreviated SIP revision satisfies the applicable requirements of a CAIR abbreviated SIP revision. Upon the effective date of approval of the Texas CAIR NOX Annual Abbreviated SIP revision, EPA by ministerial action will note in the Texas CAIR NOX Annual Federal Implementation Plan's (FIP) incorporated regulations that the Texas rules for annual NOX allowances under Phase 1 of CAIR and allocating allowances from the CSP apply, rather than the Federal FIP rules.
          The intended effect of this action is to reduce NOX emissions from the State of Texas that are contributing to nonattainment of the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) in downwind states. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is (214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at wiley.adina@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        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 relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant 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. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the 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.

        For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: July 16, 2007.
          Richard E. Greene,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

      [FR Doc. E7-14484 Filed 7-27-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 11
        [PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC 15-77]
        Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on proposed changes to its rules governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to incorporate three new event codes into and revise two geographic location codes identified in the EAS rules.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before September 9, 2015 and reply comments are due on or before September 24, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 04-296 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: 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 the Commission continues 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.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission 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:

          Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by email at Lisa.Fowlkes@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 15-94, FCC 15-77, adopted on July 8, 2015, and released on July 10, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

        Synopsis of the NPRM
        1. In the NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to revise the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules, as set forth in a letter and subsequent comments filed by the National Weather Service (NWS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Specifically, NWS requests that the Commission add three new EAS event codes, covering extreme wind and storm surges, as well as revise the territorial boundaries of the geographic location codes for two offshore marine areas listed in the EAS rules as location codes 75 and 77. The Commission agrees with NWS that targeted, specific warnings “will help the public and emergency officials better respond to local threat(s).”
        I. Background

        2. The EAS is a national public warning system through which broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending emergencies and dangers to life and property. The primary purpose of the EAS is to provide the President with “the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public at the national, state and local levels during periods of national emergency.” The EAS also is used by state and local governments, as well as NWS, to distribute alerts. According to NWS, about 90 percent of all EAS activations are generated by NWS and relate to short-term weather events. The Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the NWS implement the EAS at the federal level. The EAS is a broadcast-based, hierarchical alert message distribution system through which an alert message originator at the local, state or national level encodes (or arranges to have encoded) a message in the EAS Protocol, which provides basic information about the emergency involved. The message is then broadcast by one or more EAS Participants and subsequently relayed from one station to another until all affected EAS Participants have received the alert and delivered it to the public. This process of EAS alert distribution among EAS Participants is often referred as the “daisy chain” distribution architecture.

        3. The EAS Protocol utilizes fixed codes to identify various aspects of the alert. Of particular relevance to this NPRM, the EAS Protocol utilizes a three-character “event code” to describe the nature of the alert (e.g., “TOR” signifies tornado). The EAS Protocol identifies “National” event codes, such as the EAN and National Periodic Test (NPT), which EAS Participants use as part of required Presidential alerts and tests, and “State and Local” event codes, such as TOR, which EAS Participants use when they deliver weather and other voluntary alerts. In addition, the EAS Protocol utilizes six-digit numerical location codes to identify the geographic area(s) to which the alert applies, two digits of which, the “SS” codes, indicate the state, territory, or, in this case, the offshore marine area to which the alert applies. Unlike the state and territory geographic location codes, which are based on the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, the codes assigned to the offshore marine areas were created by the NWS and adopted by the Commission in 2002 at NWS's request.
        II. Discussion
        A. Proposed EAS Event Codes

        4. NWS requests that the Commission add a new “Extreme Wind Warning” (EWW) event code to provide the public with advance notice of the onset of extreme sustained surface winds (greater than or equal to 115 miles per hour) associated with a major land-falling hurricane (category 3 or higher). NWS explains that use of the “Tornado Warning” (TOR) event code, then the only available code to warn of high winds, caused confusion when used to warn of Hurricane Charley's high winds in 2004. NWS states that although it started using the EWW code during the 2007 hurricane season, EAS Participants are “reluctant to add and relay the new [e]vent [c]ode via the EAS, fearing FCC adverse action without addition of the new EWW Event Code to the Part 11.” According to NWS, no other existing EAS event code is adequate or acceptable to activate the EAS for an extreme wind warning. Although section 11.31 of the rules contains other codes regarding hurricanes (i.e., HUW for Hurricane Warning, HUA for Hurricane Watch, HLS for Hurricane Statement), those codes apply generally to the hurricane event itself, and are not specifically tailored to warn of extreme sustained surface winds associated with a (Category 3) hurricane.
        5. NWS also requests that the Commission add two new event codes covering storm surges: “Storm Surge Watch” (SSA) and “Storm Surge Warning” (SSW). NWS indicates that the “Storm Surge Watch/Warning will be issued when there is a significant risk of life-threatening inundation from rising water moving inland from the ocean.” In the event of a storm surge, a watch (SSA) would be issued 48 hours in advance of the event taking place and a warning (SSW) would be issued 36 hours in advance of the event, and will help to mitigate damage from storm surge, the leading cause of death in tropical cyclones.
        6. In support of its request, NWS notes that it currently does not explicitly issue warnings for storm surge, notwithstanding that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) has vigorously advocated for a storm surge watch and storm surge warning for a number of years. The NWS explains that, according to the NHC, “storm surge losses in the hundreds or thousands of lives have occurred in every coastal state from Texas to South Carolina, and in some states north of there.” NWS explains that “[w]hile the threatening winds of a hurricane are important, most deaths from tropical cyclones result from storm surge.” NWS further explains that “current Hurricane Watch/Warning does not provide clear or sufficient information to allow citizens to determine if they are threatened by wind or storm surge or both.” NWS notes that issuing storm surge watch/warning conditions is supported by both the NHC and FEMA, and that storm surge warnings are utilized by the government meteorological services of other nations, such as Environment Canada, and that use of such warnings has been advocated by the World Meteorological Organization for member nations. Accordingly, the NWS requests that the Commission revise its EAS rules to add Storm Surge Watch and Warning codes so that the NWS may offer these alerts to the public.
        7. The Commission proposes adding both the extreme wind warning and storm surge event codes to section 11.31(e) of the Commission's rules, thus authorizing their use by EAS Participants. The Commission believes that extreme wind and storm surge events pose significant dangers to human health and property, dangers that the Commission's current EAS rules are not designed to prevent. The Commission observes that not revising the EAS rules to allow the NWS to warn the public of these events risks unnecessary harm to the public, a risk inconsistent with the Commission's statutory mandate of “promoting the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.” The Commission thus tentatively concludes that the event codes NWS proposes could promote public safety by saving lives and reducing the potential for injuries and damage to property. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.

        8. On a more granular level, the Commission seeks comment on whether the addition of the EWW, SSA, and SSW event codes would promote the public interest by enabling the public to deal more effectively with emergency situations, and, if so, how the specificity added by use of the codes would assist the public in these regards. The Commission observes that the NWS previously documented the confusion associated with using the TOR event code for non-tornados in its Service Assessment of the response to Hurricane Katrina. According to the Service Assessment, use of the TOR event code for events other than tornados also can lead to inconsistent or incorrect advice. The standard advice associated with the TOR event code directs people to take shelter in “an interior room of the lowest floor” of a building, but during Hurricane Katrina, the TOR warnings were issued for counties at risk for storm surge flooding. Local alerts originating in Miami describing the potential flooding hazard directed people “to go to the highest floor of a building.” The Commission seeks comment on whether the addition of these weather-related event codes will address the potential for confusion or incorrect guidance that might otherwise result from the continued use of the TOR event code.

        9. The Commission also seeks comment regarding the extent to which these new event codes will help promote safety of life and property. With respect to Hurricane Katrina, for example, NWS states that “[a]t least [1,500] people lost their lives during Katrina, and many of those deaths occurred because of storm surge, either directly or indirectly.” In addition, NWS states that “Katrina also caused well over $100 billion in damage from its surge and winds.” The Commission also notes that a recent analysis of data from Atlantic tropical cyclones occurring from 1963-2012 indicates that 49 percent of all deaths directly attributable to those events were caused by storm surge. Further, storm surge damage is not limited to coastal areas. According to NHC data, for example, the storm surge (measured as water height above normal astronomical tide level) experienced in New York State during Hurricane Sandy reached 9.4 feet in the Battery on the southern tip of Manhattan, and caused (with some contribution from rainfall) significant flooding in parts of the Hudson River Valley as far north as Albany (located approximately 130 miles from Manhattan). Moreover, data suggests that storm surges may become more severe over time. The National Center for Atmospheric Research indicates that an increase to the global average temperature would result in “increasingly dramatic storm surges that, combined with higher water levels, [would] increase risk of damage to coastal infrastructure, society, and economies.” The Commission believes that the addition of EWW, SSA and SSW to the event codes in section 11.31(e) of the rules would serve the public interest by providing more specific information regarding the emergency event. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis. The Commission observes that NWS indicates that broadcasters, emergency management offices and federal agencies support the need to establish specific EAS warning alerts for these conditions, and invites these entities in particular to submit their updated views on these issues.
        10. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs for implementing the proposed event codes. NWS states that the additional costs associated with the addition of these new event codes will be minimal and can generally be added through a firmware and/or software update. Several EAS equipment manufacturers confirm NWS's contentions. Trilithic Inc. (Trilithic), for example, states that, for its two EAS encoder/decoder models currently deployed in the field, the event codes can be added through a software update, adding that “[t]he modifications are minimal and there would be no cost passed onto our customers.” Monroe Electronics, Inc. (Monroe), states that the event codes could be implemented in its EAS device models through a software update, “downloaded by users from Monroe's secure site, and applied to each EAS device by the user, with basic instructions provided by Monroe or its Digital Alert Systems subsidiary.” Similarly, Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. (Sage), states that end users could implement the proposed event codes by downloading a settings file. The Commission tentatively concludes that the costs for implementing the proposed event codes will be nominal to manufacturers and either nominal or non-existent for EAS participants. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and the costs for individual EAS Participants.
        11. The Commission notes that Sage observes that one of its EAS device models in the field can no longer support software updates and, therefore, presumably cannot be updated with the proposed event codes. The Commission seeks comment on how this might affect the adoption of these additional event codes and to what extent this device model is being used by EAS Participants. How do the costs associated with implementing these event codes compare with the benefit that might result from their implementation?
        12. Finally, the Commission seeks comment generally on whether it should make any other changes to the event codes currently set forth in the EAS Protocol. Are the event codes proposed by NWS the right event codes? Is there a better way to address the issues identified by NWS than these proposed changes?
        B. Proposed Geographic Location Code Revisions
        13. NWS requests that the Commission revise the areas defined in the geographic location codes identified in section 11.31(f) of the EAS rules as location codes 75 and 77, which cover offshore marine areas. These location codes, and their defined areas, like all of the Offshore (Marine Areas) location codes contained in the EAS Protocol, were originally adopted in 2002 pursuant to a request by NWS. Currently, the marine area defined for location code 75 covers “Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, N.C., following the coastline into Gulf of Mexico to Bonita Beach, FL, including the Caribbean,” while location code 77 covers “Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican border to Bonita Beach, FL.” NWS indicates that it has changed the end point it uses for generating weather alerts for both of these areas from Bonita Beach, FL, to Ocean Reef, FL, and, accordingly, requests that the area covered by location code 75 be changed to “Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, NC, following the coastline to Ocean Reef, FL, including the Caribbean,” and that the area covered by location code 77 be changed to “Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican border to Ocean Reef, FL.” According to the NWS, allowing the EAS rules to contain definitions for the two offshore location codes that are inconsistent with the definitions that NWS has implemented for issuing its alerts may cause confusion for broadcasters, the emergency management community and the maritime commerce community, particularly when tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings are issued for southern Florida. NWS notes that it has checked with several EAS encoder/decoder manufacturers, and was informed that the cost and time to make the requested change would be nominal.
        14. The Commission proposes revising section 11.31 of its rules to adopt the definitional changes for location codes 75 and 77. As indicated above, location codes 75 and 77 were added as location codes in 2002 pursuant to a request by NWS, and this proposed rule change amounts to a modification of a location definition created and primarily used by the NWS. The Commission observes that, like all the Offshore (Marine Areas) location codes, location codes 75 and 77 are used with the Special Marine Warning (SMW) event code, among others, and thus are vital to maintaining the efficiency of marine operations and safety of vessels and their crews. The Commission also observes that NWS has indicated that it is already applying the revised definitions for location codes 75 and 77 in the field, which suggests a potential for confusion among EAS Participants, the emergency management community and the maritime commerce community in a major hurricane corridor of the United States if the definitions for these location codes currently identified in section 11.31(f) are not harmonized with NWS's usage. The Commission also proposes revising footnote 1 of section 11.31 to delete the reference to a past deadline and to clarify that the numbers assigned to the offshore marine areas listed in the table of geographic areas in section 11.31(f), while consistent with the format of the state and territory location codes derived from the ANSI standard, are not a product of that standard, but rather were assigned by the NWS.

        15. With respect to cost considerations, NWS states that it has checked with several EAS encoder/decoder manufacturers, and was informed that the cost and time to make the requested change would be nominal. Recent submissions by EAS equipment manufacturers suggest that the costs to EAS Participants for implementing these changes in their EAS equipment—like the event codes discussed in the previous section—are likely to be de minimis. For example, Sage states that end users could implement the proposed event codes discussed above, as well as the revised offshore location definitions by downloading a settings file and firmware update, respectively, the entire implementation process of which would take “10 minute[s] or less.” Similarly, Monroe states that the location codes can be added to its equipment via a software update, as does Trilithic, which adds that such update would be available at no charge.

        16. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to revise the geographic descriptions for location codes 75 and 77, as requested by NWS. Is such action necessary to prevent or ameliorate potential confusion among broadcasters, the emergency management community and the maritime commerce community that might otherwise exist if the current descriptions for these location codes in section 11.31(f) were left unchanged and continued to diverge from present usage by NWS? Would the proposed amendments to location codes 75 and 77 enhance the efficiency of marine operations and safety of vessels and their crews, and otherwise benefit the public? With respect to costs, the Commission seeks comment on whether the costs of implementing these proposed revisions to the location codes would be de minimis, as EAS equipment manufacturers suggest. Are there any EAS device models deployed by EAS Participants located in coastal geographic areas, in particular, that could not be updated to reflect these revisions?
        C. Implementation Schedule

        17. The Commission believes that the prompt deployment of alerts using these new codes is consistent with the safety of the public in affected areas. The Commission realizes that in order to ensure the full distribution to an affected community of an alert that uses one of these new codes, all EAS participants in the EAS distribution relay chain for that community must have equipment that is programmed to receive and process the new codes. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that EAS equipment manufacturers integrate these codes into equipment yet to be manufactured or sold, and make necessary software upgrades available to EAS Participants no later than six months from the effective date of any rules adopted as a result of this notice. The Commission also would encourage State Emergency Coordination Committees (SECCs) to update their state and local EAS plans and to take any other steps necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of these new codes within their states (e.g., by encouraging key sources which relay EAS messages to obtain the upgrades promptly). Would these measures help ensure that all EAS Participants have the capability of updating their EAS equipment and of delivering alerts using these new codes to the public, such that the alert is successfully distributed throughout the EAS distribution relay chain? To ensure that all relevant alerts are received by their intended audiences, would it be helpful if, for an interim transitional period, NWS issued any alert that uses one of the new event codes concurrent with an alert that uses the current event code? Would this help ensure that all EAS alerts reach their intended audience until the new codes are fully integrated into EAS architecture? Would it be reasonable to expect that all EAS Participants would voluntarily integrate the new codes within their systems no later than one year from the effective date of any such rules, such that one year would provide an adequate transition period for NWS to issue concurrent alerts?
        The Commission believes that enabling these codes in this timeframe will not unduly burden EAS Participants or EAS equipment manufacturers. The Commission notes that the record indicates that most EAS device models already are capable of processing these codes, or can be made to do so with minor software modifications. Further, as the Commission has clarified previously, modifications to authorized EAS equipment that are necessary to implement revisions to the EAS event codes and location codes may be implemented as Class I permissive changes that do not require prior authorization to be implemented. Accordingly, the Commission suggests that the implementation schedule proposed herein would afford a reasonable period of time and would not present any undue burden. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
        III. Procedural Matters
        A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in section IV of that item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        19. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to add three new Emergency Alert System (EAS) Event Codes, covering extreme wind (“Extreme Wind Warning”) and storm surges (“Storm Surge Watch” and “Storm Surge Warning”), and proposes to revise the territorial boundaries of geographic location codes 75 and 77 used by the EAS. These proposed rule revisions would seek to improve the capacity of the EAS to warn the public of impending threats to life and property, and ensure that the geographic definitions of location codes 75 and 77 utilized by the EAS are harmonized with those employed by the NWS.
        Legal Basis
        20. Authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply
        21. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Below is a description and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
        22. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA. As of 2011, small businesses comprise 99.7 percent of all employer firms in the US. In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
        23. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in the station's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of June 5, 2013, about 90 percent of the 11,340 of commercial radio stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 3,917. The Commission do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for these stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. The Commission note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,” the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
        24. Low-Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to low power FM (“LPFM”) stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 864 licensed LPFM stations. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
        25. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in the station's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source.
        26. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of March 31, 2013, about 90 percent of an estimated 1,385 commercial television stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of such establishments are small. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) stations to be 396. The Commission does not have revenue estimates for NCE stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. In addition, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 licensed low-power television (“LPTV”) stations, and 4,518 licensed TV translators. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
        27. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities affected by the proposed rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
        28. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
        29. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small any company in this category which receives annual receipts of $38.5 million or less. Based on U.S. Census data for 2007, in that year 659 establishments operated for the entire year. Of that 659, 197 operated with annual receipts of $10 million a year or more. The remaining 462 establishments operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of establishments operating in this industry are small.
        30. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data shows that there were 1,141 cable companies at the end of June 2012. Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, the Commission estimates that most cable systems are small.
        31. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 56.4 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today. The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that the FCC neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
        32. Satellite Telecommunications. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of satellite service. The SBA definition of small Satellite Telecommunications entities comprises those that have $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.
        33. Other Telecommunications. This category includes “establishments primarily engaged in . . . providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” The SBA definition of Other Telecommunications entities comprises those that have $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 37 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
        34. The Educational Broadcasting Services. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2014, there are 2,207 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,207 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
        35. Broadband Radio Service. Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) systems, also referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the BRS and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”). In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a “small business” as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, which resulted in the licensing of 78 authorizations in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) will receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
        36. Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data the Commission has available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.” The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, the Commission believes it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        37. None.
        Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
        39. The rule changes contemplated by the NPRM would implement certain EAS warning codes and location code definitional changes that are unique, and implemented by small entity and larger-sized regulated entities on a voluntary basis. Thus, the NPRM does not propose mandated burdens on regulated entities of any size. Moreover, the costs associated with voluntarily implementing the codes contained in the proposed rule changes are expected to be de minimis or non-existent. Commenters are invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to further minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. When considering proposals made by other parties, commenters are invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of these proposals.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        40. None.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
        41. This document contains no proposed new or modified information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Commission does not need to seek comment from the general public and OMB on any information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by PRA, nor does the Commission seek specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
        C. Ex Parte Presentations

        42. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceedings in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        D. Comment Filing Procedures

        43. Pursuant to sections 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 that choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

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

        44. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        E. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this document, as set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
        IV. Ordering Clauses
        46. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), 706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
        47. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        48. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before September 9, 2015, and interested parties may file reply comments on or before September 24, 2015.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11
          Radio, Television, Emergency alerting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 11 to read as follows:

          PART 11—EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

        1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.

        2. Amend § 11.31 by:
        a. In the table in paragraph (e), adding entries in alphabetical order under “State and Local Codes (Optional)” for “Extreme Wind Warning”, “Storm Surge Watch”, and “Storm Surge Warning”; and
        b. In the table in paragraph (f), revising the entries for ANSI Nos. 75 and 77 and the footnote to the table.
        The additions and revisions read as follows:

          § 11.31
          EAS protocol.

          (e)  * * *

              Nature of activation
              Event codes

              National Codes (Required):

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              State and Local Codes (Optional):

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              Extreme Wind Warning
              EWW.

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              Storm Surge Watch
              SSA.

              Storm Surge Warning
              SSW.

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

          (f)  * * *

              ANSI No.

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              State:

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              Offshore (Marine Areas) 1:

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, NC, following the coastline to Ocean Reef, FL, including the Caribbean
              75

              Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican border to Ocean Reef, FL
              77

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              1 The numbers assigned to the offshore marine areas listed in this table are not described under the ANSI standard, but rather are numeric codes that were assigned by NWS.

      [FR Doc. 2015-18089 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 050500A]
        RIN 0648-AK74
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibition of Groundfish Fishing and Anchoring in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). This amendment would prohibit vessels holding a Federal fisheries permit from fishing for groundfish or anchoring in the proposed Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve, a 2.5-square nautical mile (nm) area near Cape Edgecumbe. Amendment 59 is necessary to allow this area to function more fully as a marine refuge and would complement State regulations. The prohibition of boat anchoring by vessels under Federal jurisdiction would help prevent degradation of this fragile habitat.

          DATES:
           Comments on Amendment 59 must be submitted by July 11, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be submitted to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465, or hand delivered or sent by courier to the Federal Building, Room 453, Juneau, AK. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
          Copies of Amendment 59 to the FMP and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Flexibility Analysis prepared for the amendment are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone 907-271-2809.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nina Mollett, 907-586-7462, nina.mollett@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council adopted Amendment 59 to the FMP at its June 1998 meeting pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). If approved by NMFS, this amendment would prohibit vessels holding a Federal fisheries permit from fishing for groundfish or anchoring in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve, a 2.5-square nm area of unusually productive and fragile habitat near Cape Edgecumbe. In addition, the amendment would prohibit fishing for halibut or anchoring in the area by vessels required to have on board an individual fishing quota (IFQ) halibut permit under § 679.4(b). In addition, the area would be closed to sport fishing for halibut as defined at § 300.61, or anchoring by vessels having halibut on board. The International Pacific Halibut Commission manages Pacific halibut pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act.
        The proposed Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve provides habitat for a variety of species at different life stages. Large numbers of juvenile and adult rockfish find shelter and protection among the sea plants and invertebrates growing on the rock walls. Closure of this area would protect the fragile ecosystem in the pinnacles. It would prevent the harvest or bycatch of species using the pinnacles during critical portions of their life histories, and would allow a vital ecosystem to maintain natural population levels in an area surrounded by heavy fishing pressure.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any fishery management plan or fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan or amendment, immediately publish a notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This action constitutes such notice for FMP Amendment 59. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve Amendment 59. To be considered, a comment must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period (see DATES), regardless of the comment's postmark or transmission date. A proposed rule that would implement the amendment may be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment in order to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision; comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment.

          Dated: May 8, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-12027 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F