        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        42 CFR Part 8
        RIN 0930-AA22
        Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders Reporting Requirements

          AGENCY:
          Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          On March 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to increase the highest patient limit for qualified physicians to treat opioid use disorder under section 303(g)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). On July 6, 2016, HHS published a final rule based on the NPRM but delayed finalizing the reporting requirements outlined in the NPRM. In this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), HHS seeks further comment on the same reporting requirements outlined in the NPRM. These reporting requirements would require annual reporting by practitioners who are approved to treat up to 275 patients under subpart F to help HHS ensure compliance with the requirements of the “Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders” final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. HHS will consider the public comments on this SNPRM as well as any comments already received on the March 30, 2016 NPRM before issuing a final rule pertaining to the reporting requirements.

          DATES:
          To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on August 8, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0930-AA22, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronically: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Regular Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: Written comments mailed by regular mail must be sent to the following address ONLY: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Attn: Jinhee Lee, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13E21C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
          • Express or Overnight Mail: Written comments sent by hand delivery, or regular, express or overnight mail must be sent to the following address ONLY: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Attn: Jinhee Lee, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13E21C, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

            Instructions: To avoid duplication, please submit only one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will become a matter of public record and will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process and viewing public comments, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jinhee Lee, Pharm.D., Public Health Advisor, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 240-276-0545, Email address: WaiverRegulations@samhsa.hhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Executive Summary
        A. Purpose

        The purpose of this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) is to solicit additional comment on the proposed reporting requirements in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) March 30, 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders under section 303(g)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (81 FR 17639). These requirements will assist HHS in ensuring practitioner compliance with the requirements of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.

        B. Summary of Major Provisions
        These proposed regulatory provisions, which amend § 8.635 of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F, would establish annual reporting requirements for practitioners who are approved to treat up to 275 patients under 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
        C. Summary of Impacts
        A summary of the anticipated impact of the reporting requirements, along with the other provisions of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F, was provided in the NPRM, dated March 30, 2016. Please see the NPRM, I. Executive Summary, Paragraph C (Summary of Impacts) for a summary of impacts of the reporting requirements in the context of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
        II. Public Participation
        Comments Invited

        HHS invites interested parties to submit comments on all aspects of this proposal. All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable and/or confidential information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received as soon as possible after they have been received on the following Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.
        Comments received before the close of the comment period will also be available for public inspection, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of the proposed rule, at the headquarters of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, call 240-276-1660.

        We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and will respond to the comments in the preamble of the final rule. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
        III. Background

        On March 30, 2016 HHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders” in the Federal Register. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, HHS is publishing a final rule with the same title. That final rule increases access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with certain medications, including buprenorphine and combination buprenorphine/naloxone (hereinafter referred to as buprenorphine) medications, in office-based setting as authorized under 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2). Section 303(g)(2) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)) allows individual practitioners to dispense or prescribe Schedule III, IV, or V controlled substances that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Section 303(g)(2)(B)(iii) of the CSA allows qualified practitioners who file an initial notification of intent (NOI) to treat a maximum of 30 patients at a time. After 1 year, the practitioner may file a second NOI indicating his/her intent to treat up to 100 patients at a time. The final rule expands access to MAT by allowing eligible practitioners to request approval to treat up to 275 patients under section 303(g)(2) of the CSA. The final rule also includes requirements to help ensure that patients receive the full array of services that comprise evidence-based MAT and minimize the risk that the medications provided for treatment are misused or diverted.
        The proposed regulatory provisions in this SNPRM will help HHS assess practitioner compliance with the requirements of 42 CFR part 8, subpart F.
        IV. Summary of SNPRM

        In the NPRM, HHS proposed 42 CFR, part 8, subpart F, § 8.635 to describe the reporting requirements for practitioners whose Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved under § 8.625. The purpose of the reporting requirements is to help HHS assess practitioner compliance with the additional responsibilities of practitioners who are authorized to treat up to the higher patient limit, as outlined in the MAT final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Reporting is an integral component of HHS's approach to increase access to MAT while helping to ensure that patients receive the full array of services that comprise evidence-based MAT and minimize the risk that the medications provided for treatment are misused or diverted. While HHS received many comments on the burden of these requirements, the comments did not provide specific suggestions on how HHS can ensure compliance in a manner that is not overly burdensome to practitioners. HHS seeks additional comment on the proposed reporting requirements:

        a. The average monthly caseload of patients receiving buprenorphine-based MAT, per year
        b. Percentage of active buprenorphine patients (patients in treatment as of reporting date) that received psychosocial or case management services (either by direct provision or by referral) in the past year due to:
        1. Treatment initiation
        2. Change in clinical status
        c. Percentage of patients who had a prescription drug monitoring program query in the past month
        d. Number of patients at the end of the reporting year who:
        1. Have completed an appropriate course of treatment with buprenorphine in order for the patient to achieve and sustain recovery
        2. Are not being seen by the provider due to referral by the provider to a more or less intensive level of care
        3. No longer desire to continue use of buprenorphine
        4. Are no longer receiving buprenorphine for reasons other than 1-3.

        In addition, HHS seeks comment on the following questions:
        Are there different or additional elements that should be reported in order to assist HHS in ensuring compliance with the final rule?
        Are there ways in which some elements can be combined that will lessen the burden for reporting practitioners while maintaining the important function of collecting information that ensure compliance with the final rule?
        Are there other ways that HHS can collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with the final rule?
        Would it be less burdensome to report on the number of patients in treatment for each month of the reporting period that:
        (i) Were provided counseling services at the same location as the practitioner, and how frequently those patients utilized the counseling services;
        (ii) the practitioner referred for counseling services at a different location?
        Would it be less burdensome to report on the number of patients at the end of the reporting year who had terminated utilization of covered medications?
        Are there other suggested changes that would be less burdensome while maintaining the important function of collecting information that ensure compliance with the final rule?
        V. Collection of Information Requirements

        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), agencies are required to provide notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate whether changes to an information collection should be approved by the OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires that we solicit comment on the following issues:
        1. Whether the information collection is necessary and useful to carry out the proper functions of the agency;
        2. The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection burden;
        3. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
        4. Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
        Under the PRA, the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to meet the information collection requirements referenced in this section are to be considered in rulemaking. We explicitly seek, and will consider, public comment on our assumptions as they relate to the PRA requirements summarized in this section. This proposed rule includes changes to information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements, as defined under the PRA (5 CFR part 1320). Some of the provisions would involve changes from the information collections set out in the previous regulations.
        Information collection requirements would be:

          Reporting, 42 CFR 8.635: Reporting will be required annually to ensure that eligibility requirements are being maintained and that waiver conditions are being fulfilled. Reporting requirements may include a request for information regarding: (1) The average monthly caseload of patients receiving buprenorphine-based MAT, per year; (2) the percentage of active buprenorphine patients (patients in treatment as of reporting date) who received psychosocial or case management services (either by direct provision or by referral) in the past year due to treatment initiation or change in clinical status; (3) Percentage of patients who had a prescription drug monitoring program query in the past month; (4) Number of patients at the end of the reporting year who: (a) Have completed an appropriate course of treatment with buprenorphine in order for the patient to achieve and sustain recovery, (b) Are not being seen by the provider due to referral by the provider to a more or less intensive level of care, (c) No longer desire to continue use of buprenorphine, (d) Are no longer receiving buprenorphine for reasons other than (a) through (c). To facilitate public comment, we have placed a draft version of the collection template in the public docket.
        Annual burden estimates for these requirements are summarized in the following table:

            42 CFR Citation
            Purpose ofsubmission

            Number ofrespondents

            Responses/respondent

            Burden/response
              (hour)

            Total burden(hours)

            Hourly wage cost($)

            Total wage cost($)

            8.635
            Annual Report
            1,350
            1
            3
            4,050
            64.47
            261,104

        For more detailed estimates, please refer to the public docket, which includes a copy of the draft supporting statement submitted as part of the NPRM and associated with this information collection.
        VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
        HHS has examined the impact of this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and included it in the NPRM published on March 30, 2016. Please refer to the NPRM for this analysis (81 FR 17639).

          List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 8
          Health professions, Methadone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, HHS proposes to amend 42 CFR part 8 as follows:

          PART 8—CERTIFICATION OF OPIOID TREATMENT PROGRAMS

        1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          21 U.S.C. 823; 42 U.S.C. 257a, 290aa(d), 290dd-2, 300x-23, 300x-27(a), 300y-11.

        2. Add § 8.635 to read as follows:

          § 8.635
          What are the reporting requirements for practitioners whose Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved?
          (a) All practitioners whose Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved under § 8.625 must submit reports to SAMHSA, along with documentation and data, as requested by SAMHSA, to demonstrate compliance with § 8.620, applicable eligibility requirements specified in § 8.610, and all attestation requirements in § 8.620(b).
          (b) Reporting requirements may include a request for information regarding:
          (1) The average monthly caseload of patients receiving buprenorphine-based MAT, per year.
          (2) Percentage of active buprenorphine patients (patients in treatment as of reporting date) that received psychosocial or case management services (either by direct provision or by referral) in the past year due to:
          (i) Treatment initiation.
          (ii) Change in clinical status.
          (3) Percentage of patients who had a prescription drug monitoring program query in the past month; and
          (4) Number of patients at the end of the reporting year who:
          (i) Have completed an appropriate course of treatment with buprenorphine in order for the patient to achieve and sustain recovery.
          (ii) Are not being seen by the provider due to referral by the provider to a more or less intensive level of care.
          (iii) No longer desire to continue use of buprenorphine.
          (iv) Are no longer receiving buprenorphine for reasons other than paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
          (c) The report must be submitted within twelve months after the date that a practitioner's Request for Patient Limit Increase is approved under § 8.625, and annually thereafter.

          (d) SAMHSA may check reports from practitioners prescribing under the higher patient limit against other existing data sources, such as PDMPs. If discrepancies between reported information and other existing data are identified, SAMHSA may require additional documentation from practitioners whose reports are identified as including these discrepancies.
          (e) Failure to submit reports under this section, or deficient reports, may be deemed a failure to satisfy the requirements for a patient limit increase, and may result in the withdrawal of SAMHSA's approval of the practitioner's Request for Patient Limit Increase.

          Dated: June 30, 2016.
          Kana Enomoto,
          Principal Deputy Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
          Approved: June 30, 2016.

          Sylvia M. Burwell,
          Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

      [FR Doc. 2016-16069 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4162-20-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 112
        [OPA-2004-0008; FRL-7810-4]
        RIN 2050-AF11
        Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of data availability (NODA) and request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the availability of information that might be relevant to determining whether alternate regulatory requirements for facilities with oil-filled and process equipment under the Clean Water Act would be appropriate. We are making this information available for public review and comment as part of our process of considering possible streamlined approaches that would ensure protection of human health and the environment from oil spills occurring at facilities with such oil-filled and process equipment.

          In addition to this document, the EPA is also publishing in today's Federal Register a Notice of Data Availability concerning facilities that handle oil below a certain threshold amount.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by November 19, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OPA-2004-0008, by one of the following methods:

            I. Federal Rulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

            II. Agency Web site:
            http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

            III. Mail: The docket for this rulemaking is located in the EPA Docket Center at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., EPA West, Suite B-102, Washington, DC 20460. The docket number for the proposed rule is OPA-2004-0008. The docket is contained in the EPA Docket Center and is available for inspection by appointment only, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. You may make an appointment to view the docket by calling 202-566-0276.

            IV. Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OPA-2004-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and federal regulations.gov websites are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number to make an appointment to view the docket is (202) 566-0276.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general information, contact the RCRA/CERCLA Call Center at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this notice, contact Hugo Paul Fleischman at 703-603-8769 (fleischman.hugo@epa.gov); or Mark W. Howard at 703-603-8715 (howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5203G.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
        1. Explain your views fully and clearly.
        2. Describe in detail and explain all assumptions you used.
        3. Provide all technical information, data, and analyses you used to support your views.
        4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, provide all data and analyses that you used to arrive at your estimate.
        5. Provide specific examples to illustrate all your concerns.
        6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

        7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

          Statutory Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

          Background: On July 17, 2002, EPA published a final rule amending the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112) promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act. This rule included requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and for Facility Response Plans (FRPs). It also included new subparts outlining the requirements for various classes of oil; revising the applicability of the regulation; amending the requirements for completing SPCC Plans; and made other modifications. (See 67 FR 47042.) The compliance dates in 40 CFR 112.3(a) and (b) have been extended several times. See 69 FR 48794, August 11, 2004 for further discussion on the compliance extensions.

          Today's NODA: EPA is considering an initiative that would provide more focused regulation for facilities with oil-filled 1

           and process equipment. To assist the Agency in this effort, we are making available to the public a number of documents for review and comment to help inform us as to what measures, if any, we should consider. We believe that as long as protection of human health and the environment is maintained, we should consider alternatives/options that accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and minimize impacts of applicable requirements. The documents being made available today for comment describe streamlined alternatives that could replace parts of existing regulations for this type of equipment. Because this approach may have merit, we are very interested in your comments. Specifically, we are interested in receiving any evidence, including data and analyses, related to claims made within the documents. In order for the data you submit to be considered in making a determination, the data should be collected, transported, and analyzed under the proper quality assurance and quality control protocols as described athttp://www.epa.gov/quality/.

            1 In the preamble to the July 2002 SPCC rule (67 FR 47054), we distinguished between the requirements for bulk storage of oil and for the operational use of oil. Oil-filled electrical, operating, or manufacturing equipment are specifically excluded from the definition of “bulk storage container” at § 112.2 and thus, this NODA does not address such bulk oil storage containers. However, oil-filled equipment must meet other SPCC requirements, such as the general requirements found in § 112.7(c) to provide appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures to prevent discharged oil from reaching navigable waters (67 FR 47055).

          Data Available for Comment: The documents available for comment today can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oilspill under the title “Notice of Data Availability for Oil-Filled and Process Equipment” in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. These documents include the relevant portion of: (1) A white paper regarding oil in operational equipment dated April 2, 2003 submitted by the American Petroleum Institute Coalition to the Oil Program Center in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response of the Environmental Protection Agency; (2) a white paper regarding machining coolant systems dated May 22, 2003 from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers submitted to the Oil Program Center; (3) a white paper regarding manufacturing process systems and operational equipment dated September 30, 2003 from the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy submitted to the Oil Program Center; (4) a white paper regarding on-shore oil-filled electrical equipment dated February 5, 2004 from the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG); and additional documents submitted to EPA by members of the electrical industry and other industry stakeholders.

          Request for Comments: We believe that affected parties should be given an opportunity to participate in the Agency's process of considering whether possible streamlined approaches are appropriate. We are especially interested in data relating to the regulatory approaches described in the documents available for your review today. We are listing the following areas, which are discussed in the documents available to you today, as examples of the kinds of data we request be submitted.

        1—Data to support development of criteria to define oil-filled and process equipment
        2—Data to support the development of streamlined requirements for facilities with oil-filled and process equipment

        The Agency is soliciting comments only on the data provided; we are not soliciting comments in this NODA on any other topic. The data may be found at Docket No. OPA-2004-0008 ( http://www.epa.gov/edocket ), and on our Web site (i.e., http://www.epa.gov/oilspill ).

          Dated: August 30, 2004.
          Thomas P. Dunne,
          Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

      [FR Doc. 04-21066 Filed 9-17-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 041802C]
        RIN 0648-AP76
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan;  request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab  Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public.  The FMP is intended to prevent overfishing and maintain fleet capacity appropriate to the resource abundance.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP 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 Red Crab FMP.”
          Copies of the FMP, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and  the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (Council), 50 Water Street, The Tannery - Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          E. Martin Jaffe, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The FMP proposes an overfishing definition and implementation of the following measures:  A target total allowable catch (TAC) level for the management area; a procedure for the development and revision of annual specifications; a framework adjustment process; a limited access program for the directed fishery; trip limits and incidental harvest allowances; permitting and reporting requirements, including an automated Interactive Voice Response (IVR) reporting system for limited access vessels; a Days-at-Sea (DAS) allocation effort control program; gear restrictions and gear marking requirements; trap/pot limits; restrictions on processing at sea; restrictions on retaining and landing female crabs in the directed fishery; mutilation restrictions; and other measures for administration and enforcement.

        A proposed rule that would implement the FMP may be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the FMP to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP.  All comments received by July 1, 2002, whether specifically directed to the FMP or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP.  Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the FMP.

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

          Dated:  April 25, 2002.
          John H. Dunnigan,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-10598 Filed 4-29-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 21
        RIN 1018-AH71
        Migratory Bird Permits; Review of Falconry Education Permits

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We are soliciting public comments to help us develop options for regulating falconry education facilities. We have two pending applications for permits to conduct falconry and conservation educational programs with migratory birds pursuant to section 704 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. Some of the activities outlined in these applications constitute the practice of falconry by instructors and participants. Falconry is specifically regulated under certain Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, and only persons who qualify for falconry permits by meeting minimum requirements may possess raptors (birds of prey) for their use in hunting prey. The applicants' programs feature instructors who maintain falconry permits, but they seek to exempt their participants from meeting minimum requirements and obtaining falconry permits. We are requesting public comments on whether we should deny these permit requests, or whether we should amend the falconry regulations to create additional, and less restrictive, opportunities for the public to participate in falconry.

          DATES:
          Written comments should be submitted by January 19, 2001, to the address below.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may mail or deliver comments to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 634, Arlington, Virginia 22203. You also may submit comments via the Internet to: falconry_programs@fws.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file formats and other information about electronic filing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (703) 358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your message, contact us directly at (703)358-1714.
        Background
        Falconry is the sport of hunting with trained raptors to take game animals, such as rabbits and squirrels, as defined in 50 CFR 21.3. In 1972, raptors came under the protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and in 1976 we promulgated regulations for a joint State/Federal falconry program. The regulations set rigorous requirements for entry into the sport, specified raptor housing and equipment standards, and set stringent reporting and marking requirements. Somewhat cautionary and restrictive, the regulations were promulgated at a time when there was considerable concern over the diminished status of many raptor populations. The falconry regulations reflected a sincere attempt to satisfy diverse and often conflicting interests while at the same time providing adequate protection for raptors. In 1989, we amended the regulations to establish simpler, less restrictive rules governing the use of most raptors because their populations were generally increasing, and the number of falconers was relatively small.
        Currently, approximately 4,000 persons are permitted to practice falconry in the United States, and 400 persons are permitted to breed raptors in captivity. Persons who want to practice falconry must comply with the falconry regulations in 50 CFR 21.28-29, in addition to complying with State falconry and hunting laws. Persons who want to breed raptors must comply with the raptor propagation regulations in 50 CFR 21.30, in addition to complying with State wildlife propagation laws.
        The falconry regulations require individuals to have knowledge, experience, equipment, and raptor housing before we may issue them a falconry permit. Permits are issued in three classes—Apprentice, General, and Master—depending on the applicant's age and experience. A person must have a Federal (and State) falconry permit before they may possess raptors, train them by various handling techniques, and use them in hunting. The regulations also prescribe the species and numbers of raptors that falconers may possess, which vary by the class of permit. We further allow permitted falconers to use the birds in their possession for conservation education and the demonstration of falconry to audiences.
        Special Purpose Permits
        Two applicants have requested permits issued under Special Purpose (50 CFR 21.27) to possess raptors to use in falconry and conservation educational programs. Because of the wide nature of permits that may be issued under Special Purpose, we determine these permit conditions individually. We have issued numerous Special Purpose permits for conservation education purposes, and the conditions for these permits are largely standardized due to the large numbers of this type. Most of these conservation education permits authorize the possession of raptors for use in programs where birds are displayed to an audience, and the audience participants are not allowed to handle the birds.
        We have previously issued three Special Purpose permits for falconry and conservation education facilities, and two of these permits remain active. These active permits are issued to the British School of Falconry (BSF), Manchester, Vermont; and the Falconry and Raptor Education Foundation (FAREF), White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. In general, we authorized these permittees to possess a specified number of raptors listed in 50 CFR 10.13. This authorization allowed the facilities to have more birds than they could possess under their instructors' individual falconry permits, which allows them to provide falconry opportunities to more participants.
        The permits issued to BSF and FAREF require the birds to be captive-bred, and also require the facilities to comply with certain parts in the falconry regulations, including raptor housing, leg-banding for identification, and submission of raptor acquisition report forms. Although we require the instructors at the BSF and FAREF to maintain either General or Master class falconry permits, we do not require participants to obtain their own permits.
        The BSF and FAREF programs allow participants without prior experience to handle the birds in various ways. Typically, the instructor first places a raptor on the gloved hand of each participant. The participant then grasps a leash attached to the bird's legs, and releases and recalls the bird using whistles and food rewards. Both facilities also provide raptor conservation educational programs to the public, which may include the limited handling of birds on the gloved hand of several audience members.

        The permit issued to the BSF expires on December 31, 2000. The permit issued to the Falconry and Raptor Education Foundation expired on December 31, 1999, but because they submitted a renewal application at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, their permit is still active. Additionally, we have received a new application from New England Falconry, Shutesbury, Massachusetts, for a similar, but expanded, Special Purpose permit.
        The new applicant requests a permit to possess captive-bred Harris hawks, prairie falcons, and peregrine falcons for the purpose of educating the public about falconry, raptors, conservation and the environment, through the experience of falconry. The applicant requests to provide a variety of educational programs, including programs similar to those provided by the BSF and FAREF, which allow the handling of birds. In addition, the applicant requests authority to provide hunting programs, wherein the participant would hold a lofting pole (T-shaped pole with perch on top), and the instructor would place the raptor on the pole. The bird, although trained to respond to handlers, would be physically unrestrained, and could fly at prey flushed by dogs. If a kill is made, the instructor would remove the bird from the prey, and return it to the lofting pole held by the participant. Previously, we had expressly prohibited the BSF from conducting similar hunting programs after determining that the participants were clearly practicing falconry as defined in 50 CFR 21.3.
        Determination of the Scope of Falconry
        Because we have received public comments regarding these permits, we reviewed the falconry regulations and the definitions provided in 50 CFR 10.12 and 21.3. We have determined that participants at the BSF and FAREF are practicing falconry as defined and regulated under 50 CFR 21.28-29 and therefore must fully comply with these regulations. In arriving at this determination, we concluded that the falconry regulations clearly encompass all activities relating to the sport of falconry, including the housing, handling, and training of raptors, in addition to their use in hunting.
        We now need to determine whether to continue to allow the operation of falconry educational facilities, and, if so, with what requirements. In order to allow their continuation, we must either impose a handling restriction for participants on these Special Purpose permits (similar to most other educational permits), or expand the falconry regulations by amendment.
        Public Comments Solicited
        Interested persons are invited to submit comments on continuing to allow the operation of falconry education facilities in the United States. We request suggestions, materials, recommendations, and arguments. We invite comments from the public; permitted falconry facilities; falconry organizations; environmental organizations; corporations; local, State, Tribal and Federal agencies; and any other interested party. Please ensure that any comments submitted in response to this request for comments pertain to issues presented in this notice.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Comments are particularly sought concerning the following issues:
        (1) Whether we should amend the falconry regulations to allow the operation of falconry education facilities to include active participant handling of raptors.
        (2) Whether participants at hands-on falconry education facilities should be required to obtain individual permits, and what type(s) of permit classes should be created for participants, with requirements such as age, examinations, and experience.
        (3) What type(s) of permitting requirements should be created for these facilities, and the requirements for obtaining these permits, such as instructor qualification, raptor equipment and housing, and commercial status of the facilities (profit vs. nonprofit).
        (4) What program restrictions should be placed on falconry education facilities, such as limiting participants to raptor handling by release and recall only, or whether participants should participate in hunting activities, and how.

        (5) What program requirements should be placed on falconry education facilities, such as requiring a specified core curriculum, or requiring that conservation education be included.

        (6) Which raptor species should be used, and/or whether species used at falconry education facilities should be limited to nonindigenous species, which do not require MBTA permits.
        (7) What benefits are obtained by participants in falconry education facilities, including whether participants have easier access to explore the sport of falconry, and whether participants have used their experience to better qualify for an Apprentice class permit.
        (8) Whether participants gain enough knowledge to properly handle raptors without harming the birds or themselves.
        (9) Whether more people will apply for falconry permits after attending falconry education facilities, and whether suppliers of captive-bred raptors (regulated under 50 CFR 21.30) could provide for an increased demand for birds, or whether impacts to wild stock may result.
        (10) Whether the falconry education facilities generally contribute to awareness of the resource by teaching more people about the conservation of raptors.
        (11) How the economies of local communities would be impacted by the co-location of a falconry education facility.
        (12) How raptor propagators may be affected economically from changes in sales of captive-bred birds.
        (13) How State wildlife agencies would be affected, including whether administrative workloads would increase, whether amended regulations would conflict with State laws, and whether States would have greater or reduced flexibility in administering the joint permitting system.
        We welcome comments on the issues described above and encourage the submission of new options or any suggestions.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This request for comments does not contain new or revised information collection for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Information collection associated with migratory bird permit programs is covered by an existing OMB approval No. 1018-0022, which expires on 02/28/2001. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

            Authorship: The primary author of this notice is Diane Pence, Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01585.

          Authority:
          The authority for this notice is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712).

          Dated: November 9, 2000.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-29562 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 178, and 180
        [Docket Number PHMSA-2010-0019 (HM-241)]
        RIN 2137-AE58
        Hazardous Materials: Adoption of ASME Code Section XII and the National Board Inspection Code

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; document availability and extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          PHMSA is notifying the public of the electronic availability of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XII (2010 Edition) and the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors' National Board Inspection Code (2007 Edition). Further, PHMSA is extending the comment period for the ANPRM published on December 23, 2010 (ANPRM; 75 FR 80765). The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XII is now available on PHMSA's Web site for public review at: http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat. In addition, the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors have voluntarily posted, for public review, the relevant parts of the National Board Inspection Code at http://www.nationalboard.org.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the ANPRM published on December 23, 2010, closing on March 23, 2011, is extended until May 23, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by the docket number (PHMSA-2010-0130) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to the docket management system, including any personal information provided.

            Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or DOT's Docket Operations Office (see
            ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Kurt Eichenlaub, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        On December 23, 2010, PHMSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 75 FR 80765) seeking public comment on the possible incorporation of the most recent edition of the ASME's Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XII for the design, construction, and certification of cargo tank motor vehicles, cryogenic portable tanks and multi-unit-tank car tanks (ton tanks) and the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors' (National Board) National Board Inspection Code as it applies to the continuing qualification and maintenance of ASME stamped cargo tank motor vehicles, portable tanks, and multi-unit-tank car tanks (ton tanks) constructed to standards in ASME Section VIII or ASME Section XII. PHMSA received comments regarding the availability of the consensus standards referenced in the ANPRM and requesting a comment period extension.
        II. Availability of Consensus Standards
        Several commenters (National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), C & R Fleet Services, and WRD, Inc.) requested that PHMSA make the consensus standards referenced in the ANPRM available to the public electronically. The commenters cited costs to purchase and review the copyrighted documents as barriers to informed public comment on issues presented in the ANPRM. PHMSA agrees. PHMSA understands the costs of purchasing copyrighted consensus standards can create an unnecessary burden on interested parties and potentially limit public participation in the rulemaking process. This was not PHMSA's intent.

        In response to commenter requests, PHMSA has obtained permission from ASME to post an electronic version of the 2010 edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XII (ASME Section XII) on PHMSA's website. The electronic version of ASME Section XII will be available for the duration of the comment period (through May 23, 2011) at the following URL: http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat. Further, in response to commenter requests, the National Board has voluntarily posted copies of the relevant sections (NBIC Part 2, Section 6, Supplement 6, “Continued Service and Inspection of DOT Transport Tanks,” and NBIC Part 3, Section 6, Supplement 6, “Repair, Alteration, and Modification of DOT Transport Tanks”) of the 2007 edition of the National Board Inspection Code for public review at www.nationalboard.org. Both documents are available electronically for review and comment, free of charge. However, PHMSA reminds the public that the documents are copyrighted and any reproduction of the documents without the permission of ASME or the National Board is prohibited.
        III. Comment Period Extension
        Several commenters to the December 23, 2011 ANPRM request a comment period extension (NTTC, C & R Fleet Services, Compressed Gas Association, and WRD, Inc.). Commenters cite difficulties in obtaining and reviewing copies of the referenced consensus standards, technical nature of the subject matter, and a wide range of potential burdens as reasons PHMSA should provide commenters with additional time to review the consensus standards and generate informed comment submissions to the docket. PHMSA agrees. Therefore, the comment period for the December 23, 2010 ANPRM is extended from March 23, 2011 until May 23, 2011.
        IV. Conclusion
        PHMSA believes the electronic availability of the referenced consensus standards and the extension of the comment period will provide commenters with sufficient time to review the consensus standards and generate informed comments on the December 23, 2010 ANPRM.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2011 under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
          Billy C. Hines, Jr.,
          Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

      [FR Doc. 2011-4543 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [I.D.  063003A]
        RIN 0648-AR33
        Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act; Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and notice of scoping process; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Based on recommendations from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and comments received from an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), NMFS announces its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts on the human environment of potential revisions to Federal Atlantic striped bass regulations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  In addition, NMFS announces that the public will have additional opportunities to comment on potential management measures, including a no action alternative, addressing the Commission's recommendations and on issues that should be considered in development of the EIS during scheduled scoping meetings.  The purpose of this notice is to alert the interested public:  (1) of NMFS intent to prepare an EIS; (2) that NMFS will be accepting written comments on its intention to draft an EIS; and (3) that NMFS will conduct public scoping hearings for the impact statement during which the public is invited to attend and comment.

          DATES:

          NMFS will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings in November and December 2003.  Written scoping comments will also be accepted and must be received at the appropriate address or facsimile (fax) number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on or before December 22, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written scoping comments and requests for copies of the scoping document and other information should be sent to:  Anne Lange, Chief, State-Federal Fisheries Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Room 13317, Silver Spring, MD 20910.  Copies of scoping documents may also be obtained on the State-Federal Fisheries Division's website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/state_federal.htm after 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on November 3, 2003.  Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 713-0596.   Comments submitted via e-mail or Internet will not be accepted.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Anne Lange, telephone (301)713-2334.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        NMFS published an ANPR concerning striped bass in the Federal Register on July 21, 2003 (68 FR 43074).  In the ANPR, NMFS announced that it was considering whether to propose rulemaking to revise Federal Atlantic striped bass regulations to be compatible with the Commission's Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass (Amendment 6).  Under the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, NMFS is obligated to regulate striped bass in the EEZ in a manner that is compatible with state management, which is set forth under the Commission's plan.  In the ANPR, NMFS sought comments on the Commission's recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to open the EEZ to the harvest of Atlantic striped bass.   NMFS also solicited comments on possible alternative management measures and issues that NMFS should consider relative to these recommendations.  The comment period closed on August 20, 2003.  The public requested more time to submit comments; NMFS agreed, and reopened the comment period from August 26, 2003, until September 25, 2003 (68 FR 51232).
        Atlantic Striped Bass management is based on the Commission's Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP), first adopted in 1981.  From 1981 - 1994, four ISFMP Amendments were developed that provided a series of management measures that led to the rebuilding of the stocks.  In 1995, the Commission declared the Atlantic striped bass population fully restored and implemented Amendment 5 to the ISFMP to perpetuate the stock so as to allow a commercial and recreational harvest consistent with the long-term maintenance of the striped bass stock.  Since then, the Commission has found that the population has expanded to record levels of abundance.

        To maintain this recovered population, the Commission approved Amendment 6 to the ISFMP in February 2003 (copies of Amendment 6 are available via the Commission's websiteat http://www.asmfc.org).  The Commission believes that the measures contained in Amendment 6 are necessary to prevent the overfishing of the Atlantic striped bass resource while allowing growth in both the commercial and recreational fishery.  Development of Amendment 6 took almost 4 years and involved extensive input from technical and industry advisors, and provided numerous opportunities for the public to comment on the future management of the species.
        Amendment 6 incorporates results of the most recent Atlantic striped bass stock assessment, developed by the Atlantic Coast States, the Commission, NMFS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see section 1.2.2 of Amendment 6).  In summary, the 2001 stock assessment concluded that the overall abundance of the stock is very high and fishing mortality remains below the target rate.  The stock=s abundance increased steadily between 1982 and 1997 and since then has remained stable.  The fishing mortality rate increased steadily until 1999, but decreased slightly in 2000.  Amendment 6 also includes recommendations to the Secretary on the development of complementary measures in the EEZ.  Management of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ was one of the issues that was considered throughout development of Amendment 6.
        Recommendation to the Secretary
        On April 24, 2003, the Secretary received a letter from the Commission with the following three recommendations for implementation of regulations in the EEZ:  (1) Remove the moratorium on the harvest of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ; (2) implement a 28-inch (71.1 cm) minimum size limit for recreational and commercial Atlantic striped bass fisheries in the EEZ; and (3) allow states the ability to adopt more restrictive rules for fishermen and vessels licensed in their jurisdictions.
        In support of its request, the Commission provided a number of reasons to justify  opening the EEZ to striped bass fishing.  These reasons include:
        (1) In 1995, due in part to a closure of the EEZ in 1990 to striped bass harvest, the population of this species was declared fully restored by the Commission.  The purpose of closing the EEZ was to protect strong year classes entering the population and to promote rebuilding of the overfished population.
        (2) The commercial harvest is controlled by hard quotas; when they are reached the fishery is closed; and overages are taken out of next year's quotas.  The Commercial quota will be landed regardless of whether or not the EEZ is opened.
        (3) Currently, recreational and commercial catches are occurring in the EEZ and these fish are required to be discarded.  Opening the EEZ will convert discarded bycatch of striped bass  to landings.
        (4) Because of management measures implemented since 1990, the striped bass population has recovered to a point where further examination of whether this fishery should occur in the EEZ is appropriate.  There are expectations among a number of fishing industry stakeholders that their past sacrifices would result in future opportunities to harvest striped bass, and therefore, there are potential credibility issues associated with keeping the EEZ closed, especially in light of the current status of the Atlantic striped bass stock.
        (5) The recommendation to open the EEZ is part of Amendment 6 which incorporates new management standards to ensure stock conservation including targets and thresholds for both mortality and spawning stock biomass.  Fishing mortality is currently below the target level, and spawning stock biomass is 1.5 times the target level.
        (6) Amendment 6 includes monitoring requirements and triggers that will allow the Commission to respond quickly to increased mortality.
        (7) The bulk of the public comment (greater than 75 percent) received in opposition during the Amendment 6 process cited expansion of the commercial fishery as rationale not to open the EEZ.  The Commission believes the rationale is incorrect because the commercial fishery is controlled by a hard quota.
        The Commission stated that its Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee would monitor annually the Atlantic striped bass population, and, if at some point in the future the Commission determines that the Atlantic striped bass population is overfished or that overfishing is occurring, it may recommend further management measures for the EEZ.
        Summary of ANPR Comments

        In addition to the Commission's reasons for its recommendation to the Secretary, the following summarizes comments in support of opening the EEZ:  (1) Opening the EEZ to the harvest of striped bass will not increase pressure on the resource, but will dissipate effort over a larger area and reduce the congestion by small trawlers and recreational boats in state waters; and (2) enforcement of the EEZ closure is difficult, but state controls at the point of landing work, regardless of where the fish are harvested.  Comments in opposition to opening the EEZ are summarized as follows:   (1) Opening the EEZ could create conflicts between state and Federal jurisdictions, such as in those states with game fish status; (2) bycatch concerns may be more difficult to address if fishing for striped bass is allowed in the EEZ; (3) fishing for striped bass in the EEZ may result in a directed fishery for the larger, older, more successful breeders assumed to concentrate offshore; (4) fishing for striped bass in the EEZ may result in an increase in mortality because overall harvest may increase; (5) allowing fishing for striped bass in the EEZ may result in landings in excess of target mortality rates set forth in Amendment 6; and (6) opening the EEZ to fishing for striped bass may have impacts on both human and fish health (such concerns relate to PCB consumption and bacterial infections in striped bass).  NMFS believes the best way to address the issues and concerns raised during the ANPR comment period is to hold a series of hearings along the Atlantic coast to help determine the scope of the eventual EIS that it intends to develop.  This eventual EIS would offer analysis of the aforementioned  issues.   In addition, during the scoping process, NMFS would like the public to comment further on the Commission's recommendations, including comments both on other potential management measures, including a no action alternative, as well as comments on other issues that the public thinks should to be analyzed in the development of this EIS.
        Potential Management Measures Being Considered
        All persons affected by or otherwise interested in Atlantic striped bass management in the EEZ are invited to participate in determining the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed in development of an EIS by submitting written comments (see ADDRESSES) or by participating in one or more of the scheduled scoping hearings.   Potential management measures being considered include:  (1) no action - maintain moratorium in EEZ; and (2) open the entire EEZ, implement a 28-inch (71.1 cm) minimum size limit, and allow states to adopt more restrictive regulations for fishermen and vessels licensed in their state (Commission  recommendation).  In addition, NMFS will consider additional management measures received during the scoping process that will both benefit the sustainability of this fishery and be compatible with the Commission plan.  NMFS will consider, through the EIS, all impacts, including direct, indirect and cumulative, of the potential management measures to be considered.  The scoping process will also identify and eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant.  Once an EIS is developed, NMFS will hold public hearings to receive comments, on the draft EIS.
        Schedule of Public Scoping Hearings
        1.  Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - Portsmouth, NH, 7-8:30 p.m.
        Urban Forestry Center, 45 Elwin Road, Portsmouth, NH 03801
        2.  Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - Manteo, NC, 7-9 p.m.
        North Carolina Aquarium on Roanoke Island, 374 Airport Road, Manteo, NC                                   27954
        3.  Tuesday, November 18, 2003 -Toms River, NJ, 6-9 p.m.
        Quality Inn, 815 Route 37, Toms River, NJ 08755
        4.  Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - Dover, DE, 6:30-7:30 p.m.
        Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Richardson & Robbins Bldg., 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE
        5.  Monday, December 1, 2003 - Stony Brook, NY, 7:30-9:30 p.m.
        State University of New York at Stony Brook (SUNY), Student Activities Center, Nicolls Road, Stony Brook, NY 11794
        6.  Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - Old Lyme, CT, 7-9 p.m.
        Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Headquarters, Boating Education Building, 333 Ferry Road, Old Lyme, CT 06371 7.   Monday, December 8, 2003 - Portland, ME, 7-9 p.m.
        Holiday Inn By The Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101
        8.   Tuesday, December 9, 2003- Bourne, MA, 7-10 p.m.
        Canal Club, 100 Trowbridge Road, Bourne, MA 02532
        9.   Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - Narragansett, RI, 7-9 p.m.
        University of Rhode Island, Bay Campus, Corless Auditorium, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI
        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately.  At the beginning of each public hearing, a NMFS representative will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another).  The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the hearing so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s).  Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the hearing.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tom Meyer, (301) 713-2334, at least 7 days prior to the hearing in question.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1851 note.

          Dated:   October 15, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-26400 Filed 10-17-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 282
        [FRL-7658-2]
        Underground Storage Tank Program: Approved State Program for Virginia

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to codify the previously authorized underground storage tank (UST) program of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This codification reflects the Commonwealth's program in effect at the time EPA granted Virginia approval (September 28, 1998). In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is codifying the program by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this codification in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this codification during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Send your written comments by July 15, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send written comments to Ms. Rosemarie Nino, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3377. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: nino.rose@epa.gov or by facsimile at (215) 814-3163. You can examine copies of the codification materials during normal business hours at the following location: EPA Region III Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-5254.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Rosemarie Nino, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone (215) 814-3377.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: March 25, 2004.
          Donald S. Welsh,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

      [FR Doc. 04-13284 Filed 6-14-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P