        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
        27 CFR Part 9
        [Notice No. 61]
        RIN 1513-AB23
        Proposed Expansion of the Alexander Valley Viticultural Area (2005R-501P)

          AGENCY:
          Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to expand the Alexander Valley viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by 1,300 acres along its northwestern boundary line. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed amendment to our regulations.

          DATES:
          We must receive written comments on or before September 15, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
          • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 61, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
          • 202-927-8525 (facsimile).
          • nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
          • http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site.
          • http://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments).

          You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.

          See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background on Viticultural Areas
        TTB Authority

        Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations.
        Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas.
        Definition
        Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
        Requirements
        Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include—
        • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
        • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
        • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
        • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and
        • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
        Alexander Valley Viticultural Area Expansion Petition
        Patrick Shabram of Shabram Consulting, with the support of vineyard owner Anthony Martorana, proposes a 1,300-acre expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.53) along the current diagonal northwestern boundary line. The expansion would result in a viticultural area of 67,710 acres.
        The proposed expansion area starts 1 mile south-southwest of Cloverdale and continues south for another 2 miles, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map and written boundary description submitted by the petitioner. The shape of the proposed expansion area resembles a triangle with one side running along the Alexander Valley viticultural area's existing diagonal northwestern boundary line.
        The Seven Arches Vineyards, according to the petitioner, straddles that diagonal northwestern boundary line, with approximately 10 acres outside of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area. The proposed expansion area, the petitioner continues, would incorporate into the Alexander Valley viticultural area all of Seven Arches Vineyards and the entire 20 acres of Icaria Vineyards, both of which are located along Hiatt Road and Icaria Creek. Another vineyard, Jeke Vineyards, lies immediately inside the existing boundary line, according to a petition map outlining the vineyards of the area. The table below explains the relationship of these three vineyards to the existing diagonal northwestern boundary line of the Alexander Valley viticultural area.

            Vineyard name (Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road areas)
            Vineyard location

            Jeke Vineyards

              1/10 mile inside of the boundary line.

            Seven Arches Vineyards
            Straddles the boundary line.

            Icaria Vineyards

              4/10 mile outside of the boundary line.

        We summarize below the evidence presented in the petition in support of the proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area.
        Name Evidence
        The proposed expansion area, according to the petitioner, is historically identified with Cloverdale, a town located at the northern end of the Alexander Valley viticultural area. In “History of the Sonoma Viticultural District,” by Ernest P. Peninou, Nomis Press, 1998, pages 186-187, it is noted that Parker Vineyards was established in 1890 in the proposed expansion area. Mr. Peninou identifies Parker Vineyards as a part of the viticultural history of Cloverdale. The petitioner explains that vineyards in the Cloverdale area, except for the two vineyards in the proposed expansion area, lie within the original boundaries of the Alexander Valley viticultural area.
        An article entitled “The Early Wineries of the Cloverdale Area,” by William A. Cordtz, Ph.D., ran in the March/April 1985 edition of Wine West; the article states that grape-growing started in Cloverdale before other areas of Alexander Valley. It explains that viticulture in the upper Alexander Valley was centered around Cloverdale and flourished between 1880 and Prohibition. Also, the Cloverdale Reveille, a local area newspaper, ran articles about grape-growing and in 1878 reported prices of local grapes at $8 per ton.
        Shortly after the establishment of the original viticultural area, the petitioner states, some wine industry members erroneously believed that the proposed expansion area already lay inside the Alexander Valley viticultural area boundary. As an example, the petitioner states that Jade Mountain Vineyards labeled a 1985 Icaria Vineyards wine with the Alexander Valley viticultural area name, while a map submitted with the petition shows Icaria Vineyards as lying within the proposed expansion area.
        Boundary Evidence
        The established Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal, northwestern boundary line trends northwest-southeast. The line connects section 24, T. 11 N., R. 11 W. to the map point at 38°45′ latitude and 123°00′ longitude in section 5, T. 10 N., R. 10 W., of the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map.
        When the original Alexander Valley viticultural area was proposed (see T.D. ATF-187, 49 FR 42724, October 24, 1984), several petitioning groups proposed differing boundaries for the proposed viticultural area. Ultimately, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), TTB's predecessor, determined that the Alexander Valley viticultural area's boundary should encompass the area from southeast of Healdsburg to north of Cloverdale in Sonoma County. The proposed westerly expansion area, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map, is approximately 1 mile south-southwest of Cloverdale.
        The petitioner provided a map of the Alexander Valley viticultural area published by the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association in 1998. The map shows the current viticultural area boundaries and displays the vineyards within the proposed expansion area with the same shade of dark green used for the vineyards within the current viticultural area boundary. In contrast, the vineyards outside the existing boundary carry a significantly lighter shade of green. The petitioner contends that the wine industry used the map as a geographic analytical tool to group all vineyards on the floor and the lower slopes of the Alexander Valley.
        Icaria Creek and several of its tributaries, as part of the Alexander Valley watershed, run through the proposed expansion area and drain into the Russian River. In an interview in the Healdsburg Tribune of December 7, 1979, Robert Young observed that there is only one watershed in the entire Alexander Valley. His observation, according to the petitioner, supports the expansion petition because the expansion area also falls within that watershed.
        Distinguishing Features
        The petitioner provides information about distinguishing features and evidence to document that the proposed expansion area is similar in topography, elevation, soils, and climate to the northwestern region of the Alexander Valley viticultural area, inside the existing boundary line along Hiatt Road and Icaria Creek.
        The petitioner explains that the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area, located on opposite sides of the diagonal boundary line, have similar distinguishing features. The topography, including range in elevation and the flood plains along Icaria Creek, water resources, soils, and climate combine to create a similar viticultural environment on both sides of the diagonal boundary line, according to the petitioner.
        Topography
        The petitioner describes the similar topographic features scattered throughout the Icaria Creek area on both sides of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal northwestern boundary line. The proposed expansion area is at elevations of 360 feet on the flood plain along Icaria Creek to 874 feet, according to the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. Similar topography exists immediately east and inside the Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal boundary line. Elevations there, as noted on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map, range from a low of 320 feet on the flood plain along Icaria Creek to a high of 884 feet.
        Icaria Creek, and its tributaries, run through both the east and the west sides of the Alexander Valley viticultural area's diagonal boundary line to the Russian River, as shown on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. Also, Hiatt Road meanders along Icaria Creek and some of its tributaries on both sides of the diagonal boundary line.
        The petitioner explains that the terrain west of the proposed expansion area becomes increasingly steep and mountainous and that elevations climb to some 1,600 feet, as shown on the USGS Cloverdale Quadrangle map. The mountainous terrain contrasts with the lower elevations and the gentle valley landscape of the Alexander Valley region shown on the map. The petitioner adds that the westerly mountainous terrain creates an unsuitable environment for viticulture.
        The vineyards in the proposed expansion area generally lie on the lower, flatter terrain of the flood plain along Icaria Creek, according to the diagrams on the map in the petition. The elevations generally range between 350 and 450 feet, but the southernmost part of the Seven Arches Vineyards reaches 590 feet. Jeke Vineyards, which is within the Alexander Valley viticultural area's western boundary line, lies between 350 and 380 feet of elevation on the flood plain along Icaria Creek, the petitioner states. Thus, Jeke Vineyards, which is immediately inside the east side of the diagonal boundary line, and the Icaria and Seven Arches Vineyards, which are in the proposed expansion area on the west side of the diagonal boundary line, do not vary substantially in their overall elevations and their relative locations on the flood plain.
        Soils

        The petitioner explains that the distinguishing soils in the Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road areas in the proposed expansion area include the Hugo-Josephine-Laughlin association. According to the Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California, issued in 1972 by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, the soils in this association are well drained, gently sloping to very steep gravelly loam. This soil association, according to the petitioner, is common on the western slopes of the Alexander Valley, including much of the existing viticultural area. The predominant soil associations in the Alexander Valley viticultural area, the petitioner continues, are the Yolo-Cortina-Pleasanton, Goulding-Toomes-Guenoc, and Hugo-Josephine-Laughlin associations, which are also in the proposed expansion area.
        Climate
        The petitioner states that the climate of the proposed expansion area closely reflects that of the area to its immediate east and inside the viticultural area boundary line. Both areas, the petitioner states, are similar in vegetative cover, elevation, topographic features, and latitudinal coordinates.
        The entire Alexander Valley viticultural area has a coastal warm climate type, according to the model Climate Types of Sonoma County, originally developed by Robert Sisson and shown on the 1986 Vossen map, provided with the petition. This model uses the total daily hours of temperatures between 70 and 90 degrees F. The petitioner explains that the temperature range is the most significant factor for photosynthesis in the grapevines.
        Climatic variations have not been recorded along Icaria Creek and Hiatt Road between the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. However, the manager of the Seven Arches Vineyards writes that along Hiatt Road, on both sides of the diagonal boundary line of the existing Alexander Valley viticultural area, the climate is similar, if not identical. The petitioner explains that the climatic variations in inland northern Sonoma County result from coastal, or marine, influences to the west. Thus, in northern Alexander Valley, which is located in inland northern Sonoma County, climatic variations are less because of the diminished coastal influence on the region.
        Boundary Description
        See the changes to the narrative boundary description for the petitioned-for viticultural area expansion in the proposed regulatory text amendment published at the end of this notice.
        Maps
        The petitioner provided the required maps, which are already listed in the § 9.53 regulatory text.
        Impact on Current Wine Labels
        The proposed expansion of the Alexander Valley viticultural area will not affect currently approved wine labels. The approval of this proposed expansion may allow additional vintners to use “Alexander Valley” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). In addition, regulations regarding the use of a brand name containing a viticultural area name on a label are found in 27 CFR 4.39(i).
        Public Participation
        Comments Invited
        We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should expand the Alexander Valley viticultural area as described above. We are especially interested in comments concerning the similarity of the proposed expansion area to the currently existing Alexander Valley viticultural area. Please provide any available specific information in your comments about the proposed expansion area's name, proposed boundaries, or distinguishing features.
        Submitting Comments
        Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways:
        • Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        • Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must—
        (1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
        (2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
        (3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
        • E-mail: You may e-mail comments to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments transmitted by electronic mail must—
        (1) Contain your e-mail address;
        (2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
        (3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper.
        • Online form: We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number.
        • Federal e-rulemaking portal: To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
        You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
        Confidentiality
        All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
        Public Disclosure
        You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments.

        We will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. All name and address information submitted with comments will be posted, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments.

        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
        Drafting Information
        N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.

          List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
          Wine.

        Proposed Regulatory Amendment
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
          1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            27 U.S.C. 205.

            Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas

          2. Section 9.53 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5), redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(44) as (c)(9) through (c)(47), and adding new paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(8) to read as follows:

            § 9.53
            Alexander Valley.

            (c) * * *

            (5) Then straight south along the eastern boundary line of Section 25, to its intersection with Kelly Road, a medium-duty road, T. 11 N., R. 11 W.;
            (6) Then southwest along Kelly Road to its intersection with the northern boundary line of Section 36, T. 11 N., R. 11 W.;
            (7) Then straight south to its intersection with 38°45′ N. latitude along the southern border of the Cloverdale Quadrangle map, T. 10 N., R. 11 W. and R. 10 W.;
            (8) Then straight east to its intersection with the 123°00′ E. longitude at the southeastern corner of the Cloverdale Quadrangle map, T. 10 N., R. 10 W.;

            Signed: June 28, 2006.
            John J. Manfreda,
            Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E6-11080 Filed 7-14-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4810-31-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 210603-0120]
        RIN 0648-BK29
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Electronic Logbooks for Hawaii and American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to require the use of electronic logbooks in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries and on Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery. This proposed rule is intended to reduce human error, improve data accuracy, save time for fishermen and NMFS, and provide more rigorous monitoring and forecasting of catch limits.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by July 9, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0014, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0014 in the Search box, click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared a regulatory amendment that provides additional information and analyses that support this proposed rule. Copies are available from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, or www.wpcouncil.org.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Michael D. Tosatto (see ADDRESSES) and to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lynn Rassel, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5184.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS and the Council manage the Hawaii (shallow-set and deep-set) and America Samoa longline fisheries under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). The implementing Federal regulations for these fisheries include a suite of conservation and management requirements. Among the requirements are limited access permits, carrying at-sea observers, vessel monitoring system (VMS), daily catch and effort reporting, and a host of other gear and operational requirements.
        Current regulations require vessel operators to record and submit catch information in paper logbooks, with the option to use electronic logbooks. Currently, if using paper logbooks, NMFS requires vessel operators to record catch information daily and submit the logbooks within 72 hours of returning to port after a fishing trip. If using electronic logbooks, NMFS requires vessel operators to record catch information daily and submit electronic logs within 24 hours after the end of a fishing day. In the event of a system failure, vessel operators are required to submit electronic or paper logbooks within 72 hours of returning to port after a fishing trip.
        There are approximately 144 active vessels in the Hawaii longline fisheries (shallow-set and deep-set combined) and approximately 12 active Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa longline fishery. As of March 2021, approximately 94 vessels in the Hawaii fisheries are voluntarily using electronic logbooks. No vessels are using electronic logbooks in the American Samoa fishery.
        Paper logbooks require manual handling and data entry. Collecting, collating, storing, and entering data manually is costly, inefficient, and prone to errors. Additionally, NMFS and the Council manage U.S. longline bigeye tuna catch limits and allocation limits, which require forecasts of bigeye tuna catches throughout the fishing season to inform in-season management. Errors in recording and delay in data entry can result in near-term forecasting inaccuracy, potentially resulting in overages and underages of bigeye tuna catch with respect to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) catch limits. Any overage in the WCPFC Convention Area would be applied to the catch limit in the subsequent year, thereby reducing the catch limit for the following year. Conversely, if forecasting inaccuracy leads to an underage, the fishery would not be allowed to carry-over the unused catch limit to the subsequent year, resulting in a reduction in catch available to the fishery and the Nation.

        In light of these inefficiencies, the Council in October 2018 recommended that NMFS implement mandatory electronic logbooks in the Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries. In June 2019, the Council requested that the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center convene an Electronic Technologies Steering Committee to address electronic logbook implementation challenges. In June 2020, the Council considered requiring electronic logbooks in the Hawaii and American Samoa pelagic longline fisheries. In September 2020, the Council recommended that NMFS require electronic logbooks for the Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries and for Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery, implementation targeted for July 2021.
        Pursuant to the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes to require the use of electronic logbooks for vessels with Federal permits for the Hawaii fishery, and Class C and D Federal permits for the American Samoa fishery. This proposed rule would continue to meet existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements set forth in 50 CFR 665.14.
        Under the proposed action, vessel operators would be required to use a NMFS-certified electronic logbook (consisting of a tablet computer and software application) to record catch, effort, location, and other information, and submit it within 24 hours of the completion of a fishing day. In the event of technology malfunction with hardware, software, or transmission, NMFS would require that logbook data be submitted on paper or electronically within 72 hours of the end of the affected fishing trip.

        If this rule is finalized, it would be effective no earlier than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. After the effective date, the requirements would be applicable to an individual permit holder after NMFS notifies the permit holder of the requirement to submit records electronically and after NMFS assigns an electronic logbook to the vessel.
        NMFS would be responsible for purchasing, providing, and maintaining the tablets, software, and data transmission at no cost to fishery participants. In addition to providing the electronic logbooks, NMFS would provide vessel operators with individual user accounts and train them to use the system properly.
        If a third party were to develop an electronic logbook system in the future, NMFS would work with prospective provider(s) and fishery participants to review and evaluate those systems and, if appropriate, certify them for use in the fisheries. NMFS has not determined at this time whether it would provide alternative third-party systems to the fisheries at no cost, or if the fishery participants would be required to assume those costs.
        Near real-time reporting via electronic logbooks would improve timeliness in catch reporting and add precision and reduce catch forecast inaccuracies. This proposed action would ensure that Hawaii and American Samoa longline fishermen have the opportunity to maximize sustainable catch of bigeye tuna and species, facilitate the implementation of in-season accountability measures, and meet market demands, consistent with the conservation needs of the stocks. This proposed action would also support the NMFS Policy Directive on Electronic Technologies (ET) and Fishery Dependent Data Collection (Electronic Technology Policy Directive 04-115; May 7, 2019) to complement and/or improve existing fishery-dependent data collection programs to achieve the most cost-effective and sustainable approach that ensures alignment of management goals, data needs, funding sources and regulations.

        NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final rule in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive comments on this proposed action by the date provided in the DATES heading. NMFS may not consider comments postmarked or otherwise transmitted after that date. Regardless of the final rule, all other existing management measures would continue to apply in the longline fishery.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation for the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The proposed action would apply to pelagic longline fishing vessels holding Hawaii longline permits and American Samoa Class C and D longline permits under the FEP. Vessel operators would be required to record fishing data using electronic, and to submit electronic reports within 24 hours after completion of each fishing day via the NMFS-provided VMS. NMFS would provide the electronic logbooks and training. In the case of a hardware, software, or transmission failure, NMFS would allow submission of electronic or paper report forms within 72 hours of the end of each fishing trip. Implementing electronic logbooks would take advantage of emerging technology that could reduce human error, improve data accuracy, save time for fishermen and NMFS, and provide more rigorous monitoring and forecasting of catch limits and application of in-season accountability measures. This action is needed to ensure that the Hawaii and American Samoa longline vessels have the opportunity to maximize sustainable catch of bigeye tuna and other Western Pacific pelagic management unit species under the FEP to meet market demands consistent with the conservation needs of the stocks.
        Because NMFS is paying the costs of the hardware, software, data transmission, and training under the existing voluntary, and proposed mandatory, electronic reporting system, there will be minimal burdens on the fishery participants. There may be a brief training and learning period for operators to become familiar with recording and submitting electronic reports. There would be no new reporting elements for fishery participants. Only the method of reporting would change for some operators who are not already using the electronic system.
        In 2019, Hawaii longline vessels landed approximately 32.8 million lb (14,874 t) of pelagic fish valued at $94.8 million. With 146 vessels making either a deep- or shallow-set trip in 2019, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by Hawaii-based longline fisheries averaged almost $649,000 per vessel. In 2019, American Samoa-based longline vessels landed approximately 2.9 million lb (1,315 t) of pelagic fish valued at $3.9 million; albacore made up the largest proportion of pelagic longline commercial landings. With 17 active longline vessels in 2019, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by the American Samoa fishery averaged almost $230,000 per vessel.

        Complete data are not yet available for 2020, but preliminary information indicates that the longline fisheries experienced a temporary decrease in revenue and other fishery performance measures, possibly resulting from travel restrictions. In Hawaii, declines in tourism led to a reduction in demand for associated goods and services including locally caught seafood. These, in turn, affected fishery landings, fish prices, and revenues. Average revenues, landings, and prices from March through July dropped 45 percent, 34 percent, and 15 percent, respectively, compared to averages for 2015-2019 (NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, unpublished data). In American Samoa, 2020 longline fishing activity was also likely to have been similarly adversely affected, compounded by the imposition of incoming travel restrictions, which affected the recruitment of fishing crew. However, travel and other restrictions are likely to ease, which would help boost market demand for locally caught seafood, market prices, and fishing effort.

        NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels permitted federally under the FEP are small entities, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting (NAICS 114111), are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action would not result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels.

        Under this proposed rule, the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries are not expected to expand substantially or change their operations (i.e., area fished, number of vessels and trips, number and depth of hooks, or deployment techniques). The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small organizations or government jurisdictions. Furthermore, there would be little, if any, disproportionate adverse economic impacts from the proposed action based on gear type, or relative vessel size. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities.
        For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This rule revises the existing requirements for the collection of information under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0648-0214 Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms by requiring the use of electronic logbooks in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries and on Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery. This revision is not expected to affect the number of respondents or anticipated responses and is expected to reduce the number of burden hours and burden cost to fishermen. Public reporting burden for completing an electronic logbook form for a completed fishing day is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

        Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaii, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Longline, Pacific Islands, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 4, 2021.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 665.14 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 665.14
          Reporting and recordkeeping.

          (b) Fishing record forms—
          (1) Applicability.

          (i) Paper records. The operator of a fishing vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 665.124, 665.142, 665.162, 665.203(a)(2), 665.224, 665.242, 665.262, 665.404, 665.424, 665.442, 665.462, 665.603, 665.624, 665.642, 665.662, 665.801, 665.905, 665.935, or 665.965 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data on paper report forms provided by the Regional Administrator, or electronically as specified and approved by the Regional Administrator, except as required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section or as allowed in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
          (ii) Electronic records.
          (A) The operator of a fishing vessel subject to the requirements of § 665.801(b) or a Class C or D vessel subject to the requirements of § 665.801(c) must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data electronically using a NMFS-certified electronic logbook, and must record and transmit electronically all information specified by the Regional Administrator within 24 hours after the completion of each fishing day.
          (B) After the Regional Administrator has notified a permit holder subject to this section of the requirement to submit records electronically, and after the vessel has acquired the necessary NMFS-certified equipment, the vessel and any vessel operator must use the electronic logbook. A vessel operator must obtain an individually assigned user account from NMFS for use with the electronic logbook.
          (C) Permit holders and vessel operators shall not be assessed any fee or other charges to obtain and use an electronic logbook that is owned and provided by NMFS. If a permit holder or vessel operator subject to this section does not use a NMFS-owned electronic logbook, the permit holder and operator must provide and maintain an alternative NMFS-certified electronic logbook.

          (D) If a vessel operator is unable to maintain or transmit electronic records because NMFS has not provided an electronic logbook, or if NMFS or a vessel operator identifies that the electronic logbook has experienced equipment (hardware or software) or transmission failure, the operator must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data electronically or on paper report forms provided by the Regional Administrator.
          (iii) The vessel operator must record on paper or electronically all information specified by the Regional Administrator within 24 hours after the completion of each fishing day. The information recorded must be signed and dated, or otherwise authenticated, in the manner determined by the Regional Administrator, and be submitted or transmitted via an approved method as specified by the Regional Administrator, and as required by this section.
          (iv) In lieu of the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the operator of a fishing vessel registered for use under a Western Pacific squid jig permit pursuant to the requirements of § 665.801(g) may participate in a state reporting system. If participating in a state reporting system, all required information must be recorded and submitted in the exact manner required by applicable state law or regulation.
          (2) Timeliness of submission.

          (i) If fishing was authorized under a permit pursuant to §§ 665.142, 665.242, 665.442, 665.404, 665.162, 665.262, 665.462, 665.662, or 665.801, and if the logbook information was not submitted to NMFS electronically within 24 hours of the end of each fishing day while the vessel was at sea, the vessel operator must submit the original logbook information for each day of the fishing trip to the Regional Administrator within 72 hours of the end of each fishing trip, except as allowed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
          (ii) [Reserved]
          (iii) If fishing was authorized under a PRIA bottomfish permit pursuant to § 665.603(a), PRIA pelagic troll and handline permit pursuant to § 665.801(f), crustacean fishing permit for the PRIA (Permit Area 4) pursuant to § 665.642(a), or a precious coral fishing permit for Permit Area X-P-PI pursuant to § 665.662, the original logbook form for each day of fishing within EEZ waters around the PRIA must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the end of each fishing trip.
          (iv) If fishing was authorized under a permit pursuant to §§ 665.124, 665.224, 665.424, 665.624, 665.905, 665.935, or 665.965, the original logbook information for each day of fishing must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the end of each fishing trip.

      [FR Doc. 2021-12067 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-XA500
        North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Essential Fish Habitat Amendments

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted the following essential fish habitat (EFH) amendments to NMFS for review: Amendment 98 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 90 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 40 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs; Amendment 15 to the FMP for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska; and Amendment 1 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area. If approved, these amendments would update the existing EFH provisions based on a 5-year EFH review. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2011-0070, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0070 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Comment Now” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

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

          Electronic copies of the environmental assessment prepared for this action are available from www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Ellgen, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The MSA also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.

        This notice announces proposed EFH Amendment 98 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI Groundfish FMP); Amendment 90 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA Groundfish FMP); Amendment 40 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (BSAI Crab FMP); Amendment 15 to the FMP for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (Scallop FMP); and Amendment 1 to the FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the BSAI Groundfish FMP, the GOA Groundfish FMP, the BSAI Crab FMP, the Scallop FMP, the Arctic FMP, and the FMP for Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off the Coast of Alaska (Salmon FMP) under the authority of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        The MSA includes provisions concerning the identification and conservation of EFH. The MSA defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” NMFS and regional fishery management councils must describe and identify EFH in FMPs. Each FMP contains the following EFH components: EFH descriptions and identification; fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH; non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH; cumulative impacts analysis; EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations; prey species list and locations; Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) identification; research and information needs; and the requirement to review EFH every 5 years.
        In 2005, the Council recommended amendments to address EFH requirements for the BSAI Groundfish FMP, the GOA Groundfish FMP, the BSAI Crab FMP, the Scallop FMP, and the Salmon FMP. The Arctic FMP approved by the Council in 2009 included EFH provisions. Regulations implementing EFH and HAPC conservation measures under Amendments 78 and 65 to the BSAI Groundfish FMP, Amendments 73 and 65 to the GOA Groundfish FMP, Amendments 16 and 12 to the BSAI Crab FMP, Amendments 7 and 9 to the Scallop FMP, and Amendments 7 and 8 to the Salmon FMP were published on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36694). The FMP approval and implementing regulations for the Arctic FMP were published on November 3, 2009 (74 FR 56734).

        In 2009 and 2010, a 5-year EFH review was conducted for the Council. The results of this review are documented in the Final EFH 5-year Review for 2010 Summary Report (www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/review/efh_5yr_review_sumrpt.pdf). The Report reviewed EFH provisions in five of the Council's six FMPs: the BSAI Groundfish FMP, the GOA Groundfish FMP, the BSAI Crab FMP, the Scallop FMP, and the Salmon FMP. The Arctic FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce in August 2009 (74 FR 56734). Because a thorough assessment of EFH was included in the Arctic FMP, EFH descriptions for Arctic species were not addressed in the 5-year review report.
        The 5-year review evaluated new information on EFH, assessed information gaps and research needs, and identified whether any revisions to EFH are needed or suggested. Based on the 5-year review and the summary report, the Council identified various elements of the EFH FMP text that merit revision. The proposed FMP amendments would revise the following components:
        • Amend the EFH provisions of the BSAI and GOA Groundfish FMPs for 24 groundfish species or complexes.
        • Amend the EFH provisions of the BSAI Crab FMP for five crab species or complexes.
        • Amend the EFH provisions of the Scallop FMP for weathervane scallop.
        • Amend the EFH conservation recommendations for non-fishing activities in all Council FMPs.
        • Revise the timeline for considering HAPCs from 3 years to 5 years in all Council FMPs.
        • Revise the research objectives for EFH in the five Council FMPs subject to the 2010 EFH 5-year review (excludes the Arctic FMP).
        The 2010 EFH 5-year review concluded that no change to the 2005 conclusions on the evaluation of fishing effects on EFH was warranted based on a review of information from 2005 through 2010.
        Several EFH revisions have been approved since the 2010 EFH review was conducted. Specifically, the Council recommended, and NMFS approved, Amendment 11 to the Salmon FMP regarding recommendations for non-fishing activities, HAPC timeline change, and EFH research objectives. Amendment 11 was proposed with Amendments 10 and 12 to the Salmon FMP (77 FR 19605, April 2, 2012). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendments 10, 11, and 12 on July 2, 2012. NMFS is not proposing additional EFH amendments to the Salmon FMP at this time given the approval of Amendment 11.

        Public comments are being solicited on the proposed amendments to the FMPs through the end of the comment period (see DATES). All comments received by the end of the comment period will be considered in the FMP approval/disapproval decision. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 5 p.m., Alaska local time on the last day of the comment period. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments.

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

          Dated: August 3, 2012.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-19454 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [EB Docket No. 08-51; DA 13-430]
        Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks To Refresh the Record Regarding Options for Addressing Non-Emergency Calls to 911 From Non-Service Initialized Handsets

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Request for Comments.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communication Commission's (Commission) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) seeks to refresh the record regarding the nature and extent of fraudulent 911 calls made from Non-Service Initialized (NSI) devices; concerns with blocking NSI devices used to make fraudulent 911 calls, and suggestions for making this a more viable option for carriers; and other possible solutions to the problem of fraudulent 911 calls from NSI devices.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before May 16, 2013 and reply comments are due on or before May 31, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 08-51 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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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. 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.
          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 should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

          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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Ehrenreich, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1726 or Eric.Ehrenreich@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Federal Communication Commission's Public Notice in PS Docket No. 08-51, DA 13-430, released on March 14, 2013. This document is available to the public at http://www.fcc.gov/document/pshsb-seeks-refresh-non-emergency-911-calls-nsi-handset-record.

        Synopsis of the Public Notice

        1. The Commission's rules require commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers subject to the Commission's 911 rules to forward all wireless 911 calls, including those originated from “non-service-initialized” (NSI) handsets, to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). In 2008, nine public safety organizations and a software development firm (Petitioners) filed a petition for notice of inquiry to address the problem of fraudulent non-emergency 911 calls placed to PSAPs from NSI handsets. The Commission granted this petition and issued a Notice of Inquiry in April 2008 to enhance its understanding of the extent of the problem and to explore potential solutions. Specifically, the Commission requested comment in three areas: (1) The nature and extent of fraudulent 911 calls made from NSI devices; (2) concerns with blocking NSI devices used to make fraudulent 911 calls, and suggestions for making this a more viable option for carriers; and (3) other possible solutions to the problem of fraudulent 911 calls from NSI devices.

        2. In light of the concerns raised by Petitioners regarding fraudulent non-emergency 911 calls, one of the options on which the Notice of Inquiry (73 FR 28,116), sought comment was whether the Commission should eliminate the 911 call-forwarding requirement for NSI devices. In response, a number of public safety commenters advocated for the Commission to eliminate the requirement. However, other commenters, including Petitioners, other public safety entities, and commercial carriers, took the opposite view, arguing that the public had come to rely on the fact that NSI devices are 911-capable and that eliminating the call-forwarding requirement could lead to tragic results given this public reliance.
        3. In a recently filed ex parte, however, NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA), one of the original Petitioners, has revised its earlier-stated position on this issue. NENA states that based on its “members' experience since 2008 * * * we now can support the reversal of the ‘all calls’ rule.” According to NENA, “PSAPs face an ever-growing onslaught of non-emergency calls to 9-1-1 from NSI devices.” Moreover, in recently filed comments in another docket, NENA states that there is now a “consensus view that the promotion of NSI devices does more harm than good.” NENA further asserts that “most charities and domestic violence advocates [have] abandoned the practice of distributing NSI devices.” NENA states that “NSI phone donation programs have since been supplanted by outright donations of devices and service by CMRS providers, and by state and federal programs (such as the Universal Service Fund-supported Lifeline program) that provide free or reduced-cost mobile service to low-income or at-risk individuals.” However, NENA does not support “overnight” elimination of the 911 call-forwarding requirement, proposing instead that the Commission should phase out the requirement “for devices and networks that no longer support legacy circuit-switched calling.” NENA clams that this would “minimize stranded investments by carriers and consumers as carriers transition to fully IP-based architectures such as LTE and consumers transition to IP-only devices that no longer support circuit-switched voice services.”

        4. In light of NENA's revised view on the 911 call-forwarding requirement, as well as the passage of time since the filing of comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry, we seek to refresh the record in this proceeding. In particular, we seek comment on whether other interested parties agree or disagree with NENA's view that the Commission should consider phasing out the call-forwarding requirement as it applies to NSI devices. More generally, we seek comment on relevant changes in industry, technology, regulation, public practice, or otherwise that may have occurred since the earlier filing of comments. We also ask commenters to point out any earlier-submitted facts or analyses in the record that they now regard as outdated, and to provide any new information that they consider relevant.
        I. Procedural Matters
        A. Ex Parte Presentations

        5. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. 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.
        B. Comment Filing Procedures

        6. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Please place the docket number PS DOCKET NO. 08-51 on all filings. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
        7. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

        8. Paper Filers: Parties who 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.
        9. 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.

        10. 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.
        11. 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.
        12. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        13. 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (tty).
        14. Copies of the Petition and any subsequently filed documents in this matter are also available for inspection in the Commission's Reference Information Center: 445 12th Street SW., CY-Level, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          David S. Turetsky,
          Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2013-06814 Filed 3-29-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 00-2303, MM Docket No. 00-198, RM-9980]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Corpus Christi, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by KVOA Communications, Inc., licensee of station KRIS-TV, NTSC Channel 6, Corpus Christi, Texas, requesting the substitution of DTV 13 for station KRIS-TV's assigned DTV Channel 50. DTV Channel 13 can be allotted to Corpus Christi, Texas, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates 27-44-28 N and 97-36-08 W with a power of 160 (kW) and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 291 meters. However, since the community of Corpus Christi is located within 275 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexican border, concurrence by the Mexican government must be obtained for this allotment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before December 4, 2000, and reply comments on or before December 19, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Scott S. Patrick, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-6802 (Counsel for KVOA Communications, Inc.).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-198, adopted October 12, 2000, and released October 13, 1999. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

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

      [FR Doc. 00-26666 Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1 and 52
        [FAR Case 2017-014, Docket No. FAR-2017-0014, Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AN43
        Federal Acquisition Regulations: FAR Case 2017-014, Use of Acquisition 360 To Encourage Vendor Feedback

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to encourage use of voluntary feedback mechanisms, where appropriate, to support continual improvement of the acquisition process.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments at the address shown below on or before November 16, 2020 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2017-014 to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2017-014”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2017-014”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2017-014” on your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR case 2017-014” in all correspondence related to this case. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-1448, or by email at Curtis.glover@gsa.gov, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite FAR Case 2017-014.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        DoD, GSA and NASA are proposing to revise the FAR to encourage use of voluntary feedback mechanisms, where appropriate, to support continual improvement of the acquisition process. These mechanisms were largely developed through pilot efforts conducted in accordance with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) memorandum “Acquisition 360—Improving the Acquisition Process through Timely Feedback from External and Internal Stakeholders.” The memorandum established the Acquisition 360 Survey tool, a voluntary online survey to elicit industry feedback on the pre-award and debriefing processes in a consistent and standardized manner.
        An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) was published at 83 FR 34820 on July 23, 2018, to obtain public input regarding matters related to contractor feedback, the overall cost of compliance and any specific regulatory requirements that are particularly burdensome. The proposed Acquisition 360 survey questions were also posted as part of the rulemaking.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This proposed rule seeks to amend FAR part 1, adding a new section at FAR 1.102-3, Evaluating agency acquisition processes, which encourages agencies to develop internal procedures to seek voluntary feedback from interested parties in the acquisition process. Contracting officers are encouraged to use a new provision at 52.201-XX, Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, to solicit feedback from actual and potential offerors, in accordance with agency procedures.
        The proposed revisions are intended to implement a standard process for obtaining voluntary feedback on various aspects of the acquisition process. While use of feedback is encouraged, DoD, GSA, and NASA appreciate that tailored solicitation of feedback may be more manageable and useful than blanket application and, for this reason, have crafted the proposed rule to provide agencies the flexibility to target specific types of requirements or aspects of the acquisition lifecycle where feedback may be most helpful to the agency and its efforts to drive continual process improvements. The feedback will be anonymous, unless the participant self-identifies in the survey.
        The proposed text is moved to FAR part 1 from parts 5 and 42 because the survey tool may be applied to procurements in general, as determined by agency procedure.
        III. Applicability to Contracts At or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items
        This proposed rule seeks to add a provision for a voluntary survey. The provision is not prescribed for any particular kind of procurement; agencies may include it in solicitations below the SAT and in solicitations for commercial items, including COTS. However, because it is voluntary, impact on offerors or contractors is expected to be minimal.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impact, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is not expected to be subject to E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Nevertheless, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared and is summarized as follows:

          The reason for this proposed rule is to encourage use of voluntary feedback mechanisms, where appropriate, to support continual improvement of the acquisition process. The use of the voluntary Acquisition 360 survey is one mechanism to elicit feedback on the pre-award and debriefing processes in a consistent and standardized manner.
          The objective of the rule is to encourage agency use of the Acquisition 360 survey tool in accordance with agency procedures, to obtain feedback from offerors which may be used to improve their acquisition processes. The Office of Management and Budget is providing and hosting the centralized survey portal which will facilitate data access and analysis across the Government. The legal basis for the proposed rule is 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 10 U.S.C. chapter 137, and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          Data generated from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and the System for Award Management (SAM) have been used as the basis for estimating the number of small entities affected by this rule. Currently, there are approximately 327,000 small entities registered in SAM that were small in at least one North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) code. The rule, therefore, will potentially impact all 327,000 small entities.

          In order to estimate the likely number of small entities impacted by the rule, we used the average of FPDS data for fiscal years (FY) 2017, 2018, and 2019. Examination of the data reveals that the number of unique small entities that received contract awards was 60,912. DoD, GSA, and NASA estimate that each unique small entity would respond to approximately 3 solicitations, equating to 182,736 potential offers. It is anticipated that 33 percent of these potential offerors will submit a response to the survey based upon the outcome of a previous OFPP-conducted pilot. Based upon this data, it is anticipated that 60,302 small entities will likely be affected by the rule.

          The proposed rule encourages potential offerors to provide feedback at https://www.acquisition.gov/360 on agency acquisition processes.
          The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
          There were other alternatives considered, to include the status quo, for Government acquisition officials to elicit feedback from their contractors, such as vendor outreach with industry days on the agency's performance of its contract administration responsibilities; however, these would not accomplish the stated objective of the rule nor would they minimize the economic impact of the rule on small entities.

        The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2017-014) in correspondence.
        VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies as this proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning the Voluntary Pre-award Survey.
        A. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 10 minutes per response to the voluntary online survey. This estimate includes entering the online portal and providing input to as few as one or as many as 18 questions, as determined by the respondent.
        This new information collection uses the common form method to calculate the public burden hours. GSA data is provided to estimate the initial burden information for the collection. In the future, each executive branch agency will provide information on the agency use and contractor participation in the voluntary survey. This information will be included in the renewal of the collection at that time.
        The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
        *Respondents: 4,573.
        *Responses per respondent: 1.
        *Total annual responses: 4,573.
        *Preparation hours per response: .1667.
        *Total response burden hours: 762.
        B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden.
        As part of this proposed rulemaking, the FAR Council is soliciting comments from the public in order to:
        Evaluate whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, including whether the information will have practical utility;
        Evaluate the accuracy of the FAR Council's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
        Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
        Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection requirements associated with this rulemaking should submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than November 16, 2020 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001.
        Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statement from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-XXXX.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1 and 52.
          Government procurement.

          William F. Clark,
          Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 1 and 52 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1 and 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

            1.102-3 and 1.102-4
             [Redesignated]

        2. Redesignate sections 1.102-3 and 1.102-4 as sections 1.102-4 and 1.102-5.
        3. Add new section 1.102-3 to read as follows:

          1.102-3
           Evaluating agency acquisition processes.
          (a) Agencies are encouraged to develop internal procedures seeking voluntary feedback from interested parties in an acquisition to assess process strengths and weaknesses and improve effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition process. Agencies may—

          (1) Utilize a variety of feedback mechanisms available to the public (e.g., surveys, in-person, and/or group exchanges);

          (2) Utilize the core pre-award and debriefing survey questions at https://www.acquisition.gov/360; and

          (3) Seek additional feedback on targeted aspects of an acquisition throughout its lifecycle (e.g., performance standards at 1.102(b) or post-award contract administration responsibilities at 42.302).
          (b) Contracting officers are encouraged to insert the provision 52.201-XX, Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, in accordance with agency procedures.
          (c) Contracting officers shall not review information until after contract award and shall not consider it in the award decision.

        4. In section 1.106, amend the table by adding an entry for “52.201-XX” in numerical order to read as follows:

          1.106
          OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

              FAR segment
              OMB control No.

              *    *    *    *    *

              52.201-XX
              9000-XXXX

              *    *    *    *    *

          1.108
           [Amended]

        5. Amend section 1.108 by removing from paragraph (b) “1.102-4(b)” and adding “1.102-5(b)” in its place.

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        6. Add section 52.201-XX to read as follows:

          52.201-XX
           Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey.
          As prescribed in 1.102-3(b), insert the following provision:

            Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey (DATE)

            (a) All actual and potential offerors are encouraged to provide feedback on the preaward and debriefing process. Feedback may be provided to agencies up to 45 days after award. The feedback is anonymous, unless the participant self-identifies in the survey. Actual and potential offerors can participate in the survey by selecting the following link: https://www.acquisition.gov/360.
            (b) The Contracting Officer will not review the information provided until after contract award and will not consider it in the award decision. The survey is voluntary and does not convey any protections, rights, or grounds for protest. It creates a way for actual and potential offerors to provide the Government constructive feedback about the pre-award and debriefing process on a specific acquisition.

      [FR Doc. 2020-18375 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R04-RCRA-2012-0124; FRL-9735-1]
        Tennessee: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          Tennessee has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Tennessee. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not issue a proposed rule prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. EPA has explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless EPA receives written comments which oppose this authorization 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 EPA receives comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. EPA 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:
          Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2012-0124, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: johnson.otis@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (404) 562-9964 (prior to faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below).
          • Mail: Send written comments to Otis Johnson, Permits and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: Otis Johnson, Permits and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2012-0124. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through, www.regulations.gov, your email 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. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.)

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy. You may view and copy Tennessee's application at the EPA, Region 4, RCRA Division, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          You may also view and copy Tennessee's application from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 5th Floor, L & C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1535; telephone number: (615) 562-0780. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least a week in advance.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Otis Johnson, Permits and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8481; fax number: (404) 562-9964; email address: johnson.otis@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2012-24097 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P