        LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
        Copyright Royalty Board
        37 CFR Part 387
        [Docket No. 15-CRB-0010-CA-S]
        Adjustment of Cable Statutory License Royalty Rates

          AGENCY:
          Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; modified.

          SUMMARY:
          The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) publish for comment modified proposed regulations to require affected cable systems to pay a separate per-telecast royalty (a Sports Surcharge) in addition to the other royalties that those cable systems must pay under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.

          DATES:
          Comments and objections are due no later than August 29, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments and objections, identified by docket number 17-CRB-0001-BER (2019-2023), by any of the following methods:

            CRB's electronic filing application: Submit comments online in eCRB at https://app.crb.gov/.

            U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

            Overnight service (only USPS Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

            Commercial courier: Address package to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE and D Street NE, Washington, DC; or

            Hand delivery: Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000.

            Instructions: Unless submitting online, commenters must submit an original, two paper copies, and an electronic version on a CD. All submissions must include a reference to the CRB and this docket number. All submissions will be posted without change to eCRB at https://app.crb.gov/ including any personal information provided.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read submitted background documents or comments, go to eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system, at https://app.crb.gov/ and search for docket number 15-CRB-0010-CA-S.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at crb@loc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On July 2, 2018, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a motion from the Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),1
           the NCTA—The internet and Television Association, and the American Cable Association, notifying the Judges that they reached agreement on a modified sports surcharge rule and requesting the Judges adopt the rule. Joint Motion of the Participating Parties to Suspend Procedural Schedule and to Adopt Modified Settlement at 1 (Jul. 2, 2018) (Joint Motion). The Judges had published an earlier version of the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 82 FR 24611 (May 30, 2017) and a request for reply and surreply comments regarding that version at 82 FR 44368 (Sept. 22, 2017).

            1 The Joint Sports Claimants are the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the Women's National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

        The moving parties also requested that the Judges suspend, pending resolution of the Joint Motion, the procedural schedule set forth in the Order Reinstating Case Schedule dated January 18, 2018, and that the Judges publish the modified proposed rule expeditiously. On July 20, 2018, the Judges issued an order suspending the proceeding schedule, pending their review of the moving parties' agreement and publication of the modified proposed rule for public comment. The Judges stated that they would defer decision on adoption of the settlement agreement and termination of the proceeding until after they consider comments, if any, filed in response to publication of the modified proposed rule.
        A. Background

        Section 111(d)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act (the Act), 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B), sets forth the royalty rates that “Form 3” cable systems must pay to retransmit broadcast signals pursuant to the Section 111(c) statutory license. Form 3 systems are those with semi-annual “gross receipts” greater than $527,600. See id. §§ 111(d)(1)(B), (E) & (F); 37 CFR 201.17(d). Section 801(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides:

          In the event of any change in the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission [“FCC”] with respect to syndicated and sports program exclusivity after April 15, 1976, the rates established by section 111(d)(1)(B) may be adjusted to assure that such rates are reasonable in light of the changes to such rules and regulations, but any such adjustment shall apply only to the affected television broadcast signals carried on those systems affected by the change.

        17 U.S.C. 801(b)(2)(C).

        Section 804(b)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act states that, in “order to initiate proceedings under section [801(b)(2)(C)],” an interested party must file a petition with the Judges requesting a rate change within twelve months of the FCC's action. 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(1)(B); see H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 178 (1976) (right to seek review “exercisable for a 12 month period following the date such changes are finally effective”). The FCC adopted sports exclusivity rules for cable systems in 1975. See Report and Order in Doc. No. 19417, 54 F.C.C.2d 265 (1975) (“Sports Rules”). The FCC repealed the Sports Rules effective November 24, 2014. See Sports Blackout Rules, 79 FR 63547 (Oct. 24, 2014) (Sports Rule Repeal). At the time of the Sports Rule Repeal, the Sports Rules were codified at 47 CFR 76.111 (2014).

        On November 23, 2015, JSC filed a rate adjustment petition pursuant to Section 801(b)(2)(C) of the Copyright Act. In June 2016 the Judges established a procedural schedule for ruling on the JSC petition. Order of Bifurcation . . . and Scheduling Order (June 2016 Order). While the moving parties were unable to settle this matter during the voluntary negotiation period established by the June 2016 Order, they continued negotiations and agreed that this proceeding should be terminated with the adoption of a proposed rule.

        Upon motion of the Participants in January 2017, the Judges published the proposed rule and received comments. See 82 FR 24611 (May 30, 2017). The Judges then published, in September 2017, a request for further comments on the proposed rule. See 82 FR 44368. After reviewing reply and surreply comments, they declined to adopt the proposed rates and reinstated a case schedule. Order Reinstating Case Schedule (Jan. 12, 2018).
        In declining to adopt the proposed settlement the Judges noted that

          The applicable license in this proceeding is the license to retransmit by cable beyond the local service area the works of “any . . . owner whose work was included in a secondary transmission made by a cable system . . . in whole or in part. . . .” 17 U.S.C. 111 (d)(3). [Major League Soccer (MLS)] and potentially other professional sports leagues are owners of, or represent owners of, copyrights to televised professional team sports events. The regulations proposed by the JSC define an “eligible professional sports event” to include only professional baseball, basketball (men and women), football, and hockey. By definition, MLS and any other professional league scheduling team sports events for telecast (and retransmission by those affected cable systems) would be ineligible to receive any portion of the sports programming surcharge negotiated by the JSC and cable providers. This proposed regulatory configuration provides for licensing royalties from Form 3 cable systems for some sports leagues to the express exclusion of other leagues that own or represent owners of protected works.
          As proposed, the regulation for the exclusive benefit of Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and the Women's National Basketball Association is contrary to the applicable section 111 license. The Judges decline to adopt the proposed settlement as a basis for regulations that would bind non-participants to a zero rate.

        Order Reinstating Case Schedule at 2.
        In April 2018, MLS filed a late Petition to Participate (PTP) and accompanying motion for the Judges to accept it. The Judges granted the motion and accepted the PTP on July 20, 2018.

        In July 2018, the participants filed a modified proposed rule that addressed the Judges' concerns regarding the proposed rule. Joint Motion at 4, 8. MLS does not object to the modified proposed rule. Id. at 2. The Judges hereby publish it for comment.
        B. Scope of the Modified Proposed Rule
        According to the moving parties, the modified proposed Sports Surcharge differs from the January 2017 proposal in two key respects: A cable operator's obligation to pay a Sports Surcharge royalty is not limited to retransmissions of sports events affiliated with specific JSC members; 2
           and the modified Sports Surcharge includes language expressly stating that no copyright owner of a retransmitted telecast of a sports event is precluded from seeking Sports Surcharge royalties if the retransmission would have been subject to deletion under the former FCC Sports Blackout Rule. Joint Motion at 2.

            2 Under the January 2017 proposal the cable operator's obligation to pay Sports Surcharge royalties was limited to retransmissions of telecasts of sports events affiliated with specific JSC members. Joint Motion at 5.

        The moving parties also state that “nothing in the proposed rule would require the Judges to distribute the Sports Surcharge royalties” only to sports organizations whose telecasts trigger the “pay-in” obligation. Rather, “[t]he determination of the recipients of those royalties (and the amount of royalties those recipients should receive) would be addressed by the Judges in future allocation and distribution proceedings” absent a settlement. Id. at 4. As modified, the rule draws a bright line between the “pay-in” methodology by which affected cable systems will compute their surcharge royalty payment obligations and the “pay out” process by which those royalty payments are distributed. Id. at 5.

        According to the moving parties, the modified Sports Surcharge does not change the previously agreed upon per event royalty rate of 0.025 percent of an affected cable system's gross receipts. Moreover, the definition of which cable systems may have to pay the surcharge has not changed (i.e., systems that would have been subject to the FCC Sports Blackout Rule prior to its repeal).
        Under the modified rule, a cable system's retransmission of a sports event telecast that would have been subject to deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout Rule triggers a Sports Surcharge pay-in by the system's operator—as long as the holder of the broadcast rights in the event (or its agent) provides the affected system: (1) Written notice containing information comparable to that required to invoke the former FCC Sports Blackout Rule; and (2) documentary evidence that the sports entity giving the notice required to trigger the Sports Surcharge pay-in provision previously invoked the FCC Sports Blackout Rule between January 1, 2012 and November 23, 2014 (the day before the repeal of the rule took effect). Joint Motion at 6.

        With respect to certain collegiate events, the pay-in rule caps the maximum number of events involving a specific team that can trigger an affected cable system's surcharge payment obligation in a particular accounting period based on the largest number of events as to which the FCC Sports Blackout Rule was invoked by that specific sports entity during any of the accounting periods occurring during the January 1, 2012 through November 23, 2014 period. Id. at n.12.

        In addition, the Joint Motion proposes a new effective date in 2019 and points out that the rule proposal can be reconsidered in 2020 pursuant to statute. Id. at 2 n.6; see 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(1)(B).

        According to the moving parties, the royalty rate reflected in the modified proposed rule represents a negotiated compromise regarding adoption of a royalty surcharge and limiting when licensors must pay it, but not regulating the method of determining how the funds should be distributed. Id. at 6-7.

        The moving parties state that they do not intend for the agreed-upon methodology for calculating a cable system's pay-in obligation to be accorded any precedential effect or to be regarded as representing any agreement as to the fair market value, now or in the future, of the secondary transmission of any sports event or of the economic or other impact of the repeal of the FCC Sports Blackout Rule. Joint Motion at 6. The moving parties state that if the Judges do not adopt the proposed rule, each of the moving parties reserves the right to seek to demonstrate that the Sports Surcharge originally proposed is not contrary to law and/or that the Judges should adopt a different rate adjustment to account for the repeal of the FCC Sports Blackout Rule. Id. at 8 n.13.
        C. The Judges' Authority To Adopt the Proposed Rule

        According to the moving parties, “a key Congressional objective underlying the Judges' rate-setting authority is the promotion of voluntary settlements rather than litigation.” Id. at 7, citing H.R. Rep. No. 108-408 at 24 (2004) (referring to the legislative policy of “facilitating and encouraging settlement agreements for determining royalty rates”). Consistent with that objective, the Judges may accept a settlement reached by “some or all of the participants” in a rate proceeding “at any time during the proceeding.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A).

        The Act requires that the Judges afford those who “would be bound by the terms, rates or other determination” in a settlement agreement “an opportunity to comment on the agreement.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). The Copyright Royalty Board rules also require that the Judges “publish the settlement in the Federal Register for notice and comment from those bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement.” 37 CFR 351.2(b)(2).
        D. Solicitation of Comments
        The Judges seek comments on the moving parties' proposal. In particular, the Judges seek comment on whether the proposal is consistent with Section 111 of the Copyright Act which provides that the applicable license granted in that section is the license to retransmit by cable beyond the local service area the works of “any . . . owner whose work was included in a secondary transmission made by a cable system . . . in whole or in part. . . .” 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3), and consistent with the Judges' interpretation of that section as elaborated in the Order Reinstating Case Schedule.

        In addition to general comments for or against the proposal, the Judges seek comment on whether the proposed provision in section 387.2(e)(9) (“Nothing herein shall preclude any copyright owner of a live television broadcast, the secondary transmission of which would have been subject to deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout Rule, from receiving a share of royalties paid pursuant to this paragraph.”) could apply to the secondary transmissions of the live television broadcasts of any entity other than a current member of the JSC.3

           In other words, would the phrase “the secondary transmission of which would have been subject to deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout Rule” enable any entity beyond the current members of the JSC to qualify for a share of royalties from the Sports Surcharge? If the answer is yes, which entities' transmissions would qualify for a share? If the answer is no (i.e., only JSC members could qualify), then is the current proposal nevertheless still consistent with the Section 111 license? If so, why?

            3 See note 1, supra.

        Interested parties may comment and object to the modified proposed regulations contained in this notice. Such comments and objections must be submitted no later than August 29, 2018.

          List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 387
          Copyright, Cable television, Royalties.

        Modified Proposed Regulations
        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of chapter 8, title 17, United States Code, the Copyright Royalty Judges proposes to amend 37 CFR chapter III as follows:

          PART 387—ADJUSTMENT OF ROYALTY FEE FOR CABLE COMPULSORY LICENSE

        1. The authority citation for part 387 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           17 U.S.C. 801(b)(2), 803(b)(6).

        2. Amend § 387.2 by:
        a. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and
        b. Adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

          § 387.2
           Royalty fee for compulsory license for secondary transmission by cable systems.

          (e) Sports programming surcharge. Commencing with the first semiannual accounting period of 2019 and for each semiannual accounting period thereafter, in the case of an affected cable system filing Form SA3 as referenced in 37 CFR 201.17(d)(2)(ii) (2014), the royalty rate shall be, in addition to the amounts specified in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of this section, a surcharge of 0.025 percent of the affected cable system's gross receipts for the secondary transmission to subscribers of each live television broadcast of a sports event where the secondary transmission of such broadcast would have been subject to deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout Rule. For purposes of this paragraph,
          (1) The term “cable system” shall have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(3);
          (2) An “affected cable system” (i) is a “community unit,” as the comparable term is defined or interpreted in accordance with § 76.5(dd) of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(dd) (2014);
          (ii) that is located in whole or in part within the 35-mile specified zone of a television broadcast station licensed to a community in which a sports event is taking place, provided that if there is no television broadcast station licensed to the community in which a sports event is taking place, the applicable specified zone shall be that of the television broadcast station licensed to the community with which the sports event or team is identified, or, if the event or local team is not identified with any particular community, the nearest community to which a television station is licensed; and
          (iii) whose royalty fee is specified by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B);
          (3) A “television broadcast” of a sports event must qualify as a “non-network television program” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3)(A);
          (4) The term “specified zone” shall be defined as the comparable term is defined or interpreted in accordance with § 76.5(e) of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(e) (2014);
          (5) The term “gross receipts” shall have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B) and shall include all gross receipts of the affected cable system during the semiannual accounting period except those from the affected cable system's subscribers who reside in (i) the local service area of the primary transmitter, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(4);
          (ii) any community where the cable system has fewer than 1,000 subscribers;
          (iii) any community located wholly outside the specified zone referenced in paragraph (e)(4) above; and
          (iv) any community where the primary transmitter was lawfully carried prior to March 31, 1972;
          (6) The term “FCC Sports Blackout Rule” refers to § 76.111 of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.111 (2014);
          (7) Subject to paragraph (e)(8) of this section, the surcharge will apply to the secondary transmission of a primary transmission of a live television broadcast of a sports event only where the holder of the broadcast rights to the sports event or its agent has provided the affected cable system
          (i) Advance written notice regarding such secondary transmission as required by § 76.111(b) and (c) of the FCC Sports Blackout Rule and
          (ii) documentary evidence that the specific team on whose behalf the notice is given had invoked the protection afforded by the FCC Sports Blackout Rule during the period from January 1, 2012, through November 23, 2014;
          (8) In the case of collegiate sports events, the number of events involving a specific team as to which an affected cable system must pay the surcharge will be no greater than the largest number of events as to which the FCC Sports Blackout Rule was invoked in a particular geographic area by such team during any one of the accounting periods occurring between January 1, 2012, and November 23, 2014;
          (9) Nothing herein shall preclude any copyright owner of a live television broadcast, the secondary transmission of which would have been subject to deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout Rule, from receiving a share of royalties paid pursuant to this paragraph.

          Dated: July 24, 2018.
          Jesse M. Feder,
          Copyright Royalty Judge.

      [FR Doc. 2018-16175 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 1410-72-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        31 CFR Part 29
        RIN 1505-AC02
        Federal Benefit Payments Under Certain District of Columbia Retirement Plans

          AGENCY:
          Departmental Offices, Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On November 22, 2010, the Department of the Treasury published a proposed rule to amend subpart C of its rules promulgated pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as amended (the Act). This notice extends the comment period on the proposed rule to April 21, 2011.
          Pursuant to the Act, with certain exceptions, Treasury has responsibility for payment of benefits based on service accrued as of June 30, 1997, under the retirement plans for District of Columbia teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Benefits for service after that date, and certain other benefits, are funded by the District of Columbia. Subpart C, published in 2000 as part of the final regulations to implement the provisions of the Act, establishes the methodology for determining the split between the Federal and District obligations. Pursuant to regulation, the effective date of subpart C was delayed pending completion of Treasury's new automated retirement system, “System to Administer Retirement” (STAR), which replaced the District's legacy automated retirement system. While the new system has been completed, the proposed amended subpart C will establish additional rules and provide additional examples of benefit calculation scenarios, the need for which was identified during systems development. The amendments to subpart C will have minimal financial impact and are introduced to simplify calculations and maintain consistency with the general principles established in the original regulations.

          DATES:

            Comment due date: April 21, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          Treasury invites interested members of the public to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted to Treasury by any of the following methods: Submit electronic comments through the Federal government e-rulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov or by e-mail to dcpensions@do.treas.gov or send paper comments to Paul Cicchetti, Department of the Treasury, Office of DC Pensions, Metropolitan Square Building, Room 6G503, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
          In general, the Treasury will post all comments to http://www.regulations.gov without change, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or telephone numbers. Treasury will also make such comments available for public inspection and copying in the Treasury's Library, Room 1428, Main Department Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by telephoning (202) 622-0990. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials received, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Cicchetti, (202) 622-1859, Department of the Treasury, Office of DC Pensions, Metropolitan Square Building, Room 6G503, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On November 22, 2010, the Department of the Treasury published a proposed rule to amend subpart C of its rules promulgated pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as amended, related to certain payments of retirement benefits under the retirement plans for District of Columbia teachers, police officers, and firefighters. See 75 FR 71047.

        The original comment period closed on January 21, 2011. By letter dated January 14, 2011, the District of Columbia Retirement Board and the District of Columbia Government requested an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule for 90 additional days. The DC Fire Fighters Association also requested a 90 day extension. In response to these requests, the Department hereby extends the comment period for an additional 90 days so that comments are due on or before April 21, 2011.

          Dated: January 24, 2011.
          Nancy Ostrowski,
          Director, Office of DC Pensions.

      [FR Doc. 2011-2464 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4825-10-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 18-143, 10-90 and 14-58; Report No. 3138; FRS 16364]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's proceeding listed below by Geraldine Pitt, on behalf of Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Viya.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before January 17, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before January 27, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alexander Minard, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7400, email: AlexanderMinard@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3138, released December 19, 2019. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect America USVI Fund, Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, FCC 19-95, published at 84 FR 59937, November 7, 2019, in WC Docket Nos. 18-143, 10-90 and 14-58. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2019-28348 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2011-0093; 96300-1671-0000-P5]
        RIN 1018-AX96
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Publishing Notice of Receipt of Captive-Bred Wildlife Registration Applications

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to amend the regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act (Act) by establishing public notice and comment procedures for applications to conduct certain otherwise prohibited activities under the Act that are authorized under the Captive Bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations. This action would add procedural requirements to the processing of applications for registration under the CBW regulations. Notices of receipt of each application would be published in the Federal Register, and the Service would accept public comment on each application for 30 days. If the registration were granted, the Service would publish certain findings in the Federal Register. In addition, for persons meeting the criteria for registering under the CBW Program, each registration could remain effective for 5 years.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 22, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

            Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R9-IA-2011-0093, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Send a Comment”.

            By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-IA-2011-0093; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept emails or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section at the end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about submitting comments).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 212, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2104; fax 703-358-2281. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and its implementing regulations prohibit any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from conducting certain activities unless authorized by a permit. These activities include take, import, export, and interstate or foreign commerce of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act. In the case of endangered species, the Service may permit otherwise prohibited activities for scientific research or enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species. In the case of threatened species, regulations allow permits to be issued for the above-mentioned purposes, as well as zoological, horticultural, or botanical exhibition; education; and special purposes consistent with the Act.
        In 1979, the Service published the Captive-Bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g) (44 FR 54002, September 17, 1979) to reduce Federal permitting requirements and facilitate captive breeding of endangered and threatened species under certain prescribed conditions. Specifically, under these regulations, the Service promulgated a general permit to authorize persons to take; export or reimport; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce endangered or threatened wildlife bred in captivity in the United States. Qualifying persons and facilities seeking such authorization under the regulations are required to register with the Service. By establishing a more flexible management scheme to regulate routine activities related to captive propagation, these regulations have benefited wild populations by, for example, increasing sources of genetic stock that can be used to bolster or reestablish wild populations, decreasing the need to take stock from the wild, and providing for research opportunities.
        The authorization granted under the CBW regulations is limited by several conditions. These conditions include:
        (1) The wildlife is of a species having a natural geographic distribution not including any part of the United States or the wildlife is of a species that the Director has determined to be eligible in accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(g)(5);
        (2) The purpose of authorized activities is to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species;
        (3) Activities do not involve interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of commercial activity, with respect to nonliving wildlife;

        (4) That each specimen of wildlife to be reimported is uniquely identified by a band, tattoo, or other means that was reported in writing to an official of the Service at a port of export prior to the export from the United States; and
        (5) Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who engages in any of the authorized activities does so in accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(g) and with all other applicable regulations.
        The regulations also specify application requirements for registration that are designed to provide the Service with information needed to determine whether the applicant has the means of enhancing the propagation or survival of the affected species. For example, the application must include a description of the applicant's experience in maintaining and propagating the types of wildlife sought to be covered under the registration and documentation depicting the facilities in which the subject wildlife will be maintained.

        Under this proposed rule, the Service would amend the CBW regulations to provide the public with notice of receipt of applications for CBW registration and an opportunity to comment on an applicant's eligibility to register under the regulations. If we determine that the registration should be granted, we will notify the public by publishing our findings in the Federal Register that each registration was applied for in good faith, will not operate to the disadvantage of the affected species, and is consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the Act. These procedures will apply to both original and renewal applications for registration, as well as applications for amendment of the registration. In addition, we will make information received as part of each application available to the public upon request, including, but not limited to, information needed to assess the eligibility of the applicant such as the original application materials, any intervening renewal applications documenting a change in location or personnel, and the most recent annual report.
        By incorporating these procedural amendments to the CBW regulations, the Service intends to increase transparency and openness in the CBW registration process, consistent with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the Presidential Memorandum of January 21, 2009, which encourage government agencies to establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration by disclosing information to the public. In addition, with these amendments, we believe that increased public participation in the CBW registration process will lead to better decisions by assisting the Service in assessing whether the applicants are capable of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. By incorporating these procedures to increase transparency and openness in the registration process, interested persons' perceptions of the fairness of the registration process will improve, as well as their acceptance of our ultimate determination as to whether the registration should be granted.
        Effects of the Proposed Rule
        One of the factors that led to the Service establishing the CBW program was the desire to avoid permitting delays that might hinder the propagation of endangered and threatened species for conservation purposes. The Service receives an annual average of 26 applications to establish new CBW registrations and 80 applications to renew already approved CBW registrations. Because the ESA prohibitions remain in place during the initial application process, new applicants are unable to carry out activities under a CBW registration until it is issued. While the publication of the receipt of an application under the CBW program would increase the processing time for the application by approximately 35 or 40 days, we do not believe that this increase in processing time would adversely affect the potential CBW registrant's conservation work. In addition, in the event of an emergency situation where the health or life of a protected species is threatened and no reasonable alternative is available to the applicant, the Service shall waive this 30-day public comment period.
        Regulations are already in place (50 CFR 13.22(c)) that allow for the continuation of authorized activities if a CBW registrant submits a renewal application at least 30 days before the expiration of the current CBW authorization and the registration is in good standing (i.e., annual reports have been submitted and the registration is not suspended). Provided that the current CBW holders submit their renewal request at least 30 days before the expiration date, the comment period would have no impact on their ability to carry out previously approved activities. The current registration would continue to be valid until the renewal process, including the 30-day comment period, ends and we make a final determination.
        The Service will also extend the registration period associated with approved CBW registrations up to 5 years, provided that the registrant remains in good standing. This increase in the registration period from 3 years to 5 years will both reduce the application renewal burden on CBW registrants and reduce the workload on the Service to process renewal requests. Furthermore, the annual reporting requirement will remain in place, and because the Service uses these reports to monitor CBW registrants, the Service does not believe that extending the registration period would adversely affect the oversight of the CBW program.
        Required Determinations

          Regulatory Planning and Review—Executive Order 12866: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria.
        (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government.
        (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
        (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities”. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or is below an established size standard. We expect that the majority of the entities involved in activities authorized under the CBW program would be considered small as defined by the SBA.

        This rule would require the Service to publish notices in the Federal Register announcing the receipt of all CBW applications and provide the public with a 30-day comment period to provide the Service with any relevant information about the applicant or their operation. In addition, the rule would require the Service to publish a notice in the Federal Register of specified findings for approved registrations. The regulatory change is not major in scope and would create no financial or paperwork burden on the affected members of the general public. In fact, the extension of the effective period of a CBW registration from 3 to 5 years will result in a reduction of the paperwork burden on the public because of the reduced frequency of completing a renewal application.

        We, therefore, certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

          Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act: This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:

        a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule would codify a public notice-and-comment process for the receipt of CBW applications and require the publication of certain findings for registrations granted under the CBW regulations. The Service would publish no more than two notices in the Federal Register, and would require nothing from the applicant as far as additional cost or paperwork. This rule would not have a negative effect on this part of the economy. It will affect all businesses, whether large or small, the same. There is not a disproportionate share of benefits for small or large businesses.
        b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule would not result in an increase in the number of applications for registration to conduct otherwise-prohibited activities with endangered and threatened species.
        c. Would not have any adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

          Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.):
        a. This rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        b. This rule would not produce a Federal requirement of $100 million or greater in any year and is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

          Takings: Under Executive Order 12630, this rule would not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule is not considered to have takings implications because it allows individuals to register under the CBW Registration program when issuance criteria are met.

          Federalism: This revision to part 17 does not contain significant Federalism implications. A Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 is not required.

          Civil Justice Reform: Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of subsections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

          Paperwork Reduction Act: The Office of Management and Budget approved the information collection in part 17 and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0093, which expires February 28, 2014. This rule does not contain any new information collections or recordkeeping requirements for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The Service has determined that this action is a regulatory change that is administrative and procedural in nature. As such, the amendment is categorically excluded from further NEPA review as provided by 43 CFR 46.210(i), of the Department of the Interior Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; final rule (73 FR 61292; October 15, 2008). No further documentation will be made.

          Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes: Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951; May 4, 1994) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects.

          Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use: Executive Order 13211 pertains to regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. This rule would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

          Clarity of this Regulation: We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
        Public Comments

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.

        We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information in your written comments, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Division of Management Authority; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 212; Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, (703) 358-2093.

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

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

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

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

          2. Amend § 17.21 by revising paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:

            § 17.21
            Prohibitions.

            (g) * * *

            (3) Upon receipt of a complete application for registration, or the renewal or amendment of an existing registration, under this section, the Service will publish notice of the application in the Federal Register. Each notice will invite the submission from interested parties, within 30 days after the date of the notice, of written data, views, or arguments with respect to the application. All information received as part of each application will be made available to the public, upon request, as a matter of public record at every stage of the proceeding, including, but not limited to, information needed to assess the eligibility of the applicant such as the original application, materials, any intervening renewal applications documenting a change in location or personnel, and the most recent annual report.
            (i) At the completion of this comment period, the Director will decide whether to approve the registration. In making this decision, the Director will consider, in addition to the general criteria in § 13.21(b) of this subchapter, whether the expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected wildlife. Public education activities may not be the sole basis to justify issuance of a registration or to otherwise establish eligibility for the exception granted in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

            (ii) If the Director approves the registration, the Service will publish notice of the decision in the Federal Register that the registration was applied for in good faith, that issuing the registration will not operate to the disadvantage of the species for which registration was sought, and that issuing the registration will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the Act.
            (iii) Each person so registered must maintain accurate written records of activities conducted under the registration, and allow reasonable access to Service agents for inspection purposes as set forth in §§ 13.46 and 13.47 of this chapter. Each person so registered must also submit to the Director an individual written annual report of activities, including all births, deaths, and transfers of any type.

            Dated: February 10, 2012.
            Rachel Jacobsen,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-3878 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 000511133-0133-01; I.D. 120999B]
        RIN 0648-AN52
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Swordfish Quotas; Northern Albacore Tuna Rebuilding

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend regulations governing the Atlantic swordfish fishery to reduce the annual landings quota for the north Atlantic swordfish stock to 2,219 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) for each of the next three fishing years (2000, 2001, 2002), with 300 mt dw allocated for incidental catch and the remainder allocated equally to each of the two semi-annual directed fishery seasons (June 1 through November 30 and December 1 through May 31). NMFS also proposes to establish an allowance for dead discards of 320 mt whole weight (ww) in 2000, 240 mt ww in 2001, and 160 mt ww in 2002. Finally, NMFS requests comments on alternatives to rebuild the stock of northern albacore tuna.
          The intent of these actions is to improve conservation and management of the Atlantic swordfish and northern albacore tuna resources, while allowing harvests consistent with recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

          DATES:

          NMFS will hold public hearings in June, 2000 to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding these proposed regulations. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for hearing dates and times. For individuals unable to attend a hearing, NMFS also solicits written comments on the proposed rule. To be considered in developing the final rule, written comments on the proposed rule must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) by 5 p.m. on July 18, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting and hearing locations. Comments on the proposed rule and copies of the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) supporting this action may be obtained from Rebecca Lent, Highly Migratory Species Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. These documents may be viewed on the NMFS website at www.nmfs.gov/sfa/hmspg.html. Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or on the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Husted, 301-713-2347; fax: 301-713-1917 or by email at rachel.husted@noaa.gov. The NMFS website is www.nmfs/gov/sfa/hmspg.html.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (FMP) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; codified at 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
          seq.) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; codified at 16 U.S.C. 971 et
          seq.). Regulations issued under the authority of ATCA carry out the recommendations of ICCAT.
        Swordfish Rebuilding Program

        The total weight of the north Atlantic swordfish stock at the beginning of 1999, according to the 1999 ICCAT stock assessment, was estimated to be at 65 percent of that needed to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The biomass at MSY is the target stock size of the rebuilding program for north Atlantic swordfish. The 1998 fishing mortality rate was estimated to be 1.34 times FMSY. Because NMFS is committed to rebuilding north Atlantic swordfish, consistent with the recent ICCAT program, reductions in quotas are required in the immediate future to rebuild the stock to levels that would support MSY.

        North Atlantic swordfish landings for all nations combined for 1998 were estimated to be 12,175 mt ww. At the November 1999 ICCAT meeting, a recommendation was adopted to establish a rebuilding program for north Atlantic swordfish and to reduce the total allowable catch for all countries fishing on that stock to 10,600 mt ww (7,970 mt dw) for 2000, 10,500 mt ww (7,895 mt dw) for 2001, and 10,400 mt ww (7,820 mt dw) for 2002. Although the ICCAT recommendation specifies the quota in whole weight, this document refers to the quota in dressed weight (dw = 0.7519 ww) for the purposes of monitoring U.S. harvests, as swordfish are processed at sea and landed in dressed form (head, fins, viscera and tails removed). This proposed rule implements the ICCAT recommendations for rebuilding north Atlantic swordfish.
        Under the ICCAT recommendation, the United States is allocated 29 percent of the North Atlantic swordfish landings quota for major harvesting nations (total allowable catch minus the total dead discard allowance) in 2000, 2001, and 2002. This amounts to 2951 mt ww for each year and represents a 5-percent decrease from the U.S. landings quota recommended by ICCAT for 1998. Under the proposed rule, and consistent with the FMP, each year, the quota would be divided between a directed fishery quota and an incidental quota (1919 mt dw directed, 300 mt dw incidental). Consistent with the FMP, the directed fishery quota of 1919 mt dw would be divided into two semi-annual quotas: June 1-November 30 and December 1-May 31 (959.5 mt dw for each season). The incidental quota is needed to allow for incidental landings, at levels stated in 50 CFR 635.27, during possible directed fishery closures and for swordfish taken incidental to other fisheries such as the highly migratory species recreational fishery or the pelagic longline fishery for tunas (by incidental swordfish permit holders).
        In addition to the landings quota, ICCAT allocated to the United States 80 percent of the dead discard allowance (i.e., the U.S. share is 320 mt ww in 2000, 240 mt ww in 2001, and 160 mt ww in 2002). The dead discard allowance would be phased out by 2004. The United States would deduct any amount over its dead discard allowance from the U.S. landings quota in the following year. If the United States discards less than its share of the dead discard allowance, the remainder would be added to the total quota available for all fishing nations in subsequent years, and would be reallocated by ICCAT.
        In 1998, the United States reported discarding 433 mt ww of dead swordfish in the North Atlantic Ocean. Assuming dead discards occur in proportion to landings, dead discards in 2000 might decrease to 411 mt ww commensurate with the decrease in landings quota (i.e., 5 percent less than 433 mt reported for 1998). This would result in an expected overharvest of the 2000 dead discard allowance by 91 mt ww. If discard rates remain proportional to the adjusted quota in 2001 and 2002, the dead discard allowance would be exceeded by 158 and 230 mt ww, respectively. These overages would require further reductions in the landings quotas and, combined with the initial quota reduction recommended by ICCAT (5 percent), might result in an actual decrease in landings of up to 10 percent by 2002 if the rate of discarding is not reduced (refer to the EA/RIR/IRFA for more details). However, NMFS has published a proposed rule that is designed to reduce dead discards, which should minimize the effects of the phase-out of the dead discard allowance.
        The proposed regulatory changes in this rule would further ICCAT's international management objectives for the Atlantic swordfish fishery. NMFS has evaluated the proposed annual quota and the dead discard allowance in accordance with the procedures and factors specified in 50 CFR 635.27(c)(3), and has determined that the proposed measures are consistent with the latest stock assessment and recommendations of ICCAT.
        Northern Albacore Rebuilding
        In the October 1999 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, NMFS identified the northern albacore tuna stock as overfished. Alternatives for developing a rebuilding plan for northern albacore are discussed in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule. The alternatives considered included no action, a ten-year international rebuilding program negotiated through ICCAT, and a unilateral U.S. action plan. NMFS requests comment on the albacore rebuilding alternatives.
        Other ICCAT Issues
        ICCAT adopted a number of other recommendations and resolutions at the 1999 meeting that will not require rulemaking but will require management action on the part of NMFS. These include a recommendation reiterating the limitation on fishing capacity of commercial vessels fishing for northern albacore, and a recommendation calling for the United States to endeavor to limit its total catch of southern albacore to no more than 4 percent by weight of its total catch of south Atlantic swordfish. Several other recommendations include provisions that request Contracting Parties to provide catch data or information related to vessel registration. ICCAT also adopted a non-binding resolution encouraging all parties to participate actively in efforts to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. NMFS intends to implement these measures through actions outside of the regulatory process and to provide ICCAT with all possible information that has been requested by the Commission.
        Summary
        NMFS proposes to implement ICCAT's 1999 recommendation of a North Atlantic swordfish U.S. quota of 2,219 mt dw for each year 2000, 2001, and 2002. The U.S. landings quota will remain constant for 2000, 2001, and 2002, but it is subject to adjustment between years (consistent with ICCAT recommendations) if the directed or incidental quota, or the dead discard allowance are exceeded or are not reached.
        Consistent with the FMP, the directed fishery quota of 1919 mt dw would be divided into two semi-annual quotas: June 1—November 30 and December 1-May 31 (959.5 mt dw for each season). Following a closure of the directed longline fishery, any overharvest or underharvest would be added to, or subtracted from, the incidental quota of 300 mt dw for that year. Any cumulative overharvest/underharvest that occurs during any year would then be subtracted from/added to the following year's quota, consistent with the ICCAT recommendations.
        A dead discard allowance would be established. Any discards in excess of the dead discard allowance would be subtracted from the directed quota for the following year.
        Public Hearings
        NMFS will hold public hearings in June 2000 to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding these proposed amendments at the following times and locations:

          Monday, June 5, 2000—Houma, LA, 7-9:30 p.m.
        Holiday Inn Holidome, Houma, LA.

          Tuesday, June 6, 2000—Fairhaven, MA, 7-9:30 p.m.
        The Seaport Inn, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719.

          Thursday, June 8, 2000—Pompano, FL, 7-9:30 p.m.
        Pompano Beach Civic Center, 1801 NE 6th Street, Pompano Beach, FL 33060.

          Thursday, June 22, 2000—Panama City, FL, 7-9:30 p.m.
        National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City Laboratory, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408.

          Thursday, June 22, 2000—Barnegat Light, NJ, 7-9:30 p.m. Barnegat Light Firehouse, Barnegat, NJ 08006.
        Special Accommodations

        These hearings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Rachel Husted at (301) 713-2347 at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.
        Classification
        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic highly migratory species fisheries.

        NMFS has prepared an IRFA for this proposed rule. A summary of the IRFA follows (see ADDRESSES for a copy of the IRFA):
        The IRFA assumes that the population of small entities that would be affected by the rule are those fishermen issued limited access permits for swordfish. As of December 31, 1999, there were 450 directed and incidental swordfish permit holders and 118 swordfish handgear permit holders. The proposed quota reductions and implementation of the dead discard allowance would, in the short term, reduce ex-vessel swordfish revenues for a substantial portion of the swordfish fleet.
        Assuming the lower quotas would result in equal reductions in swordfish catch for all vessels, the majority of the fleet would experience declines in revenue of between 1 and 4 percent by 2001. By 2002, about 78 percent of vessels would experience declines in gross revenues of between 1 and 4 percent, and about 30 percent of the fleet would experience revenue decreases of 5 percent or more. Several more vessels would be affected, and to a greater degree, if dead discards exceed the allowance, thereby making further reductions to the landings quota necessary. However, even without compensatory actions by vessel operators (e.g., increased yellowfin tuna fishing), no vessels are expected to experience revenue declines of 10 percent or more. To the extent that swordfish dead discards can be reduced and vessels can switch to tuna fishing, the projected revenue declines may be overestimated. Additionally, a current decrease in swordfish mortality is expected to contribute to stock rebuilding within a 10-year time frame. Thus, negative short-term impacts would yield revenue gains in the long run.
        No mitigating measures specific to small businesses are considered feasible. Not implementing the quota reductions and the dead discard allowance at this time would maintain current catch levels only in the short term. Eventually, further decline in swordfish abundance would increase fishing costs (lower catch per unit effort/increased discards) and decrease revenues (lower total swordfish catch); thus, greater economic impacts would likely result from maintaining the status quo.
        The other alternatives considered include only the status quo for the landings quota and not accounting for dead discards. No other alternatives were considered, because NMFS is required under ATCA to implement ICCAT recommendations upon acceptance by the United States. Although the status quo might have lesser short-term economic impacts on participants in the swordfish fishery, those alternatives do not support the rebuilding plan established by the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. The IRFA provides further discussion of the economic effects of the alternatives considered.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The proposed action would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        On November 19, 1999, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A new Biological Opinion (BO) will be issued in May 2000. The existing BO, dated May 29, 1999 concludes that continued operation of the longline component of the swordfish fishery may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction. A reduced landings quota could result in decreased fishing effort targeting swordfish, primarily by pelagic longline vessels. Depending on where and how that displaced effort shifts to other fisheries, interactions with protected species may be reduced. No irretrievable commitments of resources are expected from the proposed action.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Treaties.

          Dated: May 18, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
          1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 971 et
              seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
              seq.
            2. In § 635.27, paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(3)(i) are revised, and paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(C) and (c)(3)(iii) are added to read as follows:

            § 635.27
            Quotas.

            (c) Swordfish. (1) * * *
            (i) North Atlantic swordfish stock. (A) The directed fishery quota for the North Atlantic swordfish stock is 1919 mt dw for each fishing year beginning June 1, 2000. The annual directed fishery quota is subdivided into two equal semiannual quotas of 959.5 mt dw, one for June 1 through November 30, and the other for December 1 through May 31 of the following year.

            (C) The dead discard allowance for the north Atlantic swordfish stock is: 320 mt ww for the fishing year beginning June 1, 2000; 240 mt ww for the fishing year beginning June 1, 2001; and 160 mt ww for the fishing year beginning May 1, 2001. All swordfish discarded dead, regardless of whether discarded from vessels permitted under this part, shall be counted against the allowance.

            (3) Annual adjustments. (i) Except for the carryover provisions of paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, NMFS will file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of any adjustment to the annual quota necessary to meet the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. NMFS will provide at least 30 days opportunity for public comment.

            (iii) The dressed weight equivalent of the amount of dead discards exceeding the allowance specified at paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section shall be subtracted from the landings quota in the following fishing year. NMFS will file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of any adjustment made under this paragraph.

      [FR Doc. 00-13058 Filed 5-19-00; 4:21 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        United States Patent and Trademark Office
        37 CFR Part 1
        [Docket Nos.: PTO-P-2012-0015 and PTO-P-2012-0024]
        RIN 0651-AC77
        Changes and Examination Guidelines To Implement the First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act; Reopening of the Period for Comments

          AGENCY:
          United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Request for comments; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed examination guidelines to implement the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The USPTO also conducted a roundtable to obtain public input from organizations and individuals on issues relating to the USPTO's proposed implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. The Office has received several requests for additional time to submit comments on the USPTO's implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. The USPTO is reopening the comment period to provide interested members of the public with an additional opportunity to submit comments to the USPTO.

          DATES:
          The deadline for receipt of written comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking published July 26, 2012 (77 FR 43742) and notice of proposed examination guidelines published July 26, 2012 (77 FR 43759) is November 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to: fitf_rules@uspto.gov. Comments may also be submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Susy Tsang-Foster, Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration.

          Comments on the proposed examination guidelines should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to: fitf_guidance@uspto.gov. Comments may also be submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Mary C. Till, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

          Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking and the proposed examination guidelines may also be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site (http://www.regulations.gov) for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
          Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the Internet because sharing comments with the public is more easily accomplished. Electronic comments are preferred to be submitted in plain text, but also may be submitted in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format.

          The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Comments also will be available for viewing via the Office's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov). Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mary C. Till, Senior Legal Advisor (telephone (571) 272-7755, email mary.till@uspto.gov); or Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Senior Legal Advisor (telephone (571) 272-7754, email kathleen.fonda@uspto.gov), of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The AIA was enacted into law on September 16, 2011. Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). Section 3 of the AIA amends the patent laws to: (1) Convert the United States patent system from a “first to invent” system to a “first inventor to file” system; (2) eliminate the requirement that a prior public use or sale activity be “in this country” to be a prior art activity; (3) treat U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective filing date, regardless of whether the earliest effective filing date is based upon an application filed in the U.S. or in another country; and (4) treat commonly owned patents and patent application publications, or those resulting from a joint research agreement, as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The changes in section 3 of the AIA take effect on March 16, 2013.

        The USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed examination guidelines on July 26, 2012, to implement the FITF provisions of section 3 of the AIA. See Changes to Implement the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 43742 (July 26, 2012), and Examination Guidelines for Implementing the First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 43759 (July 26, 2012). The notice of proposed rulemaking proposes changes to the rules of practice in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for consistency with, and to address the examination issues raised by, the changes in the FITF provisions of the AIA. The proposed examination guidelines set out the Office's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as amended by the AIA, and advise the public and the Patent Examining Corps on how the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA impact the provisions of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The USPTO also conducted a roundtable to obtain public input from organizations and individuals on issues relating to the USPTO's proposed implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. See Notice of Roundtable on the Implementation of the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 49427 (Aug. 16, 2012).
        The Office has received several requests for additional time to submit comments on the USPTO's implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. The USPTO is reopening the comment period to provide interested members of the public with an additional opportunity to submit comments to the USPTO.

          Dated: October 5, 2012.
          David J. Kappos,
          Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

      [FR Doc. 2012-25042 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-16-P