        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0107;450 003 0115]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 11 Tarantula Species in the Genus Poecilotheria as Endangered or Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 11 tarantula species in the genus Poecilotheria as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing these species may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of these species to determine if listing these 11 species is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we request scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. At the conclusion of this review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before February 3, 2014. After this date, you must submit information directly to the office listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Please note that we may not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          • Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0107, which is the docket number for this action. Then click on the Search button. You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple pieces of information, our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          • By hard copy: U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0107, 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 information by email or fax. We will post all information on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Information Requested

        For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on 11 Poecilotheria species (see list in Table 1, below) from government agencies (including foreign national and provincial governments within the range of each of these species), the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) Each species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected population trends;
        (e) Potential threats to each species, such as harvest, domestic and foreign trade, habitat destruction, intentional killing, or other threats not identified; and
        (f) Past and ongoing conservation measures for each species or its habitat.

        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species or subspecies under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting each species' continued existence.
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on each species and its habitat.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hard copy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Evaluation of Information for a 90-Day Finding on a Petition
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to each species, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented in Appendix A. in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0107 on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly initiate a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
        Petition History

        We received a petition, dated October 29, 2010, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the following 11 eastern hemisphere “tarantuala” species in the genus Poecilotheria be listed under the Act as endangered or threatened: Poecilotheria fasciata; P. formosa;
          P. hanumavilasumica; P. metallica; P. miranda; P. ornata; P. pederseni; P. rufilata; P. smithi; P. striata; and P. subfusca (see Table 1 for common names associated with each of these species). The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
        Evaluation of Petition
        The 11 species named in the petition include six species native to India and five native to Sri Lanka (Table 1). All 11 species named in the petition have multiple common names (Table 1) and are therefore referred to by their scientific names throughout this finding.

          Table 1—List of Species in This 90-Day Finding

            Species
            Common name(s)
            Current range

              Poecilotheria fasciata

            banded parachute spider, Sri Lankan ornamental tarantula, lemon-legged tiger spider, Thada kaha iri padethi divimakuluwa
            Sri Lanka.

              Poecilotheria formosa

            beautiful parachute spider, finely formed parachute spider, Salem ornamental tarantula
            India.

              Poecilotheria hanumavilasumica

            Rameshwaram parachute spider, Rameshwaram ornamental
            India.

              Poecilotheria metallica

            peacock parachute spider, Gooty ornamental tarantula, Gooty tarantula, metallic tarantula, peacock tarantula, Salepurgu
            India.

              Poecilotheria miranda

            wonderful parachute spider, red parachute spider
            India.

              Poecilotheria ornata

            ornate parachute spider, fringed ornamental tarantula, yellow-legged tiger spider, Kaha iri padethi divimakuluwa
            Sri Lanka.

              Poecilotheria pederseni

            Hambantota parachute spider, Pederseni's tiger spider, Pederseni divimakuluwa
            Sri Lanka.

              Poecilotheria rufilata

            reddish parachute spider, rufus parachute spider, redslate ornamental tarantula
            India.

              Poecilotheria smithi

            Kandy parachute spider, Smith's tiger spider, Sithge divimakuluwa
            Sri Lanka.

              Poecilotheria striata

            striped parachute spider, striated parachute spider, Mysore ornamental tarantula
            India.

              Poecilotheria subfusca

            brown parachute spider, ivory ornamental tarantula, ivory bird-eating tarantula, Eth dala peha iri padethi divimakuluwa
            Sri Lanka.

          Poecilotheria is a genus of very large, ornate spiders that occur in northeastern and southern India and central and southern Sri Lanka (Petition, p. 1). Poecilotheria species are arboreal and occur in mesic and xeric montane forests where they are generally found under the bark or in natural cavities of trees. Of the 11 species named in the petition, P. fasciata occurs in xeric forests. The remaining 10 species occur in mesic forests (Petition, p. 8). Poecilotheria species appear to differ in their tolerance of altered habitat (Petition, p. 9). The primary factors indicated in the petition as causing these species to face extinction or endangerment include destruction of forest habitat, collection for the pet trade, intentional killing, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, range restrictions and rarity, and cumulative threats.
        Information provided in the petition and in the references cited in the petition regarding current ranges and population trends is summarized below.
        Indian Species

          P. formosa: This species is reported from three sites in two areas of the southern Eastern Ghats in southern India. Population information is not available. Based on the ecology and behavior of other closely related Poecilotheria species, and current threats, the population is assumed to be decreasing. The species is categorized on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as Endangered (Molur et al. 2008b).

          P. hanumavilasumica: This species is endemic to the Ramanthapuram district, southern India, where it is restricted to a few plantations. The species has been recorded from eight subpopulations that vary in size from 4 to 78 individuals. The species' population is reported to be decreasing. It is categorized on the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered (Siliwal et al. 2008a).

          P. metallica: This species is known from a single location in Andhra Pradesh, India. It is described as likely being very rare. Population information is not available, but the population is assumed to be decreasing. The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered (Molur et al. 2008a).

          P. miranda: The species is recorded from only a few locations in the Chhota Nagpur region of northeast India. Population information is not available, but the species is described as rare. The population is assumed to be decreasing. The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as Endangered (Siliwal et al. 2008b; IUCN 2001, pp. 18-20).

          P. rufilata: The species is endemic to the southern Western Ghats, in southern India. The species is reported from six isolated locations. Population information is not available, but the species is assumed to be decreasing. It is categorized on the IUCN Red List as Endangered (Siliwal et al. 2008c; IUCN 2001, pp. 18-20).

          P. striata: The species is found in the Western Ghats just north and south of the Palghat gap, in southern India. It has been reported from fewer than 10 isolated locations, with spider abundance varying depending on the habitat. Population information is not available. The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as Vulnerable (Siliwal et al. 2008d; IUCN 2001, pp. 21-22).
        Sri Lankan Species

          P. fasciata: Historically the species is known from eight locations in central Sri Lanka (Petition, p. 6, citing several sources). In a 2003-2005 survey of Sri Lankan Poecilotheria, three individuals of this species were recorded in central Sri Lanka. One individual was recorded in Kurunagala, and one individual was recorded at each of two different sites in Naula (Samarawckrama et al. 2005, pp. 76, 83).

          P. ornata: Historically the species is known from five locations in southern Sri Lanka (Petition, p. 7, citing several sources). In a 2003-2005 survey of Sri Lankan Poecilotheria, six individuals of this species were recorded in central and southern Sri Lanka. One individual was recorded in Kitulgala Forest Reserve (in Central Province), two individuals were recorded in Udamaliboda, Deraniyagala (in Sabaragamuwa Province), and three individuals were recorded in Sinharaja World Heritage Site (in Southern Province) (Samarawckrama et al. 2005, pp. 76, 83). IUCN Sri Lanka (2007, p. 131) categorizes this species as “near threatened,” that is, it is very close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

          P. pederseni: Historically the species is known only from its type locality in Hambantota District (in Southern Province) (Petition, p. 7, citing several sources). In a 2003-2005 survey of Sri Lankan Poecilotheria, six individuals of this species were recorded in Hambantota. Three were recorded from Bundala National Park, and three from Madunagala Sanctuary (Samarawckrama et al. 2005, pp. 76, 83).

          P. smithi: The species is known only from two locations in south central Sri Lanka—Haragama and Kandy (Petition, p. 7, citing several sources). In a 2003-2005 survey of Sri Lankan Poecilotheria, no P. smithi were recorded (Samarawckrama et al. 2005, pp. 76, 83). IUCN Sri Lanka (2007, p. 48) categorizes this species as vulnerable.

          P. subfusca: Historically the species is known from seven locations in south-central Sri Lanka (Petition, p. 7, citing several sources). In a 2003-2005 survey of Sri Lankan Poecilotheria, 20 individuals of this species were recorded in central Sri Lanka: One each from Dotulugala reserve and Gannoruwa Village, Kandy (in Central Province); and 18 in Gannoruwa forest, though 15 of the 18 were juveniles. IUCN Sri Lanka (2007, p. 131) categorizes this species as “near threatened,” that is, it is very close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

        In results of a survey of the genus in Sri Lanka, Samarawckrama et al. (2005, p. 76) indicate that they consider the five Sri Lankan Poecilotheria species to be endangered.
        Finding

        On the basis of our review under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing these 11 Poecilotheria species as endangered or threatened may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided in the petition regarding the five factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A); overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B); disease and predation (Factor C); the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (Factor E).

        Based on information provided in the petition, in the sources cited in the petition, and readily available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for all 11 petitioned species as a result of habitat destruction or degradation through impacts associated with human activities (Factor A), collection for the pet trade (Factor B), small populations or limited and fragmented range (Factor E), and the cumulative impacts of threats (Factors E). Further, we find that the petitioned action may be warranted for P. formosa, P. hanumavilasumica, P. rufilata, and P. striata as a result of the threat of intentional killing (Factor E), and for P. fasciata, P. ornata, P. pederseni, P. smithi, and P. subfusca as a result of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D).

        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing these 11 Poecilotheria species may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing these 11 species under the Act as endangered or threatened species is warranted.
        The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a 12-month finding as to whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status assessment of the species and does not constitute a status review under the Act. Our final determination as to whether a petitioned action is warranted is not made until we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a 90-day finding that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (“substantial 90-day finding”). Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not necessarily mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this 90-day finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0107 or upon request from the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author
        The primary author of this finding is staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 13, 2013.
          Steve Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-28553 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2005-21971]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking to amend the definition of frontal air bag system in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection.” NHTSA has addressed this issue in a recent final rule dated November 19, 2003, and in an interpretation letter dated July 19, 2004.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues: Christopher Wiacek, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4801. Fax: (202) 366-7002.
          For legal issues: Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        On May 12, 2000, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 208 to require that future air bags be designed to create less risk of serious air bag induced injuries than current air bags, particularly for small women and young children; and provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means that include advanced air bag technology (65 FR 30680; advanced air bag rule). The advanced air bag rule adopted a low risk deployment (LRD) test to address the risk air bags pose to out-of position occupants, particularly those of small stature. The test is performed by activating a frontal air bag system with a test dummy in “worst case” positions. For the driver position, this included placing a 5th percentile adult female test dummy's chin on the module and on the steering wheel. For the passenger position, this included placing a child dummy's head and chest in close proximity to the right front passenger air bag module.
        In a November 19, 2003, final rule, the agency specifically addressed which air bag system components are fired in the LRD test in response to a request for a clarification from DaimlerChrysler. The agency stated, “While neither “air bag [system]” or “inflatable restraint [system]” is defined in FMVSS No. 208 or any other place in 49 CFR part 571, the intent of the term “air bag” is to describe the components that make up the passenger-side dash-mounted and driver-side steering wheel hub-mounted, inflatable restraints used for occupant protection in a frontal impact. This does not refer to any other pyrotechnic system such as a belt pretensioner or inflatable knee bolster (69 FR 65179, 65186).”
        On May 26, 2004, Toyota requested NHTSA's official interpretation of the definition of “air bag system” as applicable to FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA responded on July 19, 2004, by stating “the intent of the term air bag is to describe the components that make up the passenger-side dash mounted and driver-side steering wheel hub-mounted, inflatable restraint used for occupant protection in a frontal impact. This does not refer to any other pyrotechnic system such as a belt pretensioner or inflatable knee bolster.”
        II. The Petition

        On January 27, 2005, the Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota), petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208 Section 16.3.1 General provisions and definitions by adding Section 16.3.1.14 as follows:

        16.3.1.14 The term “frontal air bag system” describes the components that make up the driver- and front passenger inflatable restraints used for occupant protection in a frontal impact.

        Toyota believes the current definition of “air bag” is restrictive and believes this constraint limits alternative passive restraint technologies in order to provide appropriate levels of occupant protection. They also opined that the current definition is limiting in that it suggests that manufacturers will always design passive restraints systems that will deploy from the steering wheel hub or dash.
        III. Discussion and Analysis

        Toyota requested that the definition of “air bag” be expanded to include all frontal inflatable restraints, specifically as it applies to S26, Procedure for low risk deployment tests of driver air bag. As explained in the July 19, 2004 interpretation letter, the agency does not have data available on the effect that deploying devices, other than the frontal passenger-side dash mounted and driver-side steering wheel hub-mounted air bags, will have on the advanced air bag rule low risk deployment test procedure. Nor does the agency have any data on the performance of any other pyrotechnic devices for out-of-position occupants in the field. Furthermore, there is concern that deploying other pyrotechnic devices could negatively impact the repeatability of the low risk deployment test even though they might deploy in real world crashes. For these reasons, the agency is denying the Toyota petition. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition for rulemaking.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

          Issued on: August 4, 2005.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 05-15957 Filed 8-10-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
        18 CFR Parts 2 and 38
        [Docket No. RM05-5-026]
        Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities

          AGENCY:
           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

          ACTION:
           Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
           The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remove the incorporation by reference of the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) WEQ-006 Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards as adopted by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in its WEQ Version 003.0 Businesses Practice Standards. The WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards previously defined the commercial based procedures to be used for reducing time error to keep the system's time within acceptable limits of true time. NAESB's latest version of its Business Practice Standards retires and eliminates its Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards to correspond with the removal of the Time Error Correction requirements of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which was approved by the Commission in 2017. The Commission also proposes to incorporate by reference Standard WEQ-000 (Version 003.2), which eliminates the definitions of “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction” as well as making unrelated minor corrections.

          DATES:
           Comments are due November 13, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
           Comments, identified by Docket No. RM05-5-026, may be filed in the following ways:
          • Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
          • Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael P. Lee (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6548
          Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8321

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

              Paragraph Nos.

              I. Background
              2

              II. Discussion
              5

              III. Implementation
              8

              IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards
              9

              V. Incorporation By Reference
              11

              VI. Information Collection Statement
              16

              VII. Environmental Analysis
              23

              VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
              24

              IX. Comment Procedures
              28

              X. Document Availability
              32

        1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remove its incorporation by reference of the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) WEQ-006 Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards as adopted by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in its WEQ Version 003.0 Businesses Practice Standards.1
           NAESB adopted the Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standard to correspond with a similar reliability standard adopted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). These Time Error Correction standards defined the commercial methods used for reducing time error to keep the system's time within acceptable limits of true time. NERC retired its Time Error Correction reliability standard (BAL-004-0) and the Commission approved that retirement in a letter order issued on January 18, 2017 in Docket No. RD17-1-000. To maintain parallel treatment with NERC's reliability standards, NAESB, in Version 003.2 of its standards, retired and eliminated the standards contained in its WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards.2

            1 NAESB's WEQ Version 003.1 and WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards are currently pending Commission review.

            2 NAESB notified the Commission that it had adopted Version 003.2 of its standards on December 7, 2018, in Docket No. RM05-5-000.

        I. Background
        2. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization that serves as an industry forum for the development of business practice standards and communication protocols for the wholesale and retail natural gas and electricity industry sectors. Since 1995, NAESB and its predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), have been accredited members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), complying with ANSI's requirements that its standards reflect a consensus of the affected industries.3

            3 Prior to the establishment of NAESB in 2001, the Commission's development of business practice standards for the wholesale electric industry was aided by two ad hoc industry working groups established during the rulemaking proceeding that resulted in issuance of Order No. 889 and the creation of the Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), while GISB's efforts involved the development of business practice standards for the wholesale natural gas industry. Once formally established, NAESB took over the standards development previously handled by GISB and by the electric working groups.

        3. NAESB supports three quadrants of the gas and electric industries—wholesale gas, wholesale electric, and retail markets quadrants.4
           NAESB's standards include business practices intended to standardize and streamline the transactional processes of the natural gas and electric industries, as well as communication protocols and related standards designed to improve the efficiency of communication within each industry. All participants in the gas and electric industries are eligible to join NAESB and participate in standards development.

            4 The retail gas quadrant and the retail electric quadrant were combined into the retail markets quadrant. NAESB continues to refer to these working groups as “quadrants” even though there are now only three quadrants.

        4. NAESB develops its standards under a consensus process so that the standards draw support from a wide range of industry members. NAESB's procedures are designed to ensure that all persons choosing to participate can have input into the development of a standard, regardless of whether they are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is supported by a consensus of the relevant industry segments. Standards that fail to gain consensus support are not adopted. NAESB's consistent practice has been to submit a report to the Commission after it has made revisions to existing business practice standards or has developed and adopted new business practice standards. NAESB has submitted a report to the Commission to reserve specific standards in conjunction with the retirement of corresponding NERC standards. NAESB's standards are voluntary standards, which become mandatory for public utilities upon incorporation by reference by the Commission.
        II. Discussion
        5. As discussed below, we propose to revise the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 38.1(b)) to remove the standard WEQ-006 governing the business practices for Time Error Correction. NAESB approved this removal on December 8, 2017. We also propose to incorporate corresponding modifications to WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms Business Practice Standards, which were adopted by NAESB on that same date.

        6. The WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms standards define the terms used throughout the WEQ Business Practice Standards. Consistent with NAESB's removal of Standard WEQ-006 from the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards, NAESB also deleted the terms “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction” from the WEQ-000 standards as well as making other minor corrections to defined terms unrelated to time error correction.
        7. The WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards defines the commercial based procedures to be used for reducing time error to within acceptable limits of true time. However, NERC and NAESB are both in agreement that it is now appropriate to retire these standards. NERC decided to retire the Reliability Standard BAL-004-0 (Time Error Correction), since the standard does not materially support reliability of the Bulk Power System and has been superseded by newer standards since Order No. 693,5
           rendering Reliability Standard BAL-004-0 redundant. NERC took the first step in accomplishing this by submitting for Commission approval a revision to Reliability Standards BAL-004-0 to retire the standard but reserves the title of the standard as a placeholder. The Commission approved this NERC action in a letter order issued in Docket No. RD17-1-000 on January 18, 2017. After the Commission's approval of NERC's retirement of Reliability Standards BAL-004-0, NAESB submitted a parallel revision to the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards in which it retired and reserved all the standards contained in Standard WEQ-006, although NAESB retained the standard number WEQ-006 and the title “Manual Time Error Correction.” 6
           NAESB also made corresponding revisions to the definitions in Standard WEQ-000. Since NAESB has retired all of the standards governing Manual Time Error Correction, the Commission proposes to remove the NAESB standard WEQ-006 from its incorporation by reference, and to adopt NAESB's revisions to its definitions to ensure consistency between the NERC and NAESB standards.

            5 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, PP 382-386, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). Since issuance of Order No. 693 in 2007, NERC has periodically updated and revised its reliability standards. The standards were most recently updated on July 3, 2018.

            6 NERC replaced the manual time error correction standard with a guideline for automatic time error correction that would manage continued adherence to a frequency approximating 60 Hertz (Hz) over long-term averages. NAESB did not receive a request to adopt, and has not adopted, any business practice standards to complement NERC's automatic time error guideline.

        III. Implementation
        8. We do not propose to require public utilities to make filings upon adoption of  this proposal to implement the removal of WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction.  We generally require public utilities to make compliance filings revising their tariffs to acknowledge their responsibility to comply with the revised standards or include a provision in their tariffs stating that they will comply with the latest version of the NAESB business practice standards as incorporated by reference by the Commission.7
           Because we are only proposing to remove a single standard, we see no necessity for those utilities that make tariff filings to incorporate NAESB standards upon adoption of this proposal. Such filings can be made after the Commission addresses the remainder of the standards included in WEQ Version 003.2 of the standards.

            7 See Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-H, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,359, at P 71.

        IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards
        9. The retirement and reservation of the NAESB WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards was adopted by NAESB under NAESB's consensus procedures.8
           As the Commission found in Order No. 676, adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of all segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry itself has to conduct business under these standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.9

            8 Under this process, to be approved a standard must receive a super-majority vote of 67 percent of the members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with support from at least 40 percent from each of the five industry segments—transmission, generation, marketer/brokers, distribution/load serving entities, and end users. For final approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's general membership must ratify the standards.

            9 Public Law 104-113, 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997).

        10. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11) (February 10, 1998) provides that Federal Agencies should publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference NAESB's revised WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards, which retire and “reserve” these standards.
        V. Incorporation by Reference
        11. The Office of the Federal Register requires agencies incorporating material by reference in final rules to discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, the ways that the materials it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials.10
           The regulations also require agencies to summarize, in the preamble of the final rule, the material it incorporates by reference.

            10 1 CFR 51.5. See Incorporation by Reference, 79 FR 66267 (Nov. 7, 2014).

        12. Prior to NAESB's adoption of the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards, earlier iterations of the NAESB WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards defined the commercial procedures to be used for reducing time error to keep the system's time within acceptable limits of true time. However, in the latest version of this standard (the version of Standard WEQ-006 appearing in the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards) NAESB has retired and eliminated these standards. And in this NOPR, we propose to incorporate by reference the version of these standards that retires and reserves Standard WEQ-006.
        13. We also propose in this NOPR to incorporate by reference the revised WEQ-000 that deletes the definitions of the terms “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction” as well as making other minor corrections to defined terms unrelated to time error correction. The WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms Business Practice Standards provide a single location for all abbreviations, acronyms, and defined terms referenced in the WEQ Business Practice Standards. These standards provide common nomenclature for terms within the wholesale electric industry, reducing confusion and opportunities for misinterpretation or misunderstandings among industry participants.

        14. Our regulations provide that copies of the NAESB standards incorporated by reference may be obtained from the North American Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 356-0060. NAESB's website  is located at http://www.naesb.org/. Copies of the standards may be inspected at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Phone: (202) 502-8371, http://www.ferc.gov.
          11

            11 18 CFR 284.12.

        15. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that develops voluntary wholesale and retail standards related to the energy industry. The procedures used by NAESB make its standards reasonably available to those affected by the Commission regulations, which generally is comprised of entities that have the means to acquire the information they need to effectively participate in Commission proceedings.12
           NAESB provides a free electronic read-only version of the standards for a three business day period or, in the case of a regulatory comment period, through the end of the comment period.13
           Participants can join NAESB, for an annual membership cost of $7,000, which entitles them to full participation in NAESB and enables them to obtain these standards at no additional cost.14
           Non-members may obtain a complete set of Standards Manuals, Booklets, and Contracts on CD for $2,000 and the Individual Standards Manual or Booklets for each standard by email for $250 per manual or booklet.15
           In addition, NAESB considers requests for waivers of the charges on a case by case basis based on need.

            12 As a private, consensus standards developer, NAESB needs the funds obtained from its membership fees and sales of its standards to finance the organization. The parties affected by these Commission regulations generally are highly sophisticated and have the means to acquire the information they need to effectively participate in Commission proceedings.

            13 Procedures for non-members to evaluate work products before purchasing are available at https://www.naesb.org/misc/NAESB_Nonmember_Evaluation.pdf. See Incorporation by Reference, 79 FR at 66271, n.51 & 53 (Nov. 7, 2014) (citing to NAESB's procedure of providing “no-cost, no-print electronic access,” NAESB Comment at 1, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OFR-2013-0001-0023).

            14 North American Energy Standards Board Membership Application, https://www.naesb.org/pdf4/naesbapp.pdf.

            15 NAESB Materials Order Form, https://www.naesb.org//pdf/ordrform.pdf.

        VI. Information Collection Statement
        16. The collection of information contained in this proposed rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).16
           OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.17
           Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

            16 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

            17 5 CFR 1320.11.

        17. The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. We propose that the requirement to make compliance tariff filings (included in FERC-516) for the WEQ-006 Business Practice Standards be deferred until final action is taken by the Commission on the entirety of the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards for those who continue to opt to specify a specific version of the standards in their tariffs. Therefore, changes to the burden and cost of the FERC-516 (Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings, OMB Control No. 1902-0096) are not being proposed at this time.
        18. The following estimates for burden and cost 18
           are based on the projected savings due to the retirement and reservation of the WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards, as adopted by NAESB and proposed to be incorporated by reference in this NOPR.

            18 The Commission staff estimates that industry is similarly situated in terms of hourly cost (for wages plus benefits). Based on the Commission's FY (Fiscal Year) 2018 average cost (for wages plus benefits), $79.00/hour is used.

          Proposed Burden Reduction in NOPR in Docket No. RM05-5-026 19

            Number ofrespondents

            Annualnumber of
              responses per respondent

            Total numberof responses

            Average burden(hrs.) & cost ($) per
              response

            Total annual burden hrs. & total annual cost($)

            (1)
            (2)
            (1) * (2) = (3)
            (4)
            (3) * (4) = (5)

            FERC-717 20 21 (retirement of WEQ-006 Time Error Correction Standard)
            170
            1
            170
            1 hr.; $79 (reduction)
            170 hours; $13,430 (reduction).

          Title: FERC-717, Open Access Same Time Information System and Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.

          Action: Proposed revision (reduction) to an existing collection.

          OMB Control No.: 1902-0173.

          Respondents: Business or other for profit.

            19 As noted above, changes to the FERC-516 are not proposed at this time.

            20 FERC-717 (OMB Control No. 1902-0173) identifies the information collection associated with Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities. We estimate that the proposed retirement in this docket of WEQ-006 will reduce burden for each respondent by 1 hour.

            21 This burden for FERC-717 was originally included in Order 676-H. At that time, we had an estimate of 132 respondents. Due to normal industry fluctuation (e.g., companies merging or splitting, going into or leaving the industry), the number of respondents is now 170.
          In Order 676-H (issued 9/18/2014), the estimated average hourly wage (plus benefits) was $72.67. For the calculations here, we are using today's estimated hourly cost of $79.00/hour, as noted above.

          Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business procedures,  capital/start-up).
        19. Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule, if implemented would update the Commission's current business practice and communication standards to retire and remove Standard WEQ-006 on Manual Time Error Correction to be consistent with NERC's retirement of the corresponding reliability standard for Time Error Correction. In addition, we are also proposing to incorporate by reference the revised Standard  WEQ-000 (Version 003.2) that deletes the definitions of “Time Error” and “Time Error Correction”, as well as making unrelated minor corrections to the standard.
        20. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the revised business practice standards and has made a preliminary determination that the proposed revisions that we propose here to incorporate by reference are both necessary and useful. In addition, the Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimate associated with the information requirements.

        21. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attn: Ellen Brown, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

        22. Comments concerning the information collection proposed for revision in this NOPR and the associated burden estimate should be sent to the Commission in this docket, and by email to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please refer to OMB Control No. 1902-0173 in your submittal to OMB.
        VII. Environmental Analysis
        23. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.22
           The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment.23
           The actions proposed here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and transportation of electric power that requires no construction of facilities.24
           Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this NOPR.

            22 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

            23 18 CFR 380.4.

            24 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).

        VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
        24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 25
           generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected.

            25 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

        25. The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for electric utilities is based on the number of employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some transmission owners will fall under the following category and associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and control, at 500 employees.26

            26 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121 (Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control).

        26. The Commission estimates that 5 of the 170 respondents (or 3%) are small. The Commission estimates that the impact on each entity (large and small) is a proposed reduction or savings of $79.00 (or one hour).
        27. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that implementation of the proposed Business Practice Standards will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
        IX. Comment Procedures
        28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 13, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM05-5-026 and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

        29. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
        30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
        31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
        X. Document Availability

        32. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
        33. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

        34. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

          List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 38
          Incorporation by reference, Conflicts of interest, Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          By direction of the Commission.

          Issued: October 4, 2018.
          Kimberly D. Bose,
          Secretary.

        In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend part 38, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 38—STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

        2. Amend § 38.1, by revising paragraph (b)(1) and removing and reserving paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
        (b) * * *
        (1) WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms (Version 003.2, Dec. 8, 2017);

        (7) [Reserved]

      [FR Doc. 2018-22074 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        RIN 1018-AU04
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Tungsten-Iron-Copper-Nickel Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) hereby provides public notice that Spherical Precision, Inc. of Tustin, California, has applied for approval of 40 to 76 percent tungsten, 10 to 37 percent iron, 9 to 16 percent copper, and 5 to 7 percent nickel shot as nontoxic for waterfowl hunting in the United States. The Service has initiated review of the shot under the criteria set out in Tier 1 of the nontoxic shot approval procedures given at 50 CFR 20.134.

          DATES:
          A comprehensive review of the Tier 1 information is to be concluded by March 22, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          The Spherical Precision, Inc. application may be reviewed in Room 4091 at the Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Comments on this notice may be submitted to the Division of Migratory Bird Management at 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610. Comments will become part of the Administrative Record for the review of the application. The public may review the record at the Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4091, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714, or George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist, Division of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1825.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted under the Act. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service controls the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
        Since the mid-1970s, the Service has sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We have approved several types of shot as nontoxic and added them to the migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR 20.21. Use of shot types other than those listed in 50 CFR 20.21(j)(1) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up aggregate bag limits is prohibited. We will continue to review all shot types submitted for approval as nontoxic.
        Spherical Precision has submitted its application with the counsel that it contained all of the specified information for a complete Tier 1 submittal, and has requested unconditional approval pursuant to the Tier 1 time frame. The Service has determined that the application is complete, and has initiated a comprehensive review of the Tier 1 information. After the review, the Service will either publish a Notice of Review to inform the public that the Tier 1 test results are inconclusive or publish a proposed rule for approval of the candidate shot. If the Tier 1 tests are inconclusive, the Notice of Review will indicate what other tests will be required before we will again consider approval of the Tungsten-Iron-Copper-Nickel shot as nontoxic. If the Tier 1 data review results in a preliminary determination that the candidate material does not pose a significant toxicity hazard to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats, the Service will commence with a rulemaking proposing to approve the candidate shot.

          Dated: January 3, 2005.
          Steve Williams,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-1140 Filed 1-19-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BB42
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska and Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Observer Program

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to restructure the funding and deployment system for observers in North Pacific groundfish and halibut fisheries via Amendment 86 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and Amendment 76 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). The public comment period for the subject proposed rule will close 60 days after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. We will hold public hearings to receive oral and written comments on the proposed regulations during the public comment period.

          DATES:

          The meetings will be held in April and May, 2012. For specific dates and times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          ADDRESSES:

          The meetings will be held in Seattle, WA, Newport, OR, and Juneau, AK. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
          You may submit written comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2011-0210, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “Submit a Comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0210 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” 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.
          • Hand delivery to NMFS at one of the public hearings listed in this notice.
          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 to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter 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, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          Electronic copies of the proposed rule to implement Amendment 86 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 76 to the GOA FMP and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          A copy of the proposed rule that will be published in the Federal Register is available on NMFS Alaska Region's Web page (http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/observers/default.htm).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brandee Gerke, (907) 586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to restructure the funding and deployment system for observers in the North Pacific groundfish and halibut fisheries via Amendment 86 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 76 to GOA FMP. Per the requirements of MSA section 313, we will conduct three public hearings to inform interested parties of the proposed regulations and receive written and oral comments.
        The proposed rule to implement Amendment 86 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 76 to the GOA FMP was prepared under the authority of Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). MSA section 313 requires NMFS to conduct a public hearing in each state represented on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed regulations. The states represented on the Council are Alaska, Oregon, and Washington.
        Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations
        We will conduct public hearings on the proposed regulations on the specific dates listed below:
        • April 17, 2012; Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Seattle, WA.
        • April 19, 2012, PDT 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Newport, OR.
        • May 2, 2012, Alaska Daylight Time 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Juneau, AK.
        The hearing locations are:
        • Seattle, WA—NOAA Western Regional Center, Building 9 Auditorium, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. 9, Seattle, WA 98115.
        • Newport, OR—Hatfield Marine Science Center, Hennings Auditorium, 2030 SE. Marine Science Dr., Newport, OR 97365.
        • Juneau, AK—Centennial Hall, Hickel Room, 101 Egan Drive, Juneau, AK 99801.
        People wishing to make an oral statement for the record at a public hearing are encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. If attendance at the public hearings is large, the time allotted for individual oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us.
        There is no need to register for these hearings. Please be advised that a valid government-issued photo-identification will be required for entry through building security at the Seattle, WA, hearings.

          Dated: April 12, 2012.
          Carrie Selberg,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-9219 Filed 4-12-12; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 140529461-4526-01]
        RIN 0648-BE26
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Based on request from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, NMFS proposes to lift the closure area referred to as the Northern Temporary Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Closed Area for bivalve harvesting. NMFS takes this action because this area has not been subject to a toxic algal bloom for several years and testing of bivalve shellfish has demonstrated toxin levels well below those known to cause human illness. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has developed an agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to conduct paralytic shellfish poisoning monitoring of bivalves from the area in accordance with currently accepted paralytic shellfish poisoning testing procedures.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on this action by July 22, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0073, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0073, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Lift PSP Closure.”

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: (978) 281-9177, or Jason.Berthiaume@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        In 2005, at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) closed an area of Federal waters off the coasts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts to fishing for bivalve shellfish due to the presence in those waters of the toxins that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Shellfish contaminated with the toxin, if eaten in large enough quantity, can cause illness or death from PSP.
        The closure was modified a number of times from 2005-2008, and the remaining closure was subsequently extended from 2008 until 2013. Beginning in 2014, the closure also included a prohibition on the harvest of gastropods.
        Recently, NMFS, the FDA, the clam industry, and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) investigated whether this closure is still warranted, and on May 19, 2014, the FDA sent NMFS a letter requesting that we reopen the area known as the Northern Temporary Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Closed Area for bivalve harvesting. This request is based on the premise that the area has not been subject to a toxic algal bloom for several years and testing of bivalve shellfish has demonstrated toxin levels well below those known to cause human illness. In addition, the FDA has developed an agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to conduct PSP monitoring of bivalves from the area in accordance with currently accepted PSP testing procedures. If the closure is lifted, DMF would test the reopened waters, and if the results yield samples that exceed the threshold for public safety, DMF would inform us to that effect, and we would work with the FDA to reinstate the closure.

        If this action is implemented, NMFS would reopen the area referred to as the Northern Temporary PSP Closed Area for bivalve harvesting. This includes the fisheries for Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog, as well as mussels. The area would remain closed to the harvest of whole or roe-on scallops and gastropods. Whole and roe-on scallops and gastropods are believed to be more susceptible to PSP and may accumulate and retain much higher levels of toxicity. In addition, sufficient data do not exist to demonstrate that it would be safe to lift the closure for gastropods or whole and roe-on scallops. NMFS, the FDA, and DMF are working with the fishing industry to conduct a research project that would collect samples to help determine whether the area could also be opened to whole or roe-on scallops and gastropods. NMFS is seeking public comments on lifting the closure for bivalves as well as information regarding whole or roe-on scallops and gastropods and PSP in the area.
        The areas defined at 50 CFR 648.81(d) and (e), referred to as the Cashes Ledge and the Western Gulf of Maine Essential Fish Habitat Areas (EFH), respectively, overlap with the area that would be reopened. Theses overlapping EFH areas would remain closed to hydraulic clam dredge gear.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
        The proposed measures would only affect vessels holding an active Federal open access surfclam and/or ocean quahog permit. The SBA defines a small commercial shellfish fishing entity as a firm with gross annual receipts not exceeding $5 million. In 2012, a total of 42 vessels reported harvesting surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from Federal waters under the Individual Fishing Quota system. In addition, 12 vessels participated in the limited access Maine ocean quahog fishery, for a total of 54 participants in 2012. Average 2012 gross income was $950,000 per vessel. Each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All 54 commercial fishing entities fall below the SBA size threshold for small commercial shellfish fishing entities, and thus would be considered small entities for the purposes of this analysis.
        This rule, if implemented, is expected to have only a slightly beneficial economic impact on affected entities. The surfclam and ocean quahog fishery is managed under an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system, and, since overall quotas are not being changed as a result of this action, no additional harvest would be permitted with this action. However, participating vessels would be able to fish in the Northern Temporary Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Closed Area, in addition to the existing areas open to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs. Those vessels that choose to fish in the area proposed to be opened may experience a reduction in operational costs due to the area's relative close proximity to major fishing ports. As a result, these vessels could see some positive economic impacts. However, these benefits are not expected to be significant as this fishery is typically market limited and, as mentioned above, the fishery is managed under an ITQ, so it is not expected that there would be an increase in overall landings beyond what is allowed under the ITQ.
        In addition, due to the seasonal variability of PSP toxin levels, any or all of the area associated with this action could open or close based on PSP conditions. Given the uncertainty as to whether the area would remain open, and since the fishery is managed under an ITQ system, it is not anticipated that there would be an overall increase in participation in the surfclam and ocean quahog fishery due to the opening of this area. Therefore, because this action only proposes to reopen an area that has previously been closed, and because no net change in fishing effort, participation in the fishery, or fishery expenses is expected, this action will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
        Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 1, 2014.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to read as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.14, paragraph (a)(10)(iii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.
          (a) * * *
          (10) * * *
          (iii) Fish for, harvest, catch, possess or attempt to fish for, harvest, catch, or possess any any sea scallops, except for sea scallops harvested only for adductor muscles and shucked at sea and any gastropod species, including whelks, conchs, and carnivorous snails, unless issued and possessing on board a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the Regional Administrator authorizing the collection of shellfish and/or gastropods for biological sampling and operating under the terms and conditions of said LOA, in the area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone bound by the following coordinates in the order stated:
          (A) 43°00′ N. lat., 71°00′ W. long.;
          (B) 43°00′ N. lat., 69°00′ W. long.;
          (C) 41°39′ N. lat., 69°00′ W. long.;
          (D) 41°39′ N. lat., 71°00′ W. long.; and then ending at the first point.

      [FR Doc. 2014-15803 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P