        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 282
        [EPA-R08-UST-2018-0729; FRL-9991-42-Region 8]
        Colorado: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Codification

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the state of Colorado's Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program submitted by the State. This action is based on the EPA's determination that the State's revisions satisfy all requirements for UST program approval. This action also proposes to codify Colorado's state program, as revised by Colorado and approved by the EPA, and to incorporate by reference the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The State's federally authorized and codified UST program, as revised pursuant to this action, will remain subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

          DATES:
          Send written comments by June 19, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: Hendrix.Mark@epa.gov.

          3. Mail: Mark Hendrix, Region 8, Project Officer, UST, Solid Waste and PCB Unit, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance (Mail Code: 8P-R), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
          4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Mark Hendrix, Region 8, Project Officer, UST, Solid Waste and PCB Unit, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance (Mail Code: 8P-R), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-UST-2018-0729. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The federal https://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.
          You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this action and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following location: EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone number (303) 312-6561. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 2 days in advance.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mark Hendrix, Region 8, Project Officer, UST, Solid Waste and PCB Unit, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance (Mail Code: 8P-R), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone number (303) 312-6561, email address: Hendrix.Mark@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

          Authority: This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 282
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.

          Dated: April 29, 2019.
          Debra Thomas,
          Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.

      [FR Doc. 2019-10411 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 010302B]
        Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf of Alaska, King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, Scallop and Salmon Fisheries Off the Coast of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of preliminary alternative approaches for essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC); request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces preliminary alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPC for the following fishery management plans (FMPs):  Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs; Scallop Fishery off Alaska; and Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska.

          DATES:

          Written comments on the preliminary alternative approaches for EFH and HAPC must be received by close of business on January 22, 2002 (see ADDRESSES).

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the preliminary alternative approaches for identifying and describing EFH and HAPC should be submitted to Theodore F. Meyers, Assistant Regional Administrator, Habitat Conservation Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall, Records Management Office.  Comments may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (907) 586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Courier or hand delivery of comments may be made to NMFS in the Federal Building, Room 453, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cindy Hartmann at (907) 586-7235.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 6, 2001, NMFS published a notice of intent to prepare an SEIS for the EFH components of the following management plans:  Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs; Scallop Fishery off Alaska; and Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (66 FR 30396).  NMFS requested written comments and gave notice of scoping meetings.
        The proposed action to be addressed in the SEIS is the development of the mandatory EFH provisions of the affected FMPs as described in section 303 (a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and based on the guidance in the EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600 Subpart J.  The following three types of actions will be specifically analyzed:  (1) identify and describe EFH for managed species; (2) identify HAPCs within EFH; and (3) minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing.  The scope of the new SEIS will cover all of the required EFH components of FMPs.  The SEIS will supersede the environmental assessment (EA) previously prepared in support of the EFH amendments to the FMPs listed above.
        In June 2001, NMFS held public scoping meetings in six communities.  Written comments were accepted through July 21, 2001.  A preliminary draft scoping report was available at the October 2001 Council meeting.  NMFS held a technical workshop from November 6 through 8, 2001, to develop alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPC.  Alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPC were developed based on significant issues raised during the scoping process.  Recommendations for EFH and HAPC alternative approaches developed at the workshop were given to the Council’s EFH Committee.  NMFS, Council staff, and the EFH Committee presented potential draft alternative approaches for EFH and HAPC to the Council at its December 10, 2001, meeting.  The Council adopted the EFH Committee’s preliminary EFH and HAPC alternative approaches and will further develop EFH and HAPC alternative approaches and criteria at the February Council meeting.  Other EFH and HAPC issues and questions will be discussed, such as HAPC site specific proposals and how to proceed with identifying fishing gear effects and possible measures to minimize those effects.  The EFH and HAPC alternative approaches contained in the SEIS will then be analyzed further using the best available data to identify areas under the various approaches.
        Alternative Approaches for Designation of EFH
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”  For purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH:  “Waters” include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; “substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; “necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species full life cycle.  Four levels were identified to organize information necessary to describe and identify EFH.  These four levels are:  (1) Level 1:  only distribution data are available to describe the geographic range of a species or life stage; (2) Level 2:  quantitative data (i.e., density or relative abundance) are available for the habitats occupied by a species of life stage; (3) Level 3:  data are available on habitat-related growth, reproduction, and/or survival by life stage; (4) Level 4:  data are available that directly relate the production rates of a species of life stage to habitat type, quantity, quality, and location.
        The Council is considering the following preliminary alternative approaches for the designation of EFH:
        Alternative 1:  no action, no EFH designation.  The Council’s action resulting from this alternative approach would be to change the FMPs from the current EFH amendment measures.  This alternative approach is included to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
        Alternative 2:  status quo.  EFH is defined on a species by species basis based on the general distribution of individual species and their life stages.  Level 0 to 2 information levels are used in this alternative.
        Alternative 3:  species-based approach.  EFH for each species or species group and life stage is separately designated.  This alternative approach dictates that EFH be designated on the basis of the highest level of information available.

        Alternative 4:  ecosystem/habitat-based approach.  This alternative approach specifies EFH designations relative to classification of habitat types occurring in the region and the assemblages of species and lifestages associated with them.  Habitat types would be defined into stages by the relevant physical and biotic data, including depth, substrate, and structure forming biota.
        Alternative 5:  core area-based approach.  Designation of EFH for this alternative approach is limited to those core areas known to be critical to the production of species or species groups.
        Alternative 6:  exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters approach.  Under this alternative approach, EFH for FMP species is not designated in freshwater, estuarine or nearshore marine waters, and is designated only in waters of the EEZ.
        Alternative Approaches for Designation of HAPC
        HAPC are subsets of EFH.  HAPC are those areas of special importance that may require additional protection from adverse effects.  HAPC are defined on the basis of the ecological importance, sensitivity to human-induced environmental degradation, stress to the habitat from development activities, and rarity of the habitat.
        The EFH Steering Committee recommends the following nomenclature be used for HAPC’s:  HAPC Category - Classification of HAPC type or site using established criteria; HAPC Area - can refer to either habitat “type” or “site”; HAPC Type - general habitat description (e.g., corals, pinnacles); HAPC Site - can be stand-alone geographic location selected from HAPC criteria.
        The Council is considering the following preliminary alternative approaches for the designation of HAPC:
        Alternative 1:  no action, no HAPC designation.
        Alternative 2:  status quo.  The EFH amendments to the five Council FMPs listed above identified 3 types of habitat as HAPC (living substrates in shallow water, living substrates in deep waters, and freshwater areas used by anadromous fish) but did not map or designate specific areas as HAPC.
        Alternative 3:  species distribution, core-based approach.  This alternative approach assumes that the distribution and abundance of species are indicators of critically important habitat types or sites that require special protection.  As information between habitat and FMP species or ecosystem productivity becomes available, HAPC could be refined to a core habitat.
        Alternative 4:  habitat-eco-region/ecological based approach.  HAPC alternative approach 4 identifies habitat types or sites of ecological significance within eco-regions tiering down from EFH alternative approach 4.  This alternative approach incorporates both habitat types and site specific designations and allows for different management actions among types and sites within regions.
        Alternative 5:  site-specific based approach.  HAPC alternative approach 5 assumes that individual sites meeting one or more of the HAPC criteria may be designated as HAPC sites, which would require specific management objectives.
        Alternative 6:  type-site based approach.  HAPC alternative approach 6 establishes HAPCs as individual sites selected from a sub-set of HAPC types.

        More detailed information on these alternatives can be found on the Council and NMFS, Alaska Region, web sites.  Links to these sites can be found at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
        Public Involvement
        NMFS will work with the Council throughout the development of the SEIS.  The Council has formed an EFH Committee to act as a steering committee for the EFH SEIS process and to facilitate public and Council input to the SEIS process.  The public will be able to provide oral and written comments on EFH at Council meetings.
        A principal objective of the public involvement process is to identify a reasonable range of management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will sharply define critical issues and provide a clear basis for defining those alternatives and choosing the preferred alternative.  NMFS invites specific public comment on the preliminary alternative approaches for the designation of EFH and HAPCs for Council-managed species, on possible combinations of EFH and HAPC alternative approaches, and on the scientific basis for EFH and HAPC designations.  NMFS also solicits any new information related to the impacts of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH and HAPCs for fishery resources managed under the Council’s FMPs and possible management measures designed to minimize adverse effects of fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH.

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

          Dated: January 4, 2002.
          John M. Kurland
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-644 Filed 1-9-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 031218322-3322-01; I.D. 111903A]
        RIN  0648-AR73
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Skates Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 63 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).  Amendment 63, if approved,  would move skates from the “other species” list to the “target species” list in the FMP.  By listing skates as a target species, a directed fishery for skates in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) may be managed to reduce the potential for overfishing skates.  This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by February 20, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:   Lori Durall, or delivered to room 420 of the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule may be obtained from the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA are managed under the FMP.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.  General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 63 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2003 (68 FR 67390), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through February 2, 2004.
        Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by February 2, 2004, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.  All comments received by that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
        Background
        Amendment 63 is intended to respond to concerns that the rapidly developing skate fishery in the GOA may result in overfishing of skates.  Amendment 63 to the FMP would move skates from the “other species” list to the “target species” list, allowing for the management of skates as a target species.  Skates currently are managed as part of the other species complex with sharks, sculpins, octopus, and squid.  The total allowable catch limit (TAC) for this complex is  five percent of the aggregate of all TACs for groundfish of the GOA.  Target species TACs are established for an individual species or species group and NMFS manages the directed fishery for each species to avoid exceeding the specified TACs.  TACs usually are set at or below the acceptable biological catch (ABC) amount, which are below the overfishing levels (OFLs) for each target species or species group.  The other species complex does not have an OFL or ABC amount due to the lack of biomass information for most of the species in the complex.
        In 2003, a directed fishery for skates rapidly developed in the GOA.  The 2003 skate harvest was 3,042 metric tons (mt), compared to 782 mt of skates harvested in 2002.  Because skates are managed within the other species complex, the full TAC for the other species complex is available for a directed fishery for skates.
        To reduce the potential for overfishing, the Council recommended that skates be managed as a target species.  As a target species, OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for skates would be established by annual harvest specifications, allowing for more effective management of skates  based on the best available scientific information.  The development of  OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for the 2004 harvest specifications for skates would be based on scientific survey and harvest information from 2003 and prior years.   Managing a directed fishery for skates so that OFL, ABC, and TAC  amounts are not exceeded would reduce the potential for overfishing and would meet the conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This action proposes to implement Amendment 63.  This action also would revise Table 10 of 50 CFR 679 to establish maximum retainable amounts (MRAs) of skates in other directed groundfish fisheries and to establish MRAs for other target groundfish in the directed fishery for skates.  The listing of species groups under footnote 7 to the table for the other species complex  would be revised to remove skates from the listing.  A footnote 11 would be added to the MRAs column and row for skates to identify the managed skate species and the reporting codes.  These changes are necessary to properly manage the retention of skates incidentally caught in other directed groundfish fisheries and the retention of other groundfish taken incidentally in the  directed fishery for skates.
        The definition of other species in the regulations also would be revised to reference 50 CFR 679.20(e) for Tables 10 and 11 instead of 50 CFR 679.20(c), which does not apply to Tables 10 and 11.
        Classification
        NMFS has not yet determined whether the amendment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) which describes any adverse impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on directly regulated small entities.  Because this action is closely linked to the annual harvest specifications, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES)  prepared for this action also analyzes the action to establish annual harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA.  The IRFA identifies two FMP change alternatives (no action and move skates to the target list), and three specifications options that may be considered with the action alternative.  The specification options will be further analyzed and considered in separate rulemaking for the annual harvest specifications to be completed in early 2004.  A summary of the IRFA, as it pertains to this action, follows:
        Amendment 63 amends the GOA FMP by moving skate species from the “other species” list and adding it to the “target species” list.  Skates would receive their own OFL, ABC, and TAC.  This action is proposed to give fishery managers better tools to protect the skate biomass in the face of a directed fishery that developed rapidly in 2003.
        The objective of this action is to increase the control managers have over the fishing mortality of skates, to prevent overfishing of skates, to maintain healthy skate stocks, and to make a sustainable fishery for skates more likely.
        The legal basis for this action is found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in the GOA groundfish FMP promulgated pursuant to that act.
        The IRFA for this action ascertained that 933 hook-and-line catcher vessels, 15 hook-and-line catcher-processors, 117 trawl catcher vessels, and four trawl catcher-processors, might be directly regulated by this action.  All of these vessels are considered “small entities” as defined by the RFA.   In 2001, average Alaskan groundfish revenues for the small entities were $70,000 for hook-and-line catcher vessels, $1.83 million for hook-and-line catcher-processors, $350,000 for trawl catcher vessels, and $1.8 million for trawl catcher-processors.
        This action has the potential to limit harvests and fishery gross revenues in the short run to protect the biomass and preserve the fishery for the long term.  The actual impacts would depend on the way the Council chooses to incorporate skates into the specifications, and on the annual specifications recommendations made by the Council.
        Nothing in the proposed action would result in changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
        The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
        The IRFA evaluated a no-action alternative to the preferred alternative.  Under this no-action alternative, skates would have remained in the “other species” list.  Since the “other species” complex TAC in 2003 (11,260 mt) is larger than the projected OFL for skates indicated in the EA (10,322 mt), harvest in a targeted skate fishery could drive down the skate biomass and reduce its reproductive potential.  While revenues from the fishery would be higher in the short run, they would be lower in the longer run, as a reduced biomass supports a smaller (or perhaps no) commercial skate fishery.  Thus, while this alternative may have imposed fewer short run restrictions on small fishing operations, it did not meet the objectives of providing protection to the skate stocks in the GOA and thereby protecting the future of a sustainable fishery.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated:  December 30, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1.  The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f).

        2.  In § 679.2, the definition “Other species” is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.2
          Definitions.

            Other species is a category that consists of groundfish species in each management area that are not specified as target species (see Tables 10 and 11 to this part pursuant to § 679.20(e)).

        3.  Table 10 to part 679 is revised to read as follows:
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP06JA04.028

          EP06JA04.029

          EP06JA04.030

      [FR Doc. 04-229 Filed 1-5-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AJ26
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Extension of Amended Special Regulations for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period and notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the comment period on a proposed rule that would permanently extend the amended special regulations governing take of the threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this extended comment period, and will be fully considered in the final rule. We also are holding a public hearing to receive oral comments on this proposed rule.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2004, to receive consideration. (see “Public Hearings and Meetings” section for time and location of the public hearing).

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit written comments to the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, or by facsimile to 303-275-2371. You may hand deliver written comments to our Colorado Ecological Services Field Office at the address given above. The complete file for this rule is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Colorado Ecological Services Field Office at the address given above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          In Colorado, contact Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, at the above address or telephone (303) 275-2370. In Wyoming, contact Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming, at telephone (307) 772-2374.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On May 22, 2001, the Service adopted special regulations governing take of the threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), which provide exemption from take provisions under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act for certain activities related to rodent control, ongoing agricultural activities, landscape maintenance, and existing uses of water. On October 1, 2002, the Service amended those regulations to provide exemptions for certain activities related to noxious weed control and ongoing ditch maintenance activities. On February 24, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (69 FR 8359) to permanently extend these special regulations, as amended, and solicited public comments. Please refer to the proposed rule for background information, a summary of previous Federal actions, and provisions of the special regulations. We are now extending the public comment period and holding a public hearing on this proposed rule.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. In some circumstances, we will withhold a respondent's identity from the rulemaking record, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Public Hearing and Meetings
        On March 9, 2004, we received a request for a public hearing on the proposed extension of the amended special rule. In response to this request, we will hold a public hearing on Thursday, April 1, 2004, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at the Platte County Public Library, 904 9th Street, Wheatland, Wyoming.
        Anyone wishing to make an oral comment or statement for the record at the public hearing listed above is encouraged (but not required) to also provide a written copy of the statement and present it to us at the hearing. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Mary Jennings, Wyoming Field Office, telephone 307-772-2374.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: March 17, 2004.
          Mary G. Henry,
          Acting Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.

      [FR Doc. 04-6416 Filed 3-22-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 071106669-7824-02]
        RIN 0648-AU26
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) which would provide protection for all species of krill off the West Coast (i.e., California, Oregon and Washington). This rule would prohibit the harvest of all species of krill by any fishing vessel operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the West Coast, and would also deny the use of exempted fishing permits to allow krill fishing.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by June 19, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
           You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by “I.D. 012607A-PR” by any of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: 0648-AU26.SWR@noaa.gov. Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message.
          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
          • Fax: (562)980-4047

          Instructions: 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 (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 in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of Amendment 12, which includes an Environmental Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, are available from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034 or Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The CPS fishery in the EEZ off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The CPS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and was implemented by regulations that can be found at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I.
        Amendment 12 would add all species of krill as a management unit species under the CPS FMP and would place krill under a newly established “prohibited harvest species” category. This new category would differ from the existing “prohibited species” definition in the FMP because “prohibited harvest species” may not be taken by any fishery or gear type in the U.S. EEZ. In contrast, “prohibited species” may not be taken and retained incidentally by CPS fishery participants, but are legally harvested under provisions in Federal regulations implementing other Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) FMPs.
        As the principal food source for many fish and non-fish species, krill are a critical component of the marine ecosystem. Off the West Coast krill are important prey for a variety of fish species, including many Council managed stocks. Krill are also a principal food source for many species of marine mammals and seabirds; some of which are listed as threatened or endangered and warrant special efforts for protection and recovery. Protecting krill will likely minimize adverse impacts on these fish stocks and living marine resources and in turn, help to maintain ecological relationships and ensure the long-term health and productivity of the West Coast ecosystem. Amendment 12 is an attempt to incorporate ecosystem conservation principles into fishery management programs by protecting, to the extent practicable, krill resources, which are an integral part of that ecosystem.
        At this time, there are no Federal regulations that limit fishing for krill in the EEZ. While a krill fishery off the U.S. West Coast does not currently exist, NMFS is concerned such a fishery could develop and have an adverse impact on other West Coast fish stocks, marine mammals, and the ecosystem generally.
        The states of Washington, Oregon, and California prohibit their vessels from fishing for krill and prohibit landings of krill into their respective ports. However, these prohibitions would not prevent a fishery from developing in the West Coast EEZ by vessels from outside of the region, as long as landings were not made into a West Coast port. A market for krill currently exists in Washington and Oregon, where salmon farms use krill products as a supplemental feed. Federal (EEZ) waters which lie outside of the state prohibitions on krill harvest, may in the future be used for fish farming. These operations will likely demand krill as feed stock, and a fishery could develop around the needs of these aquaculture facilities. Local krill would be an obvious food source, which may significantly increase the likelihood of a krill fishery developing within West Coast EEZ waters.
        NMFS is concerned about the impacts of a krill fishery based in part on information regarding large-scale krill fishing methods and the impacts of existing krill fisheries in other areas. Krill concentrations attract marine mammal, bird, and fish predators, and due to the trawl-type gear used to catch krill, bycatch and/or disturbance of these predators could occur. In the Antarctic krill fishery, there is known bycatch of fur seals as well as various sea birds. In British Columbia a krill fishery began in 1970 and in 1976 quotas were established due to concerns for harvesting a forage species upon which salmon and other commercially important finfish depend. An annual catch was set at 500 tons with an open season from November to March to minimize the incidental catch of larval and juvenile fish.

        In the Antarctic, although krill catches are currently well below catch limits, some have questioned whether there is a risk that localized, excessive fishing effort might have an impact on land-based predators that depend on krill for food. This could be of particular concern during the breeding season considering the considerable overlap between the krill fishery and breeding areas for penguins and seals in the South Atlantic Ocean. Some believe that demand for krill has begun to exceed supply in areas of the southwest Atlantic and as a result penguins and albatrosses might be having difficulties in rearing offspring successfully on South Georgia due to this competition for resources.
        NMFS' examination of this action began in September 2004, when managers of the Cordell Bank, Monterey Bay, and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries (Sanctuaries) requested that the Council consider prohibiting krill fishing in the federal waters portion of the three sanctuaries. The Council moved forward with the request recognizing the need for a more substantive analysis of the krill resource - including an analysis of possible controls that would meet the objectives of the requested action. The analysis also considered the total distribution and importance of krill throughout waters off the West Coast EEZ, not just in sanctuary waters.
        At the November 2004 Council meeting, NMFS presented the Council with advice on alternative approaches by which krill fishery controls could be implemented. NMFS subsequently prepared an Alternatives Analysis that presented information on the various species of krill that occur off the West Coast, their productivity (as well as the uncertainty of the information available), and the relationship between krill and other fish and non-fish species. The analysis also provided information on potential mechanisms for achieving control over krill fishing in the EEZ as well as evaluated different conservation and management measures that could be applied if krill fishing were to be permitted.
        The Council discussed the content of the Alternatives Analysis at its October 31, 2005, meeting and after receiving recommendations from its advisory groups and the public, directed that a draft CPS FMP amendment be prepared presenting a preliminary preferred alternative for public review and comment. Once completed, the document was circulated for public review and comment. Following public testimony at its March 2006 meeting the Council adopted Amendment 12 to the CPS FMP.
        The three alternatives that were analyzed for this amendment are as follows:
        Alternative 1: No Action
        Every assessment of potential management strategies by the Council for consideration of implementation by Federal regulation includes a “no action” alternative, as required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations and against which other alternatives are compared. Under this alternative, NMFS would not take action at this time. This would mean that the states' prohibitions on landing krill by their vessels would remain in place (see section 3.5 of Environmental Assessment (EA)), but that a fishery by vessels from outside of the region could develop in the EEZ if landings were not made into a West Coast port. If a krill fishery developed, the Council would have an opportunity to develop conservation and management measures in the future.
        Alternative 2: Manage Krill Fishing Through Amendment of the CPS FMP (Proposed Action)

        Under this alternative, krill (all species) would be added to the management unit species of the CPS FMP. Further, a new category of management unit species - “prohibited harvest” - would be established under the FMP. Krill would be placed in that category. This means that optimum yield (OY) for krill would be zero, and the target, harvest and transhipment of krill would be prohibited. Also, exempted fishing permits (EFPs) would not be issued under the EFP procedures of the CPS FMP to allow individuals to harvest krill as an exception to the prohibition of harvest. These actions would fully achieve the objectives of the amendment to the extent practicable, but would not account for environmental conditions and the responses of krill and other resources to changes in environmental conditions. NMFS recognizes that de minimis or trace amounts of krill may be retained by fishermen while targeting other species; such inadvertent action is not intended to be the subject of this prohibition.
        Alternative 3: Prohibit Krill Fishing but Establish a Process for Allowing Future Fishing
        This alternative would add krill to the management unit species group contained within the CPS FMP as well as initially prohibit fishing for krill in the West Coast EEZ (i.e., OY would have been zero), but a procedure would be established by which krill fishing in the future could be permitted (subject to conditions). That procedure would involve such steps as completing the modeling described in section 3.1.3.5 of the EA, establishing a firm Maximum Sustainable Yield estimate(s), prohibiting the direct harvest of krill but possibly setting an initial low harvest allowance for EFPs with a complete monitoring and evaluation program.
        NMFS has considered the potential for development of a krill fishery and the potentially drastic effects a fishery could have on krill resources and on the fish and other species, such as birds and mammals, that are dependent on, or that are sensitive to, the abundance and availability of krill. NMFS believes it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks. Therefore, NMFS proposes to Alternative 2 prohibit krill fishing in the EEZ off the West Coast.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I have determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        The Council and NMFS has prepared an EA for this amendment that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          A fishing vessel is considered a “small” business by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) if its annual receipts are not in excess of $4.0 million. Since all of the vessels fishing for CPS have annual receipts below $4.0 million they would all be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore this rule will not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.

          No small entities would be directly affected if this action were taken. There are currently no entities engaged in fishing for krill off the West Coast. It is possible that, in the absence of this action, a krill fishery could develop, but it is not possible to estimate the number of entities (large or small) that might engage in such fishing in the future. No criteria for such an evaluation were used as no entities (large or small) will be directly affected by the proposed action. No entities now fish for krill so no entities would be disproportionately affected or suffer reductions in profits. No entities now fish for krill so a “substantial number” of small entities would not be affected.
          NMFS has determined that there will not be a significant economic impact to a substantial number of small entities.

        As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

          Dated: May 14, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 660.502 the definitions of “Krill” and “Prohibited harvest species” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 660.502
          Definitions.

            Krill means all species of euphausiids that occur in the EEZ off the West Coast.

            Prohibited harvest species means all krill species in the EEZ off the West Coast.

        3. In § 660.505, add paragraph (o) as follows:

          § 660.505
          Prohibitions.

          (o) Fish for, target, harvest or land a prohibited harvest species in any fishery within the EEZ off the West Coast.

      [FR Doc. E8-11253 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 2 and 19
        [FAR Case 2016-002; Docket No. 2016-0002; Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AN34
        Federal Acquisition Regulation: Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outside the United States

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to support the Small Business Administration's (SBA) policy of including overseas contracts in agency small business contracting goals. This amendment is consistent with SBA's regulatory changes, which clarify that small business contracting provisions, e.g., set-asides, may apply to contracts performed overseas.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before October 11, 2019 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2016-002 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “FAR Case 2016-002” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with FAR Case 2016-002. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2016-002” on your attached document.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, ATTN: Lois Mandell, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2016-002 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Marilyn E. Chambers, Procurement Analyst, at 202-285-7380 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2016-002.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to support SBA's changes to the basis for the Governmentwide small business contracting goals. The proposed FAR changes are consistent with SBA's regulatory changes, which clarify that small business contracting rules, e.g., set-asides, may be applied to contracts performed outside the United States. On October 3, 2013, SBA issued a final rule amending its regulations at 13 CFR 125.2 to make this clarification.
        The Small Business Act requires the President to establish Governmentwide contracting goals for small business contracts awarded by Federal agencies each fiscal year (15 U.S.C. 644(g)). Historically, SBA has not included certain categories of contracts in the establishment of these goals, for example, contracts with a place of performance outside of the United States. Section 1631(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), amended the Governmentwide small business contracting goal provisions established under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act. Section 1631(c) requires SBA to review and revise the guidelines for the establishment of small business goals for Federal procurement to ensure that agency goals are established in a manner that does not exclude contracts based on (a) type of goods or services for which the agency contracts, (b) how funding for the contracts is made available to the agency by an Appropriations Act or is made available by reimbursement from another agency or account, or (c) whether or not the contract is subject to the FAR. As a result of this review, SBA began including overseas contracts in the establishment of small business goals for FY 2016 to broaden the base of contracts that could be awarded to small businesses under FAR part 19.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        The proposed changes to the FAR are summarized in the following paragraphs.
        A. Subpart 2.1, Definitions. This subpart is amended to revise the definition of “bundling” by deleting paragraph (3) in its entirety, making the definition applicable outside the United States. The Small Business Act does not exempt an agency from justifying its bundling of contract requirements based on location of award, location of service performance, or location of supply delivery.
        B. Section 19.000, Scope of part. This section is amended to clarify that, unless otherwise noted in FAR part 19 (such as for subparts 19.6 and 19.7), contracting officers shall apply this part in the United States and its outlying areas and may apply this part outside the United States and its outlying areas. Additionally, the section is amended to specify that offerors participating in any FAR part 19 procurement are required to meet the definition of “small business concern” at FAR 2.101 and the definition of “concern” at FAR 19.001.
        C. Section 19.309, Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. This section is amended to remove language that restricts application of the following provisions and clause to contracts to be performed in the United States or its outlying areas: The provisions at FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, and FAR 52.219-2, Equal Low Bids; and the clause at FAR 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation.
        III. Expected Impact of the Rule
        Currently, FAR 19.000(b) states that FAR part 19, except for FAR subpart 19.6, applies only in the United States or its outlying areas. Some contracting officers have interpreted the phrase “applies only in the United States” to mean that they are not allowed to use the set-aside and sole-source procedures of FAR part 19 for overseas procurements. Other contracting officers have interpreted “applies only in the United States” to mean that they are not required to use FAR part 19 procedures for overseas procurements, but may do so if they choose. These conflicting interpretations have resulted in inconsistent use of FAR part 19 procedures for overseas procurements across Federal agencies. Conflicting interpretations may also contribute to low numbers of overseas contract actions that are set aside for small businesses.
        This proposed rule will clarify that contracting officers are allowed, but not required, to use the set-aside and sole-source procedures of FAR part 19 for overseas procurements. While SBA's regulations do not explicitly state that use of small business programs is discretionary overseas, SBA clarified and confirmed their position in the preamble of their notice on Small Business Mentor-Protégé Programs published July 25, 2016, at 81 FR 48557. The preamble stated that SBA had issued a final rule previously on October 2, 2013, to amend 13 CFR 125.2 “recognizing that small business contracting could be used `regardless of the place of performance.' ” The preamble went on to explain that SBA merely sought to clarify that the authority to use small business programs overseas already existed and to highlight contracting officers' discretionary authority to use these programs where appropriate regardless of the place of performance. This proposed rule is consistent with these rules.
        As a result of the clarification provided in the rule, contracting officers may set aside more overseas actions for small businesses in the future. However, this rule does not propose to impose additional costs or reduce existing costs for small businesses who may compete. The rule merely allows additional opportunities to be provided to small businesses through set-asides and other tools in FAR part 19 for overseas requirements.
        Data are not available on the number of overseas procurements contracting officers have not set aside for small business as a result of the conflicting interpretations described in the first paragraph of this section. According to data obtained from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2017 and 2018, there were an average of 1,601,915 awards for performance overseas, including contracts, task and delivery orders, and calls under FAR part 13 blanket purchase agreements. Of those awards, 1,588,334 were made to approximately 8,512 unique large businesses, while 13,581 awards were made to approximately 1,954 unique small businesses. These numbers indicate that less than 1 percent of actions awarded for performance outside the United States are awarded to small businesses.
        Contract awards to small businesses could increase if contracting officers expand their use of set-asides and other tools in FAR part 19 for overseas contracts. FAR 19.502-(2)(b) states that the set-aside authority can only be used where a contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from two small businesses and that award will be made at a fair market price. Similarly, sole-source authority under any of the small business programs also requires certain conditions to be met before being utilized. The conditions for using the FAR part 19 sole-source authorities include, but are not limited to, making award at a fair and reasonable price. It is not possible to identify how many small businesses will have the capability, capacity, or inclination to compete for contracts performed outside the United States. In addition, it is not possible to predict how many overseas procurements contracting officers will set aside for small business as a result of the proposed FAR changes.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA invite public comment regarding the driving and restraining forces impacting application of FAR part 19 to overseas procurements, both on the Government's acquisition workforce and small business concerns.
        IV. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items
        This proposed rule does not change the applicability of the existing provisions at FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, and 52.219-2, Equal Low Bids, and the clause at 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation, which already apply to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and to acquisitions for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
        V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        VI. Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action, because this rule imposes de minimis costs on the public as explained in section III of this preamble, Expected Impact of the Rule. The FAR Council invites comments from the regulated community on the analysis provided in this rule.
        VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The change may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:

          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to give contracting officers the tools they need, including the ability to use set-asides, to maximize opportunities for small businesses to obtain contracts for performance outside the United States. This change may increase contract awards to small businesses, which will improve agencies' achievement of their small business contracting goals.

          The objective of this proposed rule is to provide the Government with additional tools with which to maximize small business participation in contracts performed outside the United States. Currently, the FAR states that the small business programs do not apply outside of the United States (FAR 19.000(b)). However, on October 3, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule amending its regulations at 13 CFR 125.2 to clarify that its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. With the changes to SBA's guidelines for establishment of small business goals in response to section 1631(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), contracts performed outside of the United States are now included in the Government's small business contracting goals.

          This rule may have a positive economic impact on small businesses. The proposed rule expands existing procurement mechanisms (e.g., set-asides) to contracts performed outside the United States. Therefore, small businesses available to compete for Federal contracts performed outside the United States are most directly affected by this rule. Analysis of the System for Award Management (SAM) indicates there are over 327,000 small business registrants that can potentially benefit from the implementation of this rule. An analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2017 and 2018 revealed that there was an average of 1,601,915 awards for performance overseas, including contracts, task and delivery orders, and calls under part 13 blanket purchase agreements (BPAs). Of those awards, 1,588,334 were made to approximately 8,512 unique large businesses, while 13,581 awards were made to approximately 1,954 unique small businesses. This number could increase if contracting officers expand their use of set-asides and other tools in FAR part 19 for overseas contracts.
          Therefore, this rule could affect a smaller number of small businesses than the 327,000 registered in SAM, but potentially more than those revealed by FPDS as having overseas contracts. It is not possible to identify how many of the registered small businesses will have the capability, capacity, or inclination to compete for contracts performed outside the United States. In addition, it is not possible to predict how many overseas procurements contracting officers will set aside for small business as a result of the proposed FAR changes. Contracting officers must continue to comply with FAR 19.502-(2)(b), which states that the set-aside authority can only be used where a contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from two small businesses and that award will be made at a fair market price. Similarly, sole source authority under any of the small business programs also requires certain conditions to be met before being utilized. The conditions for using the FAR part 19 sole-source authorities include, but are not limited to, making award at a fair and reasonable price.
          Nonetheless, we believe that this rule may have a significant positive economic impact on small business concerns competing for Federal contracting opportunities since it will provide greater access to Federal contracting opportunities.
          This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses.
          The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
          There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule.

        The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR case 2016-002) in correspondence.
        VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2 and 19
          Government procurement.

          Janet Fry,
          Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 2 and 19 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2 and 19 continues to read as follows:

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

          Part 2—Definitions of Words and Terms

            2.101
             [Amended]

        2. Amend section 2.101, in the definition of “bundling”, by removing paragraph (3).

          Part 19—Small Business Programs

        3. Amend section 19.000 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          19.000
           Scope of part.

          (b)(1) Unless otherwise specified in this part (see subparts 19.6 and 19.7)—
          (i) Contracting officers shall apply this part in the United States and its outlying areas; and
          (ii) Contracting officers may apply this part outside the United States and its outlying areas.
          (2) Offerors that participate in any part 19 procurement are required to meet the definition of “small business concern” at 2.101 and the definition of “concern” at 19.001.

        4. Amend section 19.309 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) to read as follows:

          19.309
           Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
          (a)(1) Insert the provision at 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in solicitations exceeding the micro-purchase threshold when the contract is for supplies to be delivered or services to be performed in the United States or its outlying areas, or when the contracting officer has applied part 19 in accordance with 19.000(b)(1)(ii).

          (b) When contracting by sealed bidding, insert the provision at 52.219-2, Equal Low Bids, in solicitations when the contract is for supplies to be delivered or services to be performed in the United States or its outlying areas, or when the contracting officer has applied part 19 in accordance with 19.000(b)(1)(ii).
          (c) Insert the clause at 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation, in solicitations and contracts exceeding the micro-purchase threshold when the contract is for supplies to be delivered or services to be performed in the United States or its outlying areas, or when the contracting officer has applied part 19 in accordance with 19.000(b)(1)(ii).

      [FR Doc. 2019-16957 Filed 8-9-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notification of findings.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-month findings on a petition to remove the distinct population segment (DPS) of the western yellow-billed cuckoo from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., to “delist” that DPS) and a petition to list a DPS of the U.S. population of northwestern moose under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to delist the DPS of the western yellow-billed cuckoo. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of the DPS of the western yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat. We also find that the U.S. population of northwestern moose does not meet the criteria for discreteness as a DPS and the petitioned northwestern moose DPS is not a listable entity under the Act.

          DATES:
          The findings in this document were made on September 16, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers:

            Species
            Docket No.

            Yellow-billed cuckoo
            FWS-R2-ES-2020-0004

            Northwestern moose
            FWS-R3-ES-2016-0061

        Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species
              Contact information

              Yellow-billed cuckoo
              Jeff Humphrey, Field Supervisor, 602-242-0210, jeff_humphrey@fws.gov; or Shawn Sartorius, Project Leader, 505-346-2525, shawn_sartorius@fws.gov.

              Northwestern moose
              Sarah Quamme, Field Supervisor, Minnesota-Wisconsin Field Office, 952-252-0092.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we have determined contained substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
        Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists. The Act defines “species” as any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and “threatened species” as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors:
        (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 considering whether a species may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.
        In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the DPS of the western yellow-billed cuckoo meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. Our evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.

        The species assessment form for the western yellow-billed cuckoo contains more detailed biological information, an analysis of the listing factors, and an explanation of why we determined that this species is not warranted for delisting. Additional background information on the western yellow-billed cuckoo can be found in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 61622; October 3, 2013) and the final listing rule (79 FR 59992; October 3, 2014). This supporting information can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0027. The following is an informational summary for the finding.
        Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo DPS
        Previous Federal Actions
        On October 3, 2014, we published a final rule (79 FR 59992) listing the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo (western yellow-billed cuckoo) as a threatened species.
        On May 4, 2017, we received a petition from the American Stewards of Liberty, Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Arizona Mining Association, Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Jim Chilton, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, WestLand Resources, Inc., and Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District, requesting that the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to an error in our DPS analysis. They also provided information in their petition indicating the species should be delisted as a result of its documented use of additional habitat. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite information for the petitioner, required at the time at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
        On June 27, 2018, we published a substantial 90-day finding on the petition indicating that delisting the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo may be warranted due to information on additional habitat being used by the species (83 FR 30091). While we did not find that the petition provided substantial information indicating the entity may warrant delisting due to an error in our DPS analysis, because the petitioners did provide substantial information regarding additional habitat use by the species, we indicated we would review the DPS as part of our status review of the species.
        This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the May 4, 2017, petition to delist the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
        Summary of Finding
        The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a member of the avian family Cuculidae. It is a migratory bird species, traveling between its wintering grounds in Central and South America and its breeding grounds in North America (Continental U.S. and Mexico) each spring and fall, often using river corridors as travel routes. The western yellow-billed cuckoo's breeding range is known from 12 States in the United States and 6 States in Mexico.
        Adult yellow-billed cuckoos have a fairly stout and slightly down-curved bill; a slender, elongated body with a long-tailed look; and a narrow yellow ring of colored, bare skin around the eye. The plumage is loose and grayish-brown above and white below, with reddish primary flight feathers. The tail feathers are boldly patterned with black and white below. They are a medium-sized bird about 12 inches (30 centimeters) in length, and about 2 ounces (60 grams) in weight. The bill is blue-black with yellow on the basal half of the lower mandible. The legs are short and bluish-gray. Males and females differ slightly and are indistinguishable in the field (Hughes 1999, pp. 2-3).
        We evaluated the western yellow-billed cuckoo under our “Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act” (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). We reviewed our DPS analysis from the final listing rule (79 FR 59992; October 3, 2014) and based our review on the available scientific information, including genetics and morphological information. We conclude that the western population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo is discrete from the remainder of the species because the yellow-billed cuckoo population segment that nests west of the Continental Divide (as defined in the species assessment form) and in northwestern Mexico is markedly separated geographically and behaviorally from all other populations of yellow-billed cuckoo, including those that nest in eastern North America. We conclude that the western population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo is significant because the loss of the population segment would leave a significant gap in the species' range that would span seven entire States and substantial portions of five additional States in the United States, and six States in Mexico.

        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the western yellow-billed cuckoo, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. In the final listing rule (79 FR 59992; October 3, 2014), we identified the primary stressors affecting the western yellow-billed cuckoo's biological status to include habitat loss and degradation from altered watercourse hydrology and natural stream processes, livestock overgrazing, encroachment from agriculture, conversion of native habitat to predominantly nonnative vegetation, and sedimentation of riparian habitat; poor water quality; and, to a lesser extent, effects of invasive species and the effects of climate change. The cumulative impact from various threats is also a factor that will exacerbate multiple existing threats to the western yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat. We found that the threats identified in the final listing rule are still acting on the species and continue to affect the cuckoo's viability. In addition, minerals mining projects negatively impact recently identified occupied habitat in central and southern Arizona. Current yellow-billed cuckoo breeding populations are fragmented and geographically isolated. The western yellow-billed cuckoo continues to meet the definition of a threatened species.

        Therefore, we find that delisting the western yellow-billed cuckoo is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the western yellow-billed cuckoo species assessment and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Northwestern Moose U.S. DPS
        Previous Federal Actions

        On July 9, 2015, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and Honor the Earth, requesting that we list the U.S. population of northwestern moose (Alces alces andersoni) as an endangered or threatened DPS. On June 3, 2016, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information, indicating that listing the northwestern moose DPS may be warranted (81 FR 35698).
        Summary of Finding

        The moose is the largest member of the deer family. Currently, four subspecies of moose are recognized from North America. The petitioned entity is the U.S. population of the northwestern subspecies of moose (Alces alces andersoni), which historically occurred in Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Moose were likely extirpated from the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan and the State of Wisconsin. Recent reintroductions in Michigan were of the eastern subspecies (Alces alces americana), which likely spread into Wisconsin. The current range of the northwestern moose includes Minnesota, North Dakota, and Isle Royale National Park in Michigan.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the northwestern moose and evaluated the petition's claims that the U.S. population of northwestern moose qualifies as a DPS for listing under the Act. We considered differences in antler size and reproductive behavior, as well as control of moose harvest, management of moose habitat, and the moose's conservation status within the range of the northwestern moose in the United States and Canada. We do not have information that shows a difference, based on physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors, between the populations in the United States and Canada. Further, we find that the U.S. population of northwestern moose is not delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

        Therefore, we find that the U.S. population of northwestern moose does not meet the criteria for discreteness as a DPS and the petitioned northwestern moose DPS is not a listable entity under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the northwestern moose species assessment and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        New Information

        We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the western yellow-billed cuckoo or the northwestern moose to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor this species and make appropriate decisions about its conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.
        References Cited

        A list of the references cited in the petition finding are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the docket provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Aurelia Skipwith,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-19149 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17980; Notice 2]
        RIN 2127-AI38
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies

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

          ACTION:
          Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA received a letter asking us to extend the comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) for seat belt assemblies. The NPRM proposed to redefine the requirements and establish a new test methodology for emergency-locking retractors. If adopted, the amendments would establish a new acceleration corridor, add a figure illustrating the acceleration corridor, provide tolerance on angle measurements, and employ the same instrumentation specifications currently found in other FMVSSs containing crash tests. To provide interested persons additional time to prepare comments, we are extending the end of the comment period from August 2, 2004, to October 1, 2004. This 60-day extension will allow seat belt manufacturers the opportunity to conduct additional testing in support of the NPRM and provide more meaningful comments.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 1, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by the docket number set forth above) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. Please note, if you are submitting petitions electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.1

              1 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.

          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Privacy Act heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The following persons at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 can be contacted.
          For non-legal issues: William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112. Telephone: (202) 366-4922. Fax: (202) 493-2739.
          For legal issues: Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 3, 2004, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (69 FR 31330) a NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 209, “Seat belt assemblies,” to redefine the requirements and establish a new test methodology for emergency-locking retractors. This rulemaking was initiated in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), a trade association representing manufacturers of occupant restraints. The AORC petition requested that NHTSA amend the performance requirements and test procedures for emergency-locking retractors to include an acceleration corridor. Additionally, the AORC requested that NHTSA apply the same instrumentation specifications to emergency-locking retractors, as used in other FMVSS dynamic performance requirements.
        In developing the NPRM, the agency examined vehicle crash tests, hard braking tests, FMVSS No. 209 compliance test pulses, and data presented by the AORC in its petition for rulemaking. Based on our analysis of available data, NHTSA proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 209 that would establish a new acceleration corridor, add a figure illustrating the acceleration corridor, provide tolerance on angle measurements, and employ the same instrumentation specifications currently found in other FMVSSs containing crash tests. In general, the NPRM expanded upon, and modified, the performance specifications recommended by the AORC in their original petition. The agency did so to allow for a wider range of acceleration pulses, including those historically used for ensuring a minimum level of safety performance.
        On July 14, 2004, the AORC requested a 60-day extension of the comment period to October 1, 2004. The AORC stated that the basis for the extension is to gather additional technical information. The AORC stated its belief that the additional time requested for comments would allow for sufficient testing and assessment. Specifically, the AORC made the following statements about gathering additional information:
        • Due to significant changes of the proposed emergency-locking retractor corridor, the restraint suppliers need to test and analyze the impact of these changes to the totality of the proposed rulemaking, as well as the ability of products to comply with pulses within the corridor.
        • The addition of the “nuisance locking” 0.3 g requirement, which was not in the AORC petition, needs further study. This evaluation may consider the applicability of a corridor, limits, and the ability of retractors to meet the proposed requirements.
        • The addition of the “tolerance for angles” of plus or minus 3 degrees, which was not in the AORC petition, needs to be reviewed for applicability to this standard in test lab practices and procedures.
        • The proposal to use the Society of Automotive Engineers J211-1 filtering for webbing payout needs to be reviewed with the equipment manufacturers and assessed in terms of product compliance.
        In conclusion, the AORC stated that the additional 60-days would allow for a more thorough evaluation and response to the proposed rulemaking.
        After considering the AORC's request, we have decided that it would be in the public's interest to extend the comment period to obtain as much data as possible. The AORC may provide additional tests and analyses to better assess the merits of the proposal, and the potential for product compliance with the technical performance requirements specified in the NPRM. There is also a public interest in having the views of the public be as informed as possible. Since the proposal seeks to clarify the requirements and test procedures applicable to emergency-locking retractors, we stated in the NPRM that we do not anticipate any substantial changes in their performance. Consequently, we believe the 60-day extension of the comment period will not adversely affect safety. Furthermore, since the AORC initiated both the original petition and the 60-day extension request, our decision to extend the comment period is supported by the petitioner in this case. Therefore, we believe that providing additional time for the AORC to collect and analyze information will result in more helpful comments.

          Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 70; pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued: July 29, 2004.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 04-17702 Filed 7-30-04; 8:58 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 382
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0031]
        RIN 2126-AB18
        Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2014. This NPRM would establish the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, a database under the Agency's administration that will contain controlled substances and alcohol test result information for the holders of commercial driver's licenses.

          DATES:
          Effective March 6, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by docket number FMCSA-2011-0031 or RIN 2126-AB18, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr.  Juan Moya, (202) 366-4844; or by email at fmcsadrugandalcohol@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Correction
        In the NPRM, (79 FR 9703), beginning on page 9703 in the Federal Register issue of February 20, 2014, make the following corrections: on page 9703 in the 2nd column in the rule title section, replace the docket number to read “FMCSA-2011-0031” and in the 3rd column under the ADDRESSES section replace the docket number to read “FMCSA-2011-0031.” On page 9704 in the 1st column under the Submitting Comments section replace the docket number to read “FMCSA-2011-0031” and in the 2nd column under the Viewing Comments and Documents section replace the docket number to read “FMCSA-2011-0031.”

          Dated: February 26, 2014.
          Larry W. Minor,
          Associate Administrator for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2014-04827 Filed 3-5-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P