        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2021-0033]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay and the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near the Corpus Christi Bayfront, during an airshow taking place from April 29, 2021 through May 2, 2021. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 5, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0033 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Margaret Brown, Waterways Management Division, Sector Corpus Christi, U.S. Coast Guard, email Margaret.A.Brown@uscg.mil; telephone 361-244-4784.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        On November 20, 2020, Schultz Airshows notified the Coast Guard that the Buccaneer Commission will host the Wings Over South Texas Airshow daily, 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from April 29, 2021 through May 2, 2021. The Airshow's aerobatic box will take place over Corpus Christi Bay within a rectangular zone defined by the following coordinates; 27°49′2.78″ N, 097°23′16.1″ W; 27°47′3.69″ N, 097°23′14.62″ W; 27°49′2.73″ N, 097°22′42.97″ W; 27°47′5.46″ N, 097°22′41.02″ W; and back to 27°49′2.78″ N, 097°23′16.1″ W. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Airshow would be a safety concern for anyone within the defined area.
        The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the aerobatic box before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone daily from 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from April 29, 2021 through May 2, 2021. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within a rectangular zone defined by the following coordinates; 27°49′2.78″ N, 097°23′16.1″ W; 27°47′3.69″ N, 097°23′14.62″ W; 27°49′2.73″ N, 097°22′42.97″ W; 27°47′5.46″ N, 097°22′41.02″ W; and back to 27°49′2.78″ N, 097°23′16.1″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. airshow. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses

        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic, including that which transits the portion of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel that is within the zone, would be permitted to move before and after the effective time of the zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notive to Mariners via FHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves safety zone lasting 5 hours daily for 4 days that would prohibit entry within the defined aerobatic box. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Memorandum for Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

        1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. Add § 165.T08-0033 to read as follows:

          § 165.T08-0033
           Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX.
          (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Bay within the following defined coordinates: 27°49′2.78″  N, 097°23′16.1″ W; 27°47′3.69″ N, 097°23′14.62″ W; 27°49′2.73″ N, 097°22′42.97″ W; 27°47′5.46″ N, 097°22′41.02″ W; and back to 27°49′2.78″ N, 097°23′16.1″ W.
          (b) Effective period. This section is effective daily from 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from April 29, 2021 through May 2, 2021.
          (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative. They may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-939-0450.
          (2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
          (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

          Dated: January 29, 2021.
          E.J. Gaynor,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.

      [FR Doc. 2021-02323 Filed 2-3-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 122304D]
        RIN 0648-AN25
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish Fishery; Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) have submitted Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 2) incorporating the draft Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public. Amendment 2 was developed to address essential fish habitat (EFH) and bycatch issues, and to revise the FMP to address several issues raised during the public scoping process. The intent of this action is to provide efficient management of the monkfish fishery and to meet conservation objectives.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed interim rule may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail:  E-mail comments may be submitted to http://monkamend2@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following:  “Comments on the Monkfish Amendment 2.”
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: Comments submitted by mail should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on the Monkfish Amendment 2.”
          • Facsimile (fax):  Comments submitted by fax should be faxed to (978) 281-9135.

          Copies of Amendment 2, the FSEIS, RIR, and IRFA are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Allison R. Ferreira, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9103; fax (978) 281-9135; e-mail: allison.ferreira@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A notice of availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Amendment 2 was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23571), with public comment accepted through July 28, 2004. After considering all comments on the DSEIS, the NEFMC and MAFMC adopted the final measures to be included in Amendment 2 at their respective September 14-16, 2004, and October 4-6, 2004, meetings, and voted to submit the Amendment 2 document, including the FSEIS, to NMFS.
        The NEFMC and MAFMC developed Amendment 2 to address a number of issues that arose out of the implementation of the original FMP, as well as issues that were identified during public scoping. Issues arising from the original FMP include: (1) The displacement of vessels from their established monkfish fisheries due to restrictive trip limits; (2) unattainable permit qualification criteria for vessels in the southern end of the range of the fishery; (3) discards (bycatch) of monkfish due to regulations (i.e., minimum size restrictions and incidental catch limits); and (4) deficiencies in meeting Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements pertaining to protection of EFH in accordance with the Joint Stipulation and Order resulting from the legal challenge American Oceans Campaign, et al. v. Daley. Issues arising from public scoping include: (1) Deficiencies in meeting Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, including preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks; (2) a need to improve monkfish data collection and research; (3) the need to establish a North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) exemption program for monkfish; multiple vessel baseline specifications for limited access monkfish vessels; (4) a need to update environmental documents describing the impact of the FMP; and, (5) a need to reduce FMP complexity where possible.
        Amendment 2 evaluates and includes the following measures to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH:  A maximum disc diameter of 6 inches (15.2 cm) for trawl gear vessels fishing in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA); and closure of two deep-sea canyon areas to all gears when fishing under the monkfish day-at-sea (DAS) program. Amendment 2 also proposes the following management measures: (1) A new limited access permit for qualified vessels fishing south of 38o 20' N. lat.; (2) an offshore trawl fishery in the SFMA; establishment of a research DAS set-aside program; (3) an exemption program for vessels fishing outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone; (4) adjustments to the incidental monkfish catch limits; a decrease in the minimum monkfish size in the SFMA; (5) removal of the 20-day block requirement; revisions to the monkfish baseline provisions; and (6) additions to the frameworable measures.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 2 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 2 may be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of Amendment 2 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by March 3, 2005, whether specifically directed to Amendment 2 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 2. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 2. Therefore, to be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last date of the comment period, March 3, 2005; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

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

          Dated:  December 27, 2004.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-28738 Filed 12-30-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 170314267-7267-01]
        RIN 0648-BG48
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 10

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We are proposing to approve and implement regulations submitted by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in Framework Adjustment 10 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. This action would set monkfish specifications for fishing years 2017-2019 (May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2020). This action would also increase current days-at-sea allocations and trip limits to provide additional operational flexibility and fishing opportunities. This action is needed to allow the fishery to more effectively harvest its optimum yield.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by May 24, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0026, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0026, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Monkfish Framework 10.”

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

          New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Monkfish Framework Adjustment 10 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, a preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and economic analysis. Copies of the Framework 10 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following Internet addresses: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or http://www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9182.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The monkfish fishery is jointly managed under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the end of the continental shelf. The Councils manage the fishery as two management units, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through Southern New England and into the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina.
        The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the target total allowable landings (TAL) and the annual catch target ((ACT), which is the TAL plus an estimate of expected discards) for each management area. Both the ACT and the TAL are calculated to maximize yield in the fishery over the long term. Based on a yearly evaluation of the monkfish fishery, the Councils may revise existing management measures through the framework provisions of the FMP to better achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP and achieve optimum yield, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        The monkfish fishery has not fully harvested its quota since 2011. The fishery harvested less than 70 percent of its quota in the last three years (Table 1). The Councils developed Framework 10 to enhance the operational efficiency of existing management measures in an effort to better achieve optimum yield.

          Table 1—Monkfish Landings Comparison for Fishing Years 2013-2015

            Management area
            Target TAL(mt) for
              fishing years
              2013-2015

            2013Landings
              (mt)

            2014Landings
              (mt)

            2015Landings
              (mt)

            Average % ofTAL landed
              2013-2015

            NFMA
            5,854
            3,596
            3,403
            4,080
            63

            SFMA
            8,925
            5,088
            5,415
            4,733
            57

        Proposed Measures
        1. Establish Specifications for Fishing Years 2017-2019
        This action proposes to increase monkfish quotas for the next three fishing years (Table 2). Findings from the 2016 monkfish operational assessment support these quota increases. The 2016 assessment did update several indicators including commercial fishery statistics, fishery-independent survey indices, and fishery performance indices. The 2016 operational assessment also provided a plan for setting catch advice. It should be noted, though, that the 2016 monkfish operational assessment did not update the population model used in previous assessments because new information revealed problems with the methods used to estimate monkfish age and growth. Despite this, based on updated data from the assessment, the New England Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended retaining the status quo overfishing limit (OFL) and allowable biological catch limit (ABC) for both management areas for fishing years 2017-2019 (May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2020). The OFL would be 17,805 mt for the NFMA and 23,204 mt for the SFMA. The ABC, which equals the annual catch limit (ACL), would stay at 7,592 mt for the NFMA and 12,316 for the SFMA.
        Framework 10 updates the discard rates for both management areas based on catch data updated in the 2016 operational assessment (Table 1). The previous discard rate is calculated as the ratio of discards to catch from fishing years 2004-2006. The proposed discard rate would use discard information from fishing years 2013-2015. The proposed changes would increase the discard rate in the NFMA from 10.9 percent to 13.9 percent, and from 22.5 percent to 24.6 percent in the SFMA.

        The proposed TALs would increase because of modifications to the management uncertainty buffers. Framework 10 proposes to reduce the management uncertainty buffers in both management areas to 3 percent (Table 2). The current management uncertainty buffers are 13.5 percent in the NFMA and 6.5 percent in the SFMA. The approach used to calculate discards has performed well in the past; an adequate amount of discards has been forecasted, reducing the likelihood of the ACL being exceeded. Further, the TALs have been consistently underharvested in both areas (Table 1). For these reasons, this action proposes to reduce the management uncertainty buffer.

          Table 2—Proposed Specification Changes in Framework Adjustment 10

            Management area
            Management uncertainty buffer
            Current(%)

            Proposed(%)

            Discard rate
            Current(%)

            Proposed(%)

            Total allowable landings (TAL)
            Current(mt)

            Proposed(mt)

            TAL change(%)

            NFMA
            13.5
            3
            10.9
            13.9
            5,854
            6,338
            8.27

            SFMA
            6.5
            3
            22.5
            24.6
            8,925
            9,011
            0.96

        2. Monkfish DAS and Trip Limit Increases
        Framework 10 proposes trip limit increases in both management areas as well as a DAS increase in the SFMA.
        In the NFMA, incidental landing limits for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS would increase from 600 lb (272 kg) to 900 lb (408 kg) tail weight/DAS for Category C permitted vessels and from 500 lb (227 kg) to 750 lb (340 kg) tail weight/DAS for Category D permitted vessels. Vessels targeting groundfish land most of the monkfish in the NFMA. Increasing the incidental trip limits for vessels targeting groundfish may increase monkfish landings; however, analyses suggest that a substantial increase is unlikely. This measure would reduce the administrative burden for most Category C and D permitted vessels because they would no longer need to declare a monkfish DAS to retain a higher monkfish possession limit. Increasing the incidental trip limit would also allow these vessels to retain additional monkfish that otherwise would have been discarded when fishing solely on a groundfish DAS under the current (lower) trip limits.
        In the SFMA, the DAS allocation and trip limits would increase by 15 percent. Monkfish permitted vessels could fish in the SFMA for 37 DAS. Trip limits for permit Category A and C vessels would increase from 610 lb (277 kg) to 700 lb (318 kg) tail weight/DAS and from 500 lb (227 kg) to 575 lb (261 kg) tail weight/DAS for Category B and D permitted vessels. The majority of monkfish landings in the SFMA come from vessels directly targeting monkfish. Vessels directing on monkfish in the SFMA are more restricted by DAS allocations and trip limits than vessels fishing in the NFMA. Therefore, these trip limit and DAS increases are projected to generate more fishing opportunities and landings in the SFMA.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, Framework 10, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
        As outlined in the preamble of this rule, the purpose of this action is to implement Framework 10 to the Monkfish FMP. Framework 10 would set monkfish specifications for fishing years 2017-2019. As proposed, the TAL of monkfish in both the NFMA and SFMA would increase slightly. This action would also increase trip limits in both management areas and the DAS allocations that could be fished in the SFMA. As a result, this action would increase operational flexibility, fishing opportunities, and revenue. Current monkfish quotas have been underharvested for the past several years. This framework is needed to allow the fishery to more effectively harvest its optimum yield. This action seeks to fulfill the purpose and need while meeting the overarching goals and objectives of the Monkfish FMP.
        As of May 1, 2015 (beginning of fishing year 2015), NMFS had issued 798 limited-access monkfish permits. Ownership entities are identified on June 1st of each year based on the list of all permit numbers, for the most recent complete calendar year, that have applied for any type of Northeast Federal fishing permit. The current ownership data set is based on calendar year 2015 permits and contains gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2013 through 2015.
        For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination as to whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the three years from 2013 through 2015.
        Ownership data collected from permit holders indicate that there are 390 distinct business entities that hold at least one limited-access monkfish permit. Of these 390 entities, 34 do not have revenues (are inactive). Of the 390 entities, 382 entities are categorized as small and 8 are categorized as large entities per the NMFS guidelines. All 390 entities could be directly regulated by this proposed action. There are 38 entities that are “monkfish dependent” (greater than 50 percent of the entity's gross sales are from the sales of monkfish) and all are considered small entities.
        This action, which updates specifications and increases DAS and trip limits, would provide monkfish fishermen with additional fishing opportunities and enhance their operational flexibility.
        The measures proposed in Framework 10 are expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities. It could further increase catch per unit effort; well accepted economic theory holds that this will result in increased profitability, all else held constant. Providing increased fishing opportunities should increase landings and profits.

        This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The effects on the regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to be positive relative to the no action alternative, which would result in lower TALs, fewer DAS, and lower trip limits than the proposed action. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: May 4, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.92, revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

          § 648.92
          Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) DAS restrictions for vessels fishing in the SFMA. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit may not use more than 37 of its 46 monkfish DAS allocation in the SFMA during each fishing year. Each vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit fishing in the SFMA must declare that it is fishing in this area through the vessel call-in system or VMS prior to the start of every trip. In addition, if a vessel does not possess a valid letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator to fish in the NFMA as described in § 648.94(f), NMFS shall presume that any monkfish DAS used were fished in the SFMA.

        3. In § 648.94, revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:

          § 648.94
          Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

          (b) * * *
          (2) Vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS program in the SFMA—(i) Category A, C, and G vessels. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category A, C, or G permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA may land up to 700 lb (318 kg) tail weight or 2,037 lb (924 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
          (ii) Category B, D, and H vessels. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category B, D, or H permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA may land up to 575 lb (261 kg) tail weight or 1,673 lb (759 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

          (3) Category C, D, F, G, and H vessels fishing under the multispecies DAS program—(i) NFMA. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 900 lb (408 kg) tail weight or 2,619 lb (1,188 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category D permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 750 lb (340 kg) tail weight or 2,183 lb (990 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, or F permit participating in the NE Multispecies Regular B DAS program, as specified under § 648.85(b)(6), is also subject to the incidental landing limit specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section on such trips.

      [FR Doc. 2017-09363 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        42 CFR Part 73
        [Docket: CDC-2012-0010]
        Influenza Viruses Containing the Hemagglutinin from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 Lineage

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

          ACTION:
          Request for information and comment.

          SUMMARY:
          The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the opening of a docket to obtain information and comments from the public to questions concerning highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 viruses that contain a hemagglutinin (HA) from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage, and their potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. This information will be considered in a determination of whether such viruses should be listed as HHS select agents, by revising the HHS Select Agent Regulations (42 CFR Part 73).

          DATES:
          Electronic or written comments should be received on or before December 17, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by Docket Number CDC-2012-0010, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-46, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Attn: Docket Number: CDC-2012-0010.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number (CDC-2012-0010) for this notice. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Robbin Weyant, Director, Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-46, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone: (404) 718-2000.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Since late 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reported over 600 cases of human infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 viruses with a mortality rate that exceeds 50 percent in hospitalized patients (Ref 1). Current epidemiologic evidence indicates that, once transmitted into a human host, H5N1 viruses may result in more severe disease in humans than other subtypes of influenza.
        One important factor that can account for some of the increased pathogenicity is the hemagglutinin (HA) molecule. Cleavage of the HA molecule by host proteases (chemicals that can break amino acid bonds) enables influenza viruses to productively infect cells (i.e., replicate). For human influenza viruses, replication is restricted to the respiratory tract. However, HPAI H5N1 viruses contain a polybasic amino acid sequence in the HA molecule that is not found in human influenza viruses. This feature allows the molecule to be cleaved by a wider variety of proteases throughout the body and consequently, HPAI H5N1 viruses can replicate systemically in avian species.

        Extrapulmonary dissemination of HPAI H5N1 virus has been documented among some fatal human HPAI H5N1 virus infections. The HA molecule mediates binding of the influenza virus to host cells in the respiratory tract. Human influenza viruses preferentially bind to different receptors than avian influenza viruses (Ref 2). While human influenza virus receptors are more prevalent in the upper respiratory tract, the receptors that bind avian viruses are present in the lower respiratory tract of humans. The ability of H5N1 viruses to bind and infect cells within the lung may contribute to the severity of H5N1 induced viral pneumonia (Ref 3-5). Furthermore, a change from avian- to human-type receptor-binding specificity, as seen with the pandemic strains of 1918 (H1N1), 1957 (H2N2), and 1968 (H3N2), is thought to be a critical step in the adaptation of avian influenza viruses to humans and the ability to transmit efficiently among humans (Ref 6-8). In two recent independent studies (Ref 9 and Ref 10), investigators have shown that laboratory modified HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses with certain mutations can be transmitted via the respiratory route between ferrets. Ferrets are widely considered to provide the best animal model for exploring these aspects of influenza virus pathogenicity as they might relate to human infection (Ref 11).

        We recognize that all HPAI H5N1 influenza virus clades found in humans to date have been derived from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage, and the HA molecule enables the virus to infect a host cell. Thus, we are interested in receiving information and comments on whether the influenza viruses that contain a hemagglutinin (HA) from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety (Ref 12). Currently, all HPAI H5 subtype viruses are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) whose oversight focuses on the threat to animal health and safety. Listing influenza viruses that contain an HA from the goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage as an HHS select agent will ensure that the focus of regulation will also be on the potential impact of these viruses on human health as well as agriculture. While USDA sets biosafety measures that may also be more generally beneficial to public health, its focus with respect to select agent designation is primarily on risks to agricultural animals, rather than direct effects on human health. There is precedence (e.g., Bacillus anthracis) for including agents that have both human and agricultural impacts on both the HHS and USDA Select Agent Lists. Designating HPAI containing an HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage an HHS select agent, in addition to its status as a USDA select agent, may help to ensure that HPAI strains that have the greatest potential for major direct effects on human health will be regulated with a focus on protection of human health.

        The question of whether the influenza viruses that contain an HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage pose a severe threat to public health and safety was considered by HHS/CDC's Intragovernmental Select Agents and Toxins Technical Advisory Committee (ISATTAC). The ISATTAC is comprised of Federal government scientists from HHS/CDC, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (HHS/ASPR) in HHS, the National Institutes of Health (HHS/NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (HHS/FDA), USDA/APHIS, the USDA/Agricultural Research Service, the USDA/Center for Veterinary Biologics, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The criteria used by the ISATTAC in its review were the degree of pathogenicity, communicability, ease of dissemination, route of exposure, environmental stability, ease of production, ability to genetically manipulate or alter, long-term health effects, acute morbidity, acute mortality, available treatment, status of host immunity, vulnerability of special populations, and the burden or impact on the health care system. ISATTAC made the recommendation that the influenza viruses containing an HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage do have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. In making its recommendation to HHS/CDC, the ISATTAC considered both the historical data regarding the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage and data from current in vitro and in vivo animal studies. The virulence of viruses of this lineage, the data showing transmissibility of genetically modified H5N1 viruses among ferrets, together with the fact that the level of immunity in the general population is low were all considered. Further, in its recommendation the ISATTAC voiced concern that an influenza pandemic caused by viruses containing an HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage, could potentially overwhelm the health care system. The ISATTAC also recognized that the study of the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage-derived viruses could lead to significant public health benefits for understanding pandemic influenza, improved diagnostics, and the development of more effective countermeasures. Therefore, the risks posed by these viruses need to be weighed against any adverse impact that a regulation will have on legitimate research.
        On July 2, 2010, the President signed Executive Order 13546, “Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States” that directed the Secretaries of HHS and USDA to designate a subset of the select agents and toxins list (Tier 1) that presents the greatest risk of deliberate misuse with the most significant potential for mass casualties or devastating effects to the economy, critical infrastructure, or public confidence. The Executive Order 13546 also established the Federal Experts Security Advisory Panel (FESAP) to advise the HHS and USDA Secretaries on the designation of Tier 1 agents and toxins. In December of 2010, the FESAP provided the HHS and USDA Select Agent regulatory programs with recommendations on updating the HHS and USDA Select Agent and Toxin lists, including a subset of agents and toxins recommended for Tier 1 designation.
        On October 3, 2011, HHS/CDC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (76 FR 61206) in which we proposed a list of select agents and toxins that should be considered Tier 1 select agents and toxins. The proposed Tier 1 agents and toxins that were based on Executive Order 13546 and the recommendations from FESAP were scored against 20 criteria by over 60 Subject Matter Experts representing the Federal life sciences, public health, law enforcement, security, and intelligence communities. The criteria included:
        • The relative ease with which a particular select agent or toxin might be disseminated or transmitted from one human to another or into the environment where it could produce a deleterious effect upon human health;
        • The potential for a high mortality rate;
        • The potential for a major human health impact;
        • Select agents or toxins whose misuse might result in public panic or other social or economic disruption; and
        • Select agents or toxins whose use might require Federal, State, and/or local officials to take special action in planning for major human health disasters.

        We proposed that the following agents should be designated as Tier 1 agents: Bacillus anthracis, Botulinum neurotoxin, Botulinum neurotoxin producing species of Clostridium, Burkholderia mallei, B. pseudomallei, Francisella tularensis, Marburg virus, Variola major virus, Variola minor virus, and Yersinia pestis. On the same day, USDA/APHIS published a companion rule in the Federal Register proposing its list of select agents and toxins that should be considered Tier 1 select agents and toxins. Although USDA/APHIS regulates HPAI viruses as select agents, they did not propose to designate HPAI viruses as Tier 1 select agents. Given the above criteria used by the FESAP, we would welcome comment on whether HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage should be listed as a Tier 1 select agent. The final determination of whether or not to designate this particular lineage of H5N1 HPAI as Tier 1 would be a collaborative process between HHS and USDA. HHS and USDA would continue to work closely together whether or not both HHS and USDA designate these viruses as Tier 1 Select Agents.
        II. Establishment of a Docket and Request for Specific Input on Certain Topics
        We are establishing a docket to provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments, research data, and other information that will better inform us about the risk posed by HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage to public health and safety. In particular, we welcome comment on the following questions:
        (1) Do HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage pose a severe threat to public health and safety?
        (2) Are there other influenza strains containing HA from Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage that would also pose a severe threat even if they were not fully of HPAI H5N1 origin?
        (3) Are there any other HPAI H5N1 influenza strains that have been identified to pose a severe threat to public health and safety?
        (4) Should these viruses be regulated as HHS select agents?
        (5) If these viruses should be regulated as HHS select agents, should these viruses be designated as Tier 1 select agents?
        (6) Should special precautions (i.e., safety and containment measures) be considered when working with diagnostic specimens suspected of containing HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage (i.e., any precautions versus none at all, precautions beyond those usual for clinical samples and/or laboratory microbes, etc.)? and
        (7) Should special precautions (i.e., safety and containment measures) be considered when working with strains of HPAI containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage that have been shown to be transmissible between mammals beyond those recommended for non-mammalian transmissible HPAI (Ref 13 and Ref 14)?
        III. References

          1. WHO, Cumulative number of confirmed human cases for avian influenza A(H5N1) reported to WHO, 2003-2011; http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/H5N1_cumulative_table_archives/en/index.html.

          2. Fukuyama S, Kawaoka Y. The pathogenesis of influenza virus infections: The contributions of virus and host factors. Curr Opin Immunol. 2011 Aug;23(4):481-6. Epub 2011 Aug 11.
          3. Shinya K, Ebina M, Yamada S, Ono M, Kasai N, Kawaoka Y. Avian flu: Influenza virus receptors in the human airway. Nature. 2006 Mar 23;440(7083):435-6.
          4. Nicholls JM, Chan MC, Chan WY, Wong HK, Cheung CY, Kwong DL, Wong MP, Chui WH, Poon LL, Tsao SW., Guan Y, Peiris JS. Tropism of avian influenza A (H5N1) in the upper and lower respiratory tract. Nat Med. 2007 Feb;13(2):147-9. Epub 2007 Jan 7.
          5. Van Riel D, Munster VJ, de Wit E, Rimmelzwaan GF, Fouchier RA, Osterhaus AD, Kuiken T. H5N1 Virus Attachment to Lower Respiratory Tract. Science. 2006 Apr 21;312(5772):399. Epub 2006 Mar 23.
          6. Matrosovich, M., et al. Early alterations of the receptor-binding properties of H1, H2, and H3 avian influenza virus hemagglutinins after their introduction into mammals. J Virol 74, 8502-8512 (2000).
          7. Stevens, J., et al. Glycan microarray analysis of the hemagglutinins from modern and pandemic influenza viruses reveals different receptor specificities. J Mol Biol 355, 1143-1155 (2006).
          8. Connor, R.J., Kawaoka, Y., Webster, R.G. & Paulson, J.C. Receptor specificity in human, avian, and equine H2 and H3 influenza virus isolates. Virology 205, 17-23 (1994).
          9. Masaki Imai,1 Tokiko Watanabe,1, 2 Masato Hatta,1 Subash C. Das,1 Makoto Ozawa,1, 3 Kyoko Shinya,4 Gongxun Zhong,1 Anthony Hanson,1 Hiroaki Katsura,5 Shinji Watanabe,1, 2 Chengjun Li,1 Eiryo Kawakami,2 Shinya Yamada,5 Maki Kiso,5 Yasuo Suzuki,6 Eileen A. Maher,1 Gabriele Neumann1 & Yoshihiro Kawaoka. Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature. 2012 May 2;486(7403):420-8.
          10. Russell CA, Fonville JM, Brown AE, Burke DF, Smith DL, James SL, Herfst S, van Boheemen S, Linster M, Schrauwen EJ, Katzelnick L, Mosterín A, Kuiken T, Maher E, Neumann G, Osterhaus AD, Kawaoka Y, Fouchier RA, Smith DJ. The potential for respiratory droplet-transmissible A/H5N1 influenza virus to evolve in a mammalian host. Science. 2012 Jun 22; 336(6088):1541-7.
          11. Belser JA, Szretter KJ, Katz JM, Tumpey TM. Use of animal models to understand the pandemic potential of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses. Adv Virus Res. 2009;73:55-97.
          12. WHO/OIE/FAO H5N1 Evolution Working Group. Continued evolution of highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1): updated nomenclature. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2012 Jan; 6(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00298.x. Epub 2011 Oct 29.
          13. Guidelines for Avian Influenza Viruses (http://www.selectagents.gov/resources/Guidelines%20for%20Avian%20Influenza%20Viruses_2011-11-4.pdf).
          14. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/index.htm).

          Dated: October 9, 2012.
          Kathleen Sibelius,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2012-25377 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Railroad Administration
        49 CFR Parts 222 and 229
        [Docket No. FRA-1999-6439, Notice No. 15]
        RIN 2130-AA71
        Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

          AGENCY:
          Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of public conference.

          SUMMARY:
          FRA is issuing notice of a public conference that will be held in Fort Lauderdale, FL to discuss the appropriate excess risk estimate that should be applied to highway-rail grade crossings that are currently subject to FRA Emergency Order 15 (“E.O. 15”). The public conference will provide an opportunity for interested parties to provide information to FRA on the effect of silencing the locomotive horn at highway-rail grade crossings that are currently subject to E.O. 15.

          DATES:
          Public Conference: The public conference will be held on Friday, April 15, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public conference will be held at the Holiday Inn Fort Lauderdale Beach, 999 Fort Lauderdale Beach Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ivornette Lynch, FRA Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6030); Ron Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6299); or Kathy Shelton, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6038).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Any person who would like to provide an oral statement at the public conference should notify the FRA Docket Clerk at least 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public conference and provide either a telephone number or e-mail address at which the person may be contacted. (Please refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for contact information for the FRA Docket Clerk.) Any speaker who will be speaking on behalf of an organization should also provide the name of the organization that he/she will be representing.
        FRA will attempt to accommodate all persons who wish to provide an oral statement. However, depending on the number of conference participants, FRA may find it necessary to limit the length of oral statements, in order to accommodate as many people as possible. Conference participants may choose to submit complete written statements for inclusion in the record, while providing an oral summary of their written statements at the conference.

        Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment), 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.

        Background
        Effective July 1, 1984, a Florida statute authorized counties and municipalities to restrict the nighttime sounding of the locomotive horn by intrastate railroads at highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights, bells, crossing gates, and advance warning signs indicating that the locomotive horn would not be sounded at night. However, FRA noted an alarming increase in the number of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings subject to these nighttime whistle bans. Therefore, FRA issued Emergency Order 15 (“E.O. 15”) on July 26, 1991, which required the Florida East Coast Railway Company (an intrastate railroad) to sound the locomotive horn when approaching and entering public highway-rail grade crossings. E.O. 15 was later amended to allow communities to establish quiet zones, provided FRA approval was obtained prior to the implementation of sufficient safety measures at every highway-rail grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone to alleviate excess risk resulting from the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn.
        On November 2, 1994, Congress passed Public Law 103-440 (“Act”), which added § 20153 to title 49 of the United States Code. This Act required FRA to issue regulations that would require railroads to sound the locomotive horn at public grade crossings, but gave FRA the authority to make reasonable exceptions. After issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on January 13, 2000 (65 FR 2230), FRA published an Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings on December 18, 2003 (68 FR 70586).
        Under the Interim Final Rule, public authorities are authorized to create quiet zones by implementing supplementary safety measures and alternative safety measures to offset the excess risk that results from prohibiting routine use of the locomotive horn at highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone. However, the Interim Final Rule provides greater flexibility in the types of safety improvements that can be employed within a proposed quiet zone than E.O. 15. Therefore, FRA stated in the Interim Final Rule that it would re-examine the effect of silencing the locomotive horn at E.O. 15 grade crossings.

        The upcoming public conference will provide an opportunity for interested parties to provide information to FRA on the effect of silencing the locomotive horn at highway-rail grade crossings that are currently subject to E.O. 15. In particular, FRA is soliciting comments on whether the national excess risk estimate on the effect of silencing the locomotive horn at highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates (i.e., 66.8% increase in risk) should be applied to E.O. 15 grade crossings. In that regard, participants are requested to address FRA's findings in the report titled, “Florida's Train Whistle Ban”, that accident frequency increased by 195% when train horns were banned at nighttime at crossings later subject to E.O. 15. In the alternative, should a regional excess risk estimate be applied to E.O. 15 grade crossings? Or, would a nighttime-specific excess risk estimate be more appropriate?

        Conference participants are asked to review the following documents available in the electronic docket of this rulemaking at http://dms.dot.gov prior to the conference: Document no. FRA-1999-6439-16 (“Florida's Train Whistle Ban”); Document no. FRA-1999-6439-2391 (“Analysis of the Safety Impact of Train Horn Bans at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: An Update Using 1997-2001 Data”); and Document no. FRA-1999-6439-2392 (“Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings”).

          Issued in Washington, DC on March 21, 2005.
          S. Mark Lindsey,
          Chief Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 05-5906 Filed 3-24-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 22 and 52
        [FAR Case 2007-021; Docket 2009-0014; Sequence 1]
        RIN 9000-AL14
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2007-021, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act Price Adjustment Clauses

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to specifically require the incorporation of the FAR clauses regarding Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act-Price Adjustment (Multi-Year and Option Contracts) and Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act-Price Adjustment in time-and-materials and labor—hour service contracts that are subject to the Service Contract Act.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before March 10, 2009 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FAR case 2007-021 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “FAR Case 2007-021” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with FAR Case 2007-021. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2007-021” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 20405.

          Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2007-021 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. Meredith Murphy, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 208-6925 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2007-021.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        This rule proposes to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to revise the clause prescriptions at FAR 22.1006(c)(1) and (2) to specifically require that time-and-materials and labor-hour service contracts subject to the Service Contract Act contain the appropriate price adjustment clauses set forth at 52.222-43 and 52.222-44.

        Despite the current prescriptions which do not require use of the clauses in time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts, there is, in fact, broad usage of the clause(s) in such contracts. Adoption of the proposed change would achieve consistency throughout the Government acquisition community and resolve potential inequities where the clauses have not been applied. Not only would this achieve an equitable result for contractors, but it would also allow the Government to avoid use of other means of adjusting contract unit price labor rates which may be more costly to the Government. Other means of adjusting contract labor rates, such as allowing for wage/benefit escalation, equitable adjustment or economic price adjustment, would likely include profit, overhead and general and administrative expenses. The clauses at 52.222-43 and 52.222-44 explicitly exclude these additional costs.
        The clause prescriptions at FAR 22.1006(c)(1) and (c)(2) currently require that Service Contract Act wage determination updates be applied to contracts subject to the clause at 52.222-41, Service Contract Act of 1965, but, as required by FAR clause 52.222-41, minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits to be paid to service employees under the contract may be subject to adjustment, under wage determinations issued by the Department of Labor. While there may be other means permitted to adjust fixed labor rates on time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts, those other means will not achieve the consistent results that use of the Service Contract Act price adjustment clause(s) will achieve. Requirement by the prescription for the clauses will achieve that consistency and at the same time will allow the Government to avoid any adjustment to profit, overhead or general and administrative costs that could be incurred in addition to wage or fringe benefit costs increases.
        The proposed rule requires Government time-and-materials and labor-hour service contracts to incorporate the appropriate price adjustment clauses.
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it merely clarifies the existing prescriptions relating to service contracts. FAR clause 52.222-41 requires contractors to comply with wage determinations of the Department of Labor and may require adjustment to wage rates during the term of the contract. Most contracts that include this clause therefore provide some mechanism for dealing with the potential required price adjustment. The Councils have been advised that use of these clauses for time-and-materials and labor-hour service contracts is already widespread. Uniform use of the appropriate clause will ensure consistency in the adjustment method for any required increase in wage rate, but should not have a significant cost impact.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 22 and 52 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2007-021), in all correspondence.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 22 and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: December 9, 2008.
          Al Matera,
          Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 22 and 52 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 22 and 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

          PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

          22.1006
           [Amended]

        2. Amend section 22.1006 by removing from paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) “fixed-price” and adding “fixed-price, time-and-materials, or labor-hour” in its place.

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

          52.212-5
          [Amended]

        3. Amend section 52.212-5 by removing the date of the clause and adding “(DATE)” in its place; by removing from paragraph (c)(3) “(Nov 2006)” and adding “(Date)” in its place; and by removing from paragraph (c)(4) “(Feb 2002)” and adding “(Date)” in its place.
        4. Amend section 52.222-43 by revising the date of the clause, paragraph (d), and the third and fourth sentences of paragraph (f) to read as follows:

          52.222-43
           Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act—Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts).

          FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND SERVICE CONTRACT ACT—PRICE ADJUSTMENT (MULTIPLE YEAR AND OPTION CONTRACTS) (DATE)

        (d) The contract price, contract unit price labor rates, or fixed hourly labor rates will be adjusted to reflect the Contractor's actual increase or decrease in applicable wages and fringe benefits to the extent that the increase is made to comply with or the decrease is voluntarily made by the Contractor as a result of—
        (f) * * * The notice shall contain a statement of the amount claimed and the change in fixed hourly rates (if this is a time-and-materials or labor-hour contract), and any relevant supporting data, including payroll records, that the Contracting Officer may reasonably require. Upon agreement of the parties, the contract price, contract unit price labor rates, or fixed hourly rates shall be modified in writing. * * *
        (End of clause)
        5. Amend section 52.222-44 by revising the date of the clause, paragraph (c), and the third and fourth sentences of paragraph (e) to read as follows:

          52.222-44
           Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act—Price Adjustment.

          FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND SERVICE CONTRACT ACT—PRICE ADJUSTMENT (DATE)

        (c) The contract price, contract unit price labor rates, or fixed hourly labor rates will be adjusted to reflect increases or decreases by the Contractor in wages and fringe benefits to the extent that these increases or decreases are made to comply with—

        (e) * * * The notice shall contain a statement of the amount and the change in fixed hourly rates (if this is a time-and-materials or labor-hour contract) claimed and any relevant supporting data that the Contracting Officer may reasonably require. Upon agreement of the parties, the contract price, contract unit price labor rates, or fixed hourly rates shall be modified in writing. * * *

        (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. E9-217 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 13-236; Report No. 3057]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by John R. Feore, on behalf of ION MEDIA NETWORKS, INC., and Colby M. May, on behalf of TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER OF SANTA ANA, INC.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before December 27, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before January 6, 2017.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Brendan Holland, Media Bureau, phone: (202) 418-2757, email: Brendan.Holland@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3057, released December 1, 2016. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1123447502233/document/1123447502233fbd7. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, FCC 16-116, Report and Order, published at 81 FR 73035, October 24, 2016, in MB Docket No. 13-236. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Gloria J. Miles,
          Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2016-29611 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223
        RIN 0648-XA465
        Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery Actions and To Conduct Public Scoping Meetings

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

          ACTION:
          Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct public scoping meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and to conduct public scoping meetings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by assessing potential impacts resulting from the proposed implementation of new sea turtle regulatory requirements in the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States. These requirements are proposed to protect threatened and endangered sea turtles in the western Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico from incidental capture, and would be implemented under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

          DATES:
          The public scoping period starts June 24, 2011 and will continue until August 23, 2011. NMFS will consider all written comments received or postmarked by August 8, 2011, in defining the scope of the EIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Verbal comments will be accepted at the NMFS scoping meetings as specified below.

          ADDRESSES:

          NMFS will hold five public scoping meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to present verbal comments on the scope of the EIS and to learn more about the proposed action from NMFS officials. The locations and times for the scoping meetings are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
          In addition to the five scoping meetings, NMFS will also submit a scoping document to the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions.

          Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent electronically via e-mail to Michael.Barnette@noaa.gov, or physically via U.S. mail to Michael Barnette, Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 263 13th Ave., South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505. Additional information, including a scoping document, can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/regulations.htm. All comments, whether offered verbally in person at the scoping meetings or in writing as described above, will be considered.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Barnette, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, at the address above, or at (727) 824-5312.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) are listed as endangered. Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
        Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and some are killed, as a result of numerous activities, including fishery-related trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, the taking of sea turtles is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206(d), or according to the terms and conditions of a biological opinion issued under section 7 of the ESA, or according to an incidental take permit issued under section 10 of the ESA. The incidental taking of turtles during shrimp trawling is exempted from the taking prohibition of section 9 of the ESA if the conservation measures specified in the sea turtle conservation regulations (50 CFR 223.205) are followed. The regulations require most vessels defined as “shrimp trawlers” (50 CFR 222.102) operating in the southeastern United States (Atlantic or Gulf area, see 50 CFR 223.206) to have a NMFS-approved turtle excluder device (TED) installed in each net that is rigged for fishing to allow sea turtles to escape. TEDs incorporate an escape opening, usually covered by a webbing flap, which allows sea turtles to escape from trawl nets. TEDs currently approved by NMFS include single-grid hard TEDs and hooped hard TEDs conforming to a generic description, and one type of soft TED—the Parker soft TED (see 50 CFR 223.207). Most approved hard TEDs are described in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207(a)) according to generic criteria based upon certain parameters of TED design, configuration, and installation, including height and width dimensions of the TED opening through which the turtles escape. The regulations also describe additional hard TEDs' specific requirements. Skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls), however, may employ alternative tow time restrictions in lieu of TEDs, pursuant to 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(ii)(A). The alternative tow time restrictions limit tow times to 55 minutes from April 1 through October 31, and 75 minutes from November 1 through March 31.
        To be approved by NMFS, a TED design must be shown to be 97 percent effective in excluding sea turtles during testing based upon NMFS-approved scientific testing protocols (50 CFR 223.207(e)(1)). NMFS-approved testing protocols established to date include the “small turtle test” (55 FR 41092, October 9, 1990) and the “wild turtle test” (52 FR 24244, June 29, 1987). Additionally, NMFS has established a leatherback model testing protocol to evaluate a candidate TED's ability to exclude adult leatherback sea turtles (66 FR 24287, May 14, 2001). Because testing with live leatherbacks is impossible, NMFS obtained the carapace measurements of 15 nesting female leatherback turtles and used these data to construct an aluminum pipe-frame model of a leatherback turtle measuring 40 inches (101.6 cm) in width, 60 inches (152.4 cm) in length, and 21 inches (53.3 cm) in height. If the leatherback model and a diver with full scuba gear are able to pass through the escape opening of a candidate TED, that escape opening is judged to be capable of excluding adult leatherback sea turtles, as well as other large adult sea turtles.
        Purpose of This Action
        The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. NMFS is considering a variety of regulatory measures to reduce the bycatch of threatened and endangered sea turtles in the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States in light of new concerns regarding the effectiveness of existing TED regulations in protecting sea turtles. This EIS will provide background information and specifically evaluate the alternatives and impacts associated with any considered management alternative. This rulemaking would be implemented pursuant to the ESA. NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives, associated significant impacts of any alternatives, and suitable mitigation measures.
        Scope of the Action
        The draft EIS is expected to identify and evaluate the relevant significant impacts and issues associated with implementing new sea turtle regulations for the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and NOAA's procedures for implementing NEPA found in NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, dated May 20, 1999.
        Alternatives
        NMFS will evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives in the draft EIS to reduce sea turtle bycatch and mortality in the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States. In addition to evaluating the status quo, NMFS will evaluate several other alternatives. These alternatives include but are not necessarily limited to: Requiring all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) in both the Atlantic and Gulf areas to use TEDs; requiring all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) in just the Gulf area to use TEDs; and time and area closures affecting all shrimp vessels. Potential new TED requirements would apply to vessels fishing in both state and Federal waters.
        Public Comments
        NMFS provides this notice to advise the public and other agencies of NMFS's intentions and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of the significant issues to include in the EIS. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action and all substantive issues are identified. NMFS requests that comments be as specific as possible. In particular, the agency requests information regarding the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the human environment from the proposed action. The human environment is defined as “* * * the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment” (40 CFR 1508.14). In the context of the EIS, the human environment could include air quality, water quality, underwater noise levels, socioeconomic resources, fisheries, and environmental justice.

        Comments concerning this environmental review process should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES). All comments and material received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.
        Authority

        The environmental review of the proposed action will be conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NOAA and NMFS for compliance with those regulations.

        Locations and Times of Scoping Meetings
        Scoping meetings will be held at the following locations:
        1. Gray—Terrebonne Parish Public Library, North Terrebonne Branch, 4130 West Park Avenue, Gray, LA 70359.
        2. Belle Chasse—Belle Chasse Community Center, 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037.
        3. Biloxi—Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 1141 Bayview Avenue, Biloxi, MS 39530.
        4. Bayou La Batre—Bayou La Batre Community Center, 12745 Padgett Switch Road, Bayou La Batre, AL 36509.
        5. Morehead City—Crystal Coast Civic Center, 3505 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557.
        The meeting dates are:
        1. July 12, 2011, 12 p.m. to 2 p.m., Gray, LA.
        2. July 12, 2011, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Belle Chasse, LA.
        3. July 13, 2011, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Biloxi, MS.
        4. July 14, 2011, 12 p.m. to 2 p.m., Bayou La Batre, AL.
        5. July 18, 2011, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Morehead City, NC.
        Scoping Meetings Code of Conduct

        The public is asked to follow the following code of conduct at the scoping meetings. At the beginning of each meeting, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the meeting room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees may not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not will be asked to leave the meeting.
        Special Accommodations

        The scoping meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the NOAA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

          Dated: June 20, 2011.
          James H. Lecky,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-15898 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [I.D. 090204F]
        Endangered and Threatened Species:  Notice of Public Hearings on Proposed Listing Determinations for Salmonids in California

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:

          In June 2004, NMFS proposed new listing determinations for 27 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmon and O. mykiss as threatened and endangered under the ESA, including 10 ESUs in California.  NMFS recently extended the public comment period for these proposals to October 20, 2004, and also announced a series of eight public meetings/hearings that will be held in the Pacific Northwest.  In this notice, NMFS is announcing that public hearings will also be held at six locations in California from late September through mid-October to provide additional opportunities for the public and other interested parties to comment on the subject proposals.

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received by October 20, 2004.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the specific public hearing dates.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments on the proposed listing determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss (69 FR 33101; June 14, 2004) by any of the following methods:

          E-mail: The mailbox address for submitting e-mail comments on the new listing determination proposals is salmon.nwr@noaa.gov.  Please include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the document identifier “Proposed Listing Determinations.”
          Mail: Submit written comments and information to Assistant Regional Administrator, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, California, 90802-4213.   Please identify the comment as regarding the “Proposed Listing Determinations.”
          Fax: 562-980-4027.   Please identify whether the fax comment as regarding the “Proposed Listing Determinations.”
          Copies of the Federal Register notices cited herein and additional salmon-related materials are available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4021.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On June 14, 2004, NMFS published proposed new ESA listing determinations for 27 salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, including ten ESUs that occur in California (69 FR 33101).  The 27 proposed listing determinations include 162 total hatchery programs, as part of four ESUs being proposed for endangered status and 23 ESUs being proposed for threatened status.  In addition, NMFS proposed amendments to the existing 4(d) protective regulations for the proposed threatened ESUs.
        Extension of Public Comment Period

        Several requests were received to extend the comment period for the proposed listing determinations for the 27 ESUs.  The original comment period for the proposed listing determinations was to end on September 13, 2004, but has recently been extended to October 20, 2004 (69 FR 53031), to allow additional opportunity for public comment (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        Public Hearings
        Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)).   In order to provide the public additional opportunity provide comments on these new listing determination proposals, NMFS will be holding six public hearings in California at the specific dates and locations listed below:
        (1)  September 22, 2004; 6:30-9:30pm at the North Coast Inn, 4975 Valley West Blvd., Arcata, CA 95521 (2)  September 23, 2004; 6:30-9:30pm at the DoubleTree Hotel Sonoma Wine Country, One DoubleTree Drive, Rohnert Park, CA 94928
        (3)  September 28, 2004; 6:30-9:30pm at the Best Western Hilltop Inn, 2300 Hilltop Drive, Redding, CA 96002
        (4)  September 28, 2004; 6:30-9:30pm at the Monterey Beach Resort, 2600 Sand Dunes Drive, Monterey, CA 93940
        (5)  October 12, 2004; 6:30-9:30pm at the Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA 95815
        (6)  October, 12, 2004; 6:30-9:30pm at Fess Parker's DoubleTree Resort, 633 East Cabrillo Blvd., Santa Barbara, CA 93103

        NMFS has scheduled these hearings to allow affected stakeholders and members of the public the opportunity to provide comments directly to agency staff during the comment period. However, these public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on these proposals.  The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposals (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES, above) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on October 20, 2004.

        References
        Copies of the Federal Register notices and related materials cited herein are available on the Internet at http://nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: September 3, 2004.
          Laurie K. Allen,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-20425 Filed 9-3-04; 2:49 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S