        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 91
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161; FXMB12330900000//167//FF09M13200]
        RIN 1018-BB23
        Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest (also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (contest)). Our amendments would update our contact information; update common names and spelling of species on our list of contest design subjects; correct minor grammar errors; and specify the requirement to include a second, appropriate, migratory bird species in the artwork design beginning with the 2016 contest.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments that we receive on or before March 14, 2016. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          • By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comment Procedures and Public Availability of Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Suzanne Fellows, (703) 358-2145.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        History of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Program
        On March 16, 1934, Congress passed, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a stamp annually. The revenue generated was originally earmarked for the Department of Agriculture, but 5 years later was transferred to the Department of the Interior and the Service. We are legislatively mandated to use the revenue first to administer the Duck Stamp permit program and contest, and secondly for conservation, to buy or lease waterfowl sanctuaries.
        In the years since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.8 million stamps are sold each year, and as of 2012, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $800 million for the preservation of more than 6.5 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat protection made possible by the program. An estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, the protected wetlands help dissipate storms, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen.
        History of the Duck Stamp Contest

        The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed at President Roosevelt's request by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter, and 65 artists submitted a total of 88 design entries. Since then, the contest has attracted large numbers of entrants, and it remains the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. The Secretary of the Interior appoints a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities to select each year's winning design. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of their stamps, but winners may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.
        Proposed Changes to the Regulations at 50 CFR Part 91
        The regulations governing the contest are at 50 CFR part 91. Our proposed amendments would update our phone number and Web site information; update the common names and spellings of species on our list of potential contest design subjects; update the regulations to require the inclusion of a secondary non-waterfowl migratory bird species on entries beginning with the 2016 contest; and correct minor grammar errors.
        Service Contact Information
        We propose to correct the telephone number at § 91.11 and the Web site address at §§ 91.1(b) and 91.11 of the Duck Stamp Office. These changes would ensure that the public can contact us and locate information about our program and the contest.
        Updating Species' Common Names or Spellings

        Section 91.4 contains our list of eligible waterfowl species. For each year's contest, we choose five or fewer species from the list; one or more of those species (or a combination thereof; see § 91.14) are the only acceptable subjects for entries during that contest year. We announce each year's eligible species in a Federal Register notice, as well as in other publicly available materials. Our list at § 91.4 contains scientific and common names accepted by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) (http://www.aou.org/; see also the AOU Checklist at http://checklist.aou.org/taxa/; this checklist is our standard reference on taxonomy, nomenclature, and capitalization). Since we last revised our regulations, the AOU has changed the listing order among species and updated several species names. Our proposed changes reflect changes in the order species are listed, revises the entry of “American Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca carolinensis)” to read “Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca),” and corrects the scientific name of Black Scoter from Melanitta nigra to Melanitta americana. We propose to make these changes to our list at § 91.4 to reflect the most current scientific and common names.
        Including a Secondary Migratory Bird Species in 2016 Artwork Entries
        Current § 91.14 explains that a live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible waterfowl species must be the dominant feature of the design, but that the design may depict other appropriate elements such as hunting dogs, as long as an eligible waterfowl species is in the foreground and clearly the focus of attention. We propose to add to this section the requirement that an appropriate non-waterfowl migratory bird species must also appear in any entry submitted to beginning with the 2016 contest. We propose this change beginning with the 2016 contest in recognition of the 2016 Centennial anniversary of the Migratory Bird Treaty between the United States and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) and to emphasize that habitat conservation benefits all wetland-dependent species.
        Public Comments Procedures

        To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. We will accept public comments we receive on or before the date listed in the DATES section. We are striving to ensure that any amendments to the regulations resulting from this proposed rule would be in effect in plenty of time for the June opening of the 2016 contest. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

        You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information, such as your address, telephone number, or email address—will be posted on the Web site. Please note that comments submitted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publically viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.

        If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
        In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection in two ways:
        (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the Document Type heading.

        (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view the comments and materials in person by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        Public Availability of Comments
        As stated above in more detail, before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publically available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
        Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The changes we propose are intended primarily to clarify the requirements for the contest. These changes would affect individuals, not businesses or other small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirement to include an appropriate secondary non-waterfowl migratory bird species in artwork for the 2016 contest may increase the appeal of the stamp to other conservation supporters. Currently stamp sales average approximately 1.8 million each year; with over 46 million self-identified bird watchers, 25 million wildlife photographers, and 45 million visitors to National Wildlife Refuges, it is hoped that an increase in Duck Stamp sales would occur from this change, but we are unable to quantify that possible increase. In recent years, we have received an average of 200 entries per year to our annual contest. It is assumed that, with the proposed regulatory changes, the quality and numbers of entries would reflect a broader artistic interest.
        We therefore certify that, if adopted, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
        This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:
        a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Federalism
        These proposed revisions to part 91 do not contain significant Federalism implications. A federalism summary impact statement under Executive Order 13132 is not required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rulemaking does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
        Civil Justice Reform

        In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

        This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        This proposed rule is categorically excluded. It reflects an administrative modification of procedures and the impacts are limited to administrative effects (516 DM 8.5(a)(3)). A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is therefore not required.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects. Individual tribal members must meet the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who enter the duck stamp contest.
        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. This proposed rule would revise the current regulations at 50 CFR part 91 that govern the Federal duck stamp contest. This rule would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Clarity of This Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

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

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91
          Hunting, Wildlife.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 91, subchapter G of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 91—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND CONSERVATION STAMP CONTEST

        1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 718j; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

        2. Amend § 91.1(b) by revising the third sentence to read as follows:

          § 91.1
          Purpose of regulations.

          (b) *  *  * These documents can also be downloaded from our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp.php.

        3. Revise § 91.4 to read as follows:

          § 91.4
          Eligible species.
          Five or fewer of the species listed below will be identified as eligible each year; those eligible species will be provided to each contestant with the information provided in § 91.1.

          (a) Whistling-Ducks. (1) Black-bellied Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis)
          (2) Fulvous Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor)
          (b) Geese. (1) Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)
          (2) Emperor Goose (Chen canagica)
          (3) Snow Goose (including “white” and “blue” morphs) (Chen caerulescens)
          (4) Ross's Goose (Chen rossii)
          (5) Brant (Branta bernicla)
          (6) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
          (7) Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii)
          (c) Swans. (1) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator)
          (2) Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus)
          (d) Dabbling Ducks. (1) Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
          (2) Gadwall (Anas strepera)
          (3) American Wigeon (Anas americana)
          (4) American Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
          (5) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
          (6) Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula)
          (7) Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)
          (8) Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera)
          (9) Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata)
          (10) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)
          (11) Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca)
          (e) Diving Ducks. (1) Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)
          (2) Redhead (Aythya americana)
          (3) Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)
          (4) Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)
          (5) Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis)
          (f) Sea-Ducks. (1) Steller's Eider (Polysticta stelleri)
          (2) Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri)
          (3) King Eider (Somateria spectabilis)
          (4) Common Eider (Somateria mollissima)
          (5) Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)
          (6) Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)
          (7) White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca)
          (8) Black Scoter (Melanitta americana)
          (9) Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis)
          (10) Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)
          (11) Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)
          (12) Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica)
          (g) Mergansers. (1) Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)
          (2) Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)
          (3) Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)
          (h) Stiff Tails. (1) Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis)
          (2) [Reserved]

        4. Revise § 91.11 to read as follows:

          § 91.11
          Contest opening date and entry deadline.

          The contest officially opens on June 1 of each year. Entries must be postmarked no later than midnight, August 15. For the latest information on contest time and place as well as all deadlines, please visit our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp.php or call (703) 358-2145.

        5. Revise § 91.14 to read as follows:

          § 91.14
          Restrictions on subject matter for entry.

          A live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible waterfowl species must be the dominant feature of the design. Additionally, beginning with the 2016 contest, a live portrayal of an appropriate, identifiable non-waterfowl, migratory bird species is also required to be included in the design. An appropriate species includes any non-waterfowl species on the List of Migratory Birds at 50 CFR 10.13 that would naturally occur with the depicted eligible waterfowl species in the same season and habitat setting. Designs may also include, but are not limited to, hunting dogs, hunting scenes, use of waterfowl decoys, National Wildlife Refuges as the background of habitat scenes, noneligible species, or other designs that depict uses of the stamp for sporting, conservation, and collecting purposes. Judges' overall mandate is to select the best design that will make an interesting, useful, and attractive duck stamp that will be accepted and prized by hunters, stamp collectors, conservationists, and others. The design must be the contestant's original hand-drawn creation. The entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs, or from images in any format published on the Internet. Photographs, computer-generated art, or art produced from a computer printer or other computer/mechanical output device (airbrush method excepted) are not eligible to be entered into the contest and will be disqualified. An entry submitted in a prior contest that was not selected for a Federal or State stamp design may be submitted in the current contest if the entry meets the above criteria.

          Date: January 28, 2016.
          Karen Hyun,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2016-02665 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FF09E21000 FXES11110900000201]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Two Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on two petitions to add species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate status reviews of the Las Vegas bearpoppy (Arctomecon californica) and Tiehm's buckwheat (Eriogonum tiehmii) to determine whether the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the species and factors that may affect their status. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month petition findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on July 22, 2020. As we commence our status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species or their habitats. Any information we receive during the course of our status reviews will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting information is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we are initiating status reviews, please provide those data or information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the “Search” button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species common name
              Contact person

              Las Vegas bearpoppy
              Glen Knowles, 702-515-5230; glen_knowles@fws.gov.

              Tiehm's buckwheat
              Lee Ann Carranza, 775-861-6300; lee ann_carranza@fws.gov.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., “list” a species), remove a species from the List (i.e., “delist” a species), or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (i.e., “reclassify” a species) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
        A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
        These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
        We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect individuals of a species negatively. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.

        If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act. If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the table below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting information, is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table—Status Reviews

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Las Vegas bearpoppy
            FWS-R8-ES-2020-0016

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2020-0016.

            Tiehm's buckwheat
            FWS-R8-ES-2020-0017

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2020-0016.

        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Las Vegas Bearpoppy
        Species and Range
        Las Vegas bearpoppy (Arctomecon californica); Clark County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona.
        Petition History
        On August 14, 2019, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the Las Vegas bearpoppy be listed as endangered and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the Las Vegas bearpoppy due to potential threats associated with the following: Urbanization, mining, grazing, and recreation (Factor A); and nonnative bees (including Africanized) and climate change (Factor E). The petition also presented substantial information that the existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2020-0016 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List Tiehm's Buckwheat
        Species and Range
        Tiehm's buckwheat (Eriogonum tiehmii); Esmeralda County, Nevada.
        Petition History
        On October 7, 2019, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Tiehm's buckwheat be emergency listed as threatened or endangered and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). The Act does not provide for a process to petition emergency listing; therefore, we are evaluating this petition under the normal process of determining if it presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, and other readily available information, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for Tiehm's buckwheat due to the potential destruction of habitat from mining (Factor A). The petitioners also presented information suggesting invasive species, off-road vehicles, wildfires, climate change, and grazing may be threats to Tiehm's buckwheat. We will fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to consider the best available scientific information when making that finding.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of this petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2020-0017 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Las Vegas bearpoppy and Tiehm's buckwheat present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating status reviews of these species to determine whether the actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue findings, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

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

      [FR Doc. 2020-15154 Filed 7-21-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 090403B]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting/public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          The original public meeting document was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2003.  Due to the U.S. District Court ruling made by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, on August 31, 2003, the 2002 Biological Opinion, issued on November 15, 2002, is “vacated and remanded to the National Marine Fisheries Service.”  Further, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered that the regulations issued on June 12, 2002, amending the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP), are “vacated and remanded to the National Marine Fisheries Service.”  The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting document is republished.

          DATES:
          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council will meet on September 23, 2003, at 12 noon Hawaii Standard Time.

          ADDRESSES:
          The Council meeting will be held via telephone conference call at the Council offices, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu Hawaii 96813; telephone:  808-522-8220; Call in number:  1-808-527-2929 PIN 5785; FAX:  808-522-8226.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:  808-522-8220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The agenda during the Council meeting will include the following items:
        1.  Pelagic Fisheries
        A.  Discuss the implications of the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, which puts aside the 2002 Biological Opinion and 2002 regulations.
        B.  Review and discuss sea-turtle take mitigation measures for the U.S. pelagic longline fishery in the Western Pacific Region.  Topics may include continued operation of the fishery, regulations, and/or possible emergency actions.
        In 2002, the Council developed a regulatory framework adjustment to the Pelagics FMP which was intended to minimize interactions with, and harm to, Pacific sea turtles.  These measures stemmed from the non-discretionary Reasonable and Prudent Alternative contained in a Biological Opinion issued in 2001 by NMFS under the Endangered Species Act.  Among the various measures implemented were a prohibition on shallow-set longline fishing north of the equator, and a seasonal area closure from 15° N. lat. to the equator, and from 145° W. long. to 180° long. to all fishing by pelagic longline vessels during April and May of each year.  These measures have contributed to reductions in sea turtle interactions.  However, the southern area closure exacts a significant economic burden on the Hawaii-based longline fleet because it is unable to access these fishing grounds when bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks are seasonally abundant during April and May.  At its 118th meeting in June 2003, the Council took initial action to consider modifying the southern area closure to reduce the economic impact on the longline fishery while continuing to conserve turtles.  The Council also directed its staff to continue preparation of a regulatory amendment for potential changes to the Pelagics FMP, including a detailed analysis of a range of modifications to the southern area closure and the impacts of those alternatives on sea turtles, fisheries, and the environment.  At its 119th meeting, the Council will discuss the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and consider the implications of that ruling for proposed amendments to the Pelagics FMP.  The Council will also review and discuss sea-turtle take mitigation measures for the U.S. pelagic longline fishery in the Western Pacific Region.  These may include continuation of the fishery, developing regulations, and/or possible emergency actions.
        2. Other Business
        Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting.  Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

        Special Accommodations
        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808)522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated:  September 5, 2003.
          John H. Dunnigan,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-23004 Filed 9-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-2324; MM Docket No. 01-282, RM-10293; MM Docket No. 01-283, RM-10294; MM Docket No. 01-284, RM-10295; MM Docket No. 01-285, RM-10296]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Taos, NM; McCamey, TX; Dickens, TX; and Hamlin, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document proposes four allotments in Taos, NM, McCamey, TX, Dickens, TX, and Hamlin, TX. The Commission requests comment on a petition filed by Linda Crawford proposing the allotment of Channel 228A at Taos, New Mexico, as potentially the community's fifth local aural broadcast service. Channel 228A can be allotted to Taos in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 11.5 km (7.1 miles) northeast of Taos. The coordinates for Channel 228A at Taos are 36-28-20 North Latitude and 105-28-22 West Longitude. See Supplementary Information infra.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before November 26, 2001, and reply comments on or before December 11, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Linda Crawford, 3500 Maple Avenue, #1320, Dallas, Texas 75219.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Deborah A. Dupont, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-7072.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket Nos. 01-282, 01-283, 01-284, and 01-285; adopted October 3, 2001 and released October 5, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.
        The Commission further requests comment on a petition filed by Linda Crawford proposing the allotment of Channel 233C3 at McCamey, Texas, as the community's second aural broadcast transmission service. Channel 233C3 can be allotted to McCamey in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 19.9 km (12.4 miles) east of McCamey. The coordinates for Channel 233C3 at McCamey are 31-11-56 North Latitude and 102-01-42 West Longitude. The proposed allotment will require concurrence by Mexico because it is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the Mexican border.
        The Commission further requests comments on a petition filed by Linda Crawford, proposing the allotment of Channel 240A at Dickens, Texas, as the community's first local aural broadcast service. Channel 240A can be allotted to Dickens in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at center city coordinates without site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 240A at Dickens are 33-37-18 North Latitude and 100-50-10 West Longitude.
        The Commission further requests comment on a petition filed by Linda Crawford proposing the allotment of Channel 283C2 at Hamlin, Texas, as the community's second FM transmission service. Channel 283C2 can be allotted to Hamlin in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 21.5 km (13.4 miles) northwest of Hamlin. The coordinates for Channel 283C2 at Hamlin are 33-01-16 North Latitude and 100-17-23 West Longitude.
        The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New Mexico, is amended by adding Channel 228A at Taos.
            3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Channel 233C3 at McCamey, by adding Dickens, Channel 240A, and by adding Channel 283C2 at Hamlin.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-26067 Filed 10-16-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 7
        [FAR Case 2019-001, Docket No. FAR-2019-0020, Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AN84
        Federal Acquisition Regulation: Analysis for Equipment Acquisitions

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which requires, when acquiring equipment, a case-by-case analysis of cost and other factors associated with certain methods of acquisition, including purchase, short-term rental or lease, long-term rental or lease, interagency acquisition, and, if applicable, acquisition agreements with a State or local government.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments at the address shown below on or before October 23, 2020 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2019-001 to Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2019-001”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with FAR Case 2019-001. Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2019-001” on your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR case 2019-001” 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:

          Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at 202-208-4949, or by email at michaelo.jackson@gsa.gov, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite FAR case 2019-001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        On July 16, 2013, DoD, GSA, and NASA published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register (78 FR 42524) to determine whether there is a distinction between renting and leasing that is useful for the purposes of FAR subpart 7.4. The public comment period closed in September 2013 and 13 respondents provided comments in response to the RFI. A review of the public comments identified that there are differences between renting and leasing in many industries, but there are no standard differences between renting and leasing that span across all industries. As a result of the review, FAR case 2017-017 was opened to clarify the term “lease”, as used in the FAR and a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2018, at 83 FR 45072; six respondents provided comments in response to the proposed rule.
        On October 5, 2018, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) became law and included section 555, “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Equipment Rental.” (FAA stands for Federal Aviation Administration.) FAR case 2017-017 was subsequently closed and this FAR case 2019-001 was opened to implement the requirements of section 555. The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the public comments received in response to FAR case 2017-017 in developing this proposed rule and are dispositioned in this notice.
        This rule implements section 555 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which:
        • Requires an agency to acquire equipment using the method of acquisition that is most advantageous to the Government based on a case-by-case analysis of comparative costs and other factors (to include the factors in FAR section 7.401);
        • Identifies methods of acquisition that must be considered, at a minimum, in the analysis; and
        • Requires the FAR to implement the requirements of the section and identify the factors agencies should or shall consider to perform the case-by-case analysis.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        To implement the requirements of the law, described above, this rule proposes to amend FAR subpart 7.4 to: Require the comparison of purchase, short-term rental or lease, long-term rental or lease, interagency acquisition, and agency acquisition agreements with State or local governments as a method of acquisition for equipment; include the term “rent,” where applicable; and add factors to be considered when evaluating various methods of acquisition.
        A discussion of the comments received under proposed rule 2017-017 is provided as follows:
        1. Support for the Rule

          Comment: Several of the respondents expressed support for the rule.

          Response: The Councils acknowledge the public support for the rule.
        2. Incorporate Section 555 Into the Proposed Rule

          Comment: A respondent advised that the proposed rule should be modified to incorporate section 555 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

          Response: FAR case 2017-017 was closed and rolled into FAR case 2019-001, specifically to implement section 555 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
        3. Factors To Consider

          Comment: A number of respondents suggested the following additional factors that could be considered in the analysis and decision to rent, lease, or purchase equipment—
        • How long the equipment is needed and how long it will be in use (or its useful life);
        • Cancellation, extension, and early return conditions in the agreement;

        • Maintenance requirements for the equipment and the cost to the Government under various acquisition methods, to include any maintenance requirements specific to an industry (e.g., test and measurement equipment);
        • Whether the agreement includes an option to purchase the equipment, and, if so, the cost benefit to the Government in such an option;
        • Repair, transport, storage, insurance, environmental and licensing requirements for the equipment and the cost to the Government under various acquisition methods;
        • Whether the equipment can be swapped out or exchanged;
        • Availability or delivery of equipment to meet Government needs and timeline.

          Response: While section 555 serves as the main impetus for this proposed rule, the suggestions and comments on FAR case 2017-017 have been taken into account and additional factors have been added to FAR 7.401(b)(1) and (b)(2).
        4. Renting/Leasing

          Comment: Several respondents expressed concern that the proposed rule did not clarify the differences between renting and leasing, including those specific to the heavy equipment industry, and that without this recognition, the Government will waste money by grouping these two categories together.

          Response: Additional considerations unique to renting have been added to FAR 7.401(b)(1) and (b)(2). However, the proposed rule does not differentiate between rent and leasing because there are no standard differences between these practices that span across all industries. As a result, the recommended clarification could have the unintended consequence of creating new confusion.

          Comment: Several respondents recommended implementing a separate “rental method” of acquisition, in order to identify the unique properties and benefits of renting. A respondent asserts that codification of a definitive definition of “rental method”, “equipment rental”, and “lease method” is necessary for contracting officers to understand the differences between both methods, and impossible for the Government to execute a rental agreement.

          Response: The purpose of FAR subpart 7.4 is to facilitate an analysis and a decision on whether it is in the best interest of the Government to purchase a piece of equipment versus obtaining the equipment via any other non-purchase method. As a result, this case includes the word “rent” throughout FAR subpart 7.4 text, to ensure that contracting officers are aware that rental agreements are an acceptable non-purchase acquisition method for equipment, and implements additional factors to be considered in the analysis that account for the unique benefits that rental agreements may provide for the Government.

          Comment: A respondent advised that defining the difference between renting and leasing will help agencies meet their small business goals, as a majority of heavy equipment leases would fall under the simplified acquisition threshold and; therefore, be awarded to small businesses.

          Response: This rule proposes to add the word “rent” throughout the text of FAR subpart 7.4, as appropriate, to ensure contracting officers are aware that rental agreements are an acceptable non-purchase method of equipment acquisition.
        5. Guidance/Resources

          Comment: A respondent advised that providing acquisition officials with the guidance in OMB Circular A-94 will cause confusion, as the guidance does not apply to short-term rentals and eliminates the possibility that an acquisition official would consider rental as an acquisition option since the proposed rule makes rentals and leases synonymous.

          Response: The purpose of referring to the OMB Circular is to make the contracting officer aware of additional information that may be relevant in determining the method of acquisition that is most advantageous to the Government. The reference is not intended to preclude consideration of rent as a method of acquisition, but respondents to the proposed rule are encouraged to offer suggested clarifications.

          Comment: A respondent suggested that the GSA website provided to contracting officers for additional information may be too narrow of a resource, as it pertains to a program that is akin to a hardware store, home improvement center, or are maintenance, repair, and operations supplies. The respondent recommends providing another resource that can assist agencies with rental, lease, or purchase decisions for a broader scope of products.

          Response: The GSA customer service information and website at FAR 7.403(b)(1) and (b)(2) are provided as current sources Federal agencies may use when they need assistance with a buy, rent, or lease decision. Agencies may provide supplemental guidance, as needed, to meet their unique needs and requirements.
        6. Amend GSA Security Schedule

          Comment: A respondent recommended amending the GSA Security Schedule 84 to permit leasing of equipment, by Federal, State, and Local law enforcement and emergency response agencies, through the schedule contracts and make conforming changes within the contract that clarify the applicable terms and conditions that apply when purchasing versus leasing equipment under the Schedule.

          Response: This comment is outside the scope of FAR case 2017-017 and the scope of the current proposed rule.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items
        This proposed rule does not create any new provisions or clauses, nor does it change the applicability of any existing provisions or clauses included in solicitations and contracts valued at or below the SAT, or for commercial items, including COTS items.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13771
        The rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13771, because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rulemaking 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. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

          The Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are proposing to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require, when acquiring equipment, a case-by-case analysis of cost and other factors associated with certain methods of acquisition.
          The objective of the rule is to ensure agencies acquire equipment using the method of acquisition that is most advantageous to the Government based on a case-by-case analysis of comparative costs and other factors. The legal basis for the rule is section 555 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254).

          DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this 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. The rule primarily affects internal Government requirements determination decisions, acquisition strategy decisions, and contract file documentation requirements. The Government does not collect data on the total number of solicitations issued on an annual basis that are subject to the analysis of FAR subpart 7.4. However, the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) collects information on the product service code (PSC) assigned to a contract based on the predominant supply or service being acquired. FPDS data for FY 2016-2018, on PSCs for approximately 100 types of equipment and 80 types of equipment rental or lease services, indicates that the Federal Government awards an average of 125,940 new contracts and orders annually; of which approximately 54,845 (44 percent) were awarded to approximately 6,940 unique small businesses.
          The proposed rule does not impose any Paperwork Reduction Act reporting or recordkeeping requirements on any small entities. The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the proposed objectives.

        The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rulemaking on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2019-001) in correspondence.
        VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 7
          Government Procurement.

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

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR part 7 as set forth below:

          PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING

        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 7 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. Revise the heading of subpart 7.4 to read as follows:

          Subpart 7.4—Equipment Acquisition

        3. Revise section 7.400 to read as follows:

          7.400
          Scope of subpart.
          This subpart—
          (a) Implements section 555 of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254);
          (b) Provides guidance when acquiring equipment and more than one method of acquisition is available for use; and
          (c) Applies to both the initial acquisition of equipment and the renewal or extension of existing equipment leases or rental agreements.

        4. Revise section 7.401 to read as follows:

          7.401
           Acquisition considerations.

          (a)(1) Agencies shall acquire equipment using the method of acquisition most advantageous to the Government based on a case-by-case analysis of comparative costs and other factors in accordance with this subpart and agency procedures.
          (2) The methods of acquisition to be compared in the analysis shall include, at a minimum—
          (i) Purchase;
          (ii) Short-term rental or lease;
          (iii) Long-term rental or lease;
          (iv) Interagency acquisition (see 2.101); and
          (v) Agency acquisition agreements, if applicable, with a State or local government.
          (b)(1) The factors to be compared in the analysis shall include, at a minimum:
          (i) Estimated length of the period the equipment is to be used and the extent of use within that period;
          (ii) Financial and operating advantages of alternative types and makes of equipment;
          (iii) Cumulative rent, lease, or other periodic payments, however described, for the estimated period of use;
          (iv) Net purchase price;
          (v) Transportation, installation, and storage costs;
          (vi) Maintenance, repair, and other service costs; and
          (vii) Potential obsolescence of the equipment because of imminent technological improvements.
          (2) The following additional factors should be considered, as appropriate, depending on the type, cost, complexity, and estimated period of use of the equipment:
          (i) Availability of purchase options.
          (ii) Cancellation, extension, and early return conditions and fees.
          (iii) Ability to swap out or exchange equipment.
          (iv) Available warranties.
          (v) Insurance, environmental, or licensing requirements.
          (vi) Potential for use of the equipment by other agencies after its use by the acquiring agency is ended.
          (vii) Trade-in or salvage value.
          (viii) Imputed interest.

          (ix) Availability of a servicing capability, especially for highly complex equipment; e.g., can the equipment be serviced by the Government or other sources if it is purchased?
          (c) The analysis in paragraph (a) is not required—

          (1) When the President has issued an emergency declaration or a major disaster declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
          (2) In other emergency situations if the agency head makes a determination that obtaining such equipment is necessary in order to protect human life or property; or
          (3) When otherwise authorized by law.

        5. Amend section 7.402 by—
        a. Removing from paragraph (a)(1) “cumulative leasing” and adding “cumulative rental or leasing” in its place;
        b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) “favor of leasing” and adding “favor of renting or leasing” in its place;
        c. Revising the heading and introductory text of paragraph (b)(1);
        d. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
        e. Removing from paragraph (b)(3) “long term lease” and adding “long term rental or lease agreement” in its place; and
        f. Removing from paragraph (b)(4) “If a lease with option” and adding “If a rental or lease agreement with option” in its place.
        The revised text reads as follows:

          7.402
           Acquisition methods.

          (b) Rent or lease method. (1) The rent or lease method is appropriate if it is to the Government's advantage under the circumstances. The rent or lease method may also serve as a short-term measure when the circumstances—

          (2) If a rent or lease method is justified, a rental or lease agreement with option to purchase is preferable.

        6. Amend section 7.403 by—
        a. Revising the section heading;
        b. Removing from paragraph (a) “in lease or” and adding “in lease, rent, or” in its place;
        c. Revising paragraph (b); and
        d. Adding paragraph (c).
        The revised and added text reads as follows:

          7.403
           General Services Administration assistance and OMB Guidance.

          (b) For additional GSA assistance and guidance, agencies may—

          (1) Request information from the GSA FAS National Customer Service Center by phone at 1-800-488-3111 or by email at ncsccustomer.service@gsa.gov; and

          (2) See GSA website, Schedule 51 V Hardware Superstore-Equipment Rental, (https://www.gsa.gov/acquisition/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules/list-of-gsa-schedules/schedule-51-vhardware-superstore/equipment-rental-and-leasing).
          (c) For additional OMB guidance, see—

          (1) Section 13, Special Guidance for Lease-Purchase Analysis, and paragraph 8.c.(2), Lease-Purchase Analysis, of OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A94/a094.pdf); and

          (2) Appendix B, Budgetary Treatment of Lease-Purchases and Leases of Capital Assets, of OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/app_b.pdf).

          7.404
           [Amended]

        7. Removing from the text “a lease with” and adding “a rental or lease agreement with” in its place.

      [FR Doc. 2020-15769 Filed 8-21-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 210607-0122]
        RIN 0648-BK55
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2021-2023 Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes small-mesh multispecies specifications for the 2021 fishing year, and projected specifications for fishing years 2022 and 2023, as recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council. This action also proposes changes to whiting possession limits on certain trips and would restore the in-season adjustment trigger for northern red hake. This action is necessary to establish allowable harvest levels and other management measures consistent with the most recent scientific information. This rule also informs the public of the proposed fishery specifications and provides an opportunity for comment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by June 28, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0043, by the following method:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov, and enter “NOAA-NMFS-2021-0043” in the Search box;
          2. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields; and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

            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).

          The New England Fishery Management Council prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. The EA also provides an economic analysis, as well as an analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. Copies of the specifications document, including the EA and information on the economic impacts of the proposed measures, are available upon request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also accessible via the internet at https://www.nefmc.org/library/2021-2023-whiting-specifications.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The small-mesh multispecies fishery comprises three species of hakes that are managed as five stocks: Northern and southern silver hake; northern and southern red hake; and offshore hake. Southern silver hake and offshore hake are often grouped together for management purposes and collectively referred to as “southern whiting.” The New England Fishery Management Council manages the small-mesh multispecies fishery within the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action proposes catch limit specifications for the 2021 small-mesh multispecies fishery, and projects specifications for fishing years 2022 and 2023, based on the Council's recommendations.
        This action would also increase whiting (silver hake and offshore hake) possession limits on trips using gear with less than 3-in (7.62-cm) mesh from 3,500 pounds (lb) (1,588 kilograms (kg)) or 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) to 15,000 lb (6,804 kg), and restore the in-season adjustment trigger for northern red hake to 90 percent from 37.9 percent. These recommended changes reflect the most recent stock assessment information (September 2020), and are intended to increase fishing flexibility, decrease regulatory discards, and promote rebuilding of the southern red hake stock.
        Proposed Specifications
        This action proposes the Council's recommendations for 2021 and projected 2022-2023 small-mesh multispecies catch specifications, as well as revised management measures reduce regulatory discards. These proposed catch limits would increase annual quotas for southern whiting and both red hake stocks, and decrease the quota for northern silver hake (Table 1). Specifications for fishing years 2022 and 2023 are projected to be the same as the proposed 2021 limits.

          Table 1—Proposed Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications for Fishing Years 2021-2023 (Metric Tons), With the Percent Change in the Total Allowable Landings (TAL) From Fishing Year 2020

            Overfishinglimit

            Acceptablebiological
              catch

            Annualcatch limit

            TAL
            Percentchange

            Northern Red Hake
            N/A
            3,452
            3,278
            1,405
            +413

            Northern Silver Hake
            39,930
            20,410
            19,387
            17,457
            −34

            Southern Red Hake
            N/A
            1,505
            1,429
            422
            +89

            Southern Whiting
            72,160
            40,990
            38,941
            28,742
            +99

        In a separate action that is currently in the rulemaking process, the Council adopted a 10-year rebuilding program for southern red hake because this stock was declared overfished in 2018. Although the rebuilding plan has not yet been implemented in a final rule, the proposed southern red hake Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) is intended to be consistent with the Council's proposed rebuilding plan, even though the proposed quota for the species is higher than in fishing year 2020. The Council recommended an increased ABC, but at a level lower than what was recommended by its Scientific and Statistical Committee, to decrease regulatory discards and allow continued operation of the fishery while still enhancing the rebuilding potential for southern red hake.
        This proposed action would also revise management measures within the small-mesh multispecies fishery to reduce discards and improve fishery operations. The Council recommends increasing the possession limit for southern whiting on trips using gear with less than 3-in (7.62-cm) mesh to 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) to reduce regulatory discards. This action also proposes that the in-season adjustment trigger for northern red hake be reset to 90 percent of the annual quota, from the current trigger of 37.9 percent. The trigger was most recently reduced in fishing year 2017 to account for annual catch overages on the stock, and has been reduced multiple times prior in fishing years 2014 and 2015 from the original 90 percent. However, catches of northern red hake have been well below specified catch limits since the large 2014 year class of new young fish entered the fishery. Thus, this change in the in-season adjustment trigger for northern red hake is intended to avoid unnecessarily restrictive in-season accountability measures on the fishery, and further reduce excessive regulatory discards.
        The Council will review the projected 2022 and 2023 specifications to determine if any changes need to be made prior to their final implementation. Changes may occur if quota overages trigger accountability measures, or if new stock information results in changes to the ABC recommendations. The rebuilding plan for southern red hake that is currently undergoing review in a separate rulemaking will not change any of these proposed specifications. NMFS will publish a notice prior to the 2022 and 2023 fishing years to confirm the projected specifications or announce any necessary changes.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The Council reviewed the proposed regulations for this action and deemed them necessary and appropriate to implement consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        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 that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
        The proposed action would impact all permitted vessels or affiliated groups that participate in small-mesh multispecies fisheries. The Council considered any business with at least one open access multispecies K permit, or other northeast multispecies permit that allows possession of hakes, in this evaluation, as well as any active entities that landed any small-mesh multispecies for commercial sale in 2019. As of June 1, 2020, NMFS had issued 798 commercial open-access (small-mesh) permits; therefore, 798 permits would be regulated by this action. According to the ownership database, there are 627 distinct business entities that hold at least one permit regulated by the proposed action, and of those 627 entities, all are engaged in commercial fishing, although 106 did not have revenues (were not active) in 2019. Of those 627 entities potentially affected by this action, 618 are categorized as small entities and 9 are categorized as large entities. It was found that on average these small businesses derive less than four percent of their total fishing income from the small-mesh multispecies fishery, and that this fishery serves as more of a supplement to their overall fishing revenue rather than the primary source.
        This action, which proposes higher catch limits for most stocks and increases a whiting possession limit primarily to reduce regulatory discards, is expected to provide operational flexibility and opportunity in the fishery without increasing risk to the resource or substantially changing fishing behavior. Under this action, annual quotas would increase for southern whiting and both red hake stocks and decrease for northern silver hake. While permit holders may experience a slight positive impact from higher landings of some species throughout the course of the year, short-term landings are not expected to increase. Further, over the long-term of several years, the small increases in annual quotas will likely be negligible when balanced with the decreased access to northern silver hake. Also, the proposed changes to management measures, such as the whiting trip limit and northern red hake trigger, are primarily intended to reduce regulatory discards and prevent over-restriction of stable stocks in the fishery. These measures are expected to allow normal operation of the fishery to continue further into the year, and are not expected to change fishing behavior overall.

        The Council's analyses indicate that the overall economic impact of proposed action is expected to be negligible to slightly positive, and that the proposed specifications are not expected to substantially change fishing effort, risk of overfishing, prices/revenues, or fishery behavior. The proposed measures are intended to provide operational flexibility and fishing opportunities, while preventing overharvest of the stocks. Therefore, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.
        This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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

          Dated: June 7, 2021.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          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 § 648.86, revise paragraph (d)(1)(i), and remove and reserve paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

          § 648.86
          NE Multispecies possession restrictions.

          (d) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) Vessels possessing on board or using nets of mesh size smaller than 3 in (7.62 cm). Owners or operators of a vessel may possess and land not more than 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) of combined silver hake and offshore hake, if either of the following conditions apply:
          (A) The mesh size of any net or any part of a net used by or on board the vessel is smaller than 3 inches (7.62 cm), as applied to the part of the net specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section, as measured in accordance with § 648.80(f); or
          (B) The mesh size of any net or part of a net on board the vessel not incorporated into a fully constructed net is smaller than 3 inches (7.62 cm), as measured by methods specified in § 648.80(f). “Incorporated into a fully constructed net” means that any mesh smaller than 3 inches (7.62 cm) that is incorporated into a fully constructed net may occur only in the part of the net not subject to the mesh size restrictions specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section, and the net into which the mesh is incorporated must be available for immediate use.

        3. In § 648.90, revise paragraph (b)(5)(iii) to read as follows:

          § 648.90
          NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system.

          (b) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (iii) Small-mesh multispecies in-season adjustment triggers. The small-mesh multispecies in-season accountability measure adjustment triggers are as follows:

              Species
              In-seasonadjustment
                trigger
                (percent)

              Northern Red Hake
              90

              Northern Silver Hake
              90

              Southern Red Hake
              40.4

              Southern Silver Hake
              90

      [FR Doc. 2021-12282 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 010712174-1174-01; I.D. 062701D]
        RIN 0648-AP36
        Eligibility Criteria and Definitions for the Western Pacific Community Development Program and Western Pacific Demonstration Projects

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes criteria developed by the Council to determine what communities will be eligible to participate in western Pacific community development programs to be established by the Council and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for fisheries under the Council’s jurisdiction in order to promote access to such fisheries by western Pacific communities and to apply for and receive grants for related demonstration projects.  NMFS also proposes definitions, developed with the Council, for certain terms appearing in section 305(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the section authorizing the Council and the Secretary to establish such programs, and in the criteria developed by the Council.  NMFS is proposing these criteria and definitions so that it may have the benefit of public comment before deciding whether to approve the criteria and adopt the definitions.  The intent of this proposal is to implement section 305(i)(2) so that appropriate programs may be established in the future.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on August 27, 2001.  Faxed comments received before the deadline will be accepted provided the signed original is received for the record by September 5, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be sent to Robert Ziobro, Western Pacific Project - F, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or faxed to 301-713-2258.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert C. Ziobro at 301-713-2239 or by facsimile at 301-713-2258.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        -This Federal Register document is available through the NMFS Pacific Island Area Office Home Page at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/piao/index.htm and the Western Pacific Council Home Page at: http://www.wpcouncil.org.  -
        I. Background
        Under the authority of section 305(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(2), the Council and the Secretary may establish western Pacific community development programs for any fishery under the authority of the Council in order to provide access to such fishery for western Pacific communities.  Section 305(i)(2)(B) specifies that in order to be eligible to participate in western Pacific community development programs, a community must: -
        1. Be located within the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Area; -

        2. Meet criteria developed by the Council, approved by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register; -
        3. Consist of community residents who are descended from the aboriginal people indigenous to the area who conducted commercial or subsistence fishing using traditional fishing practices in the waters of the Western Pacific region; -
        4.  Not have previously developed harvesting or processing capability sufficient to support substantial participation in fisheries in the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Area; and -
        5. Develop and submit a Community Development Plan to the Council and the Secretary.  -
        Section 305(i)(2)(D) defines the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Area as the area under the jurisdiction of the Council or an island within such area.   -
        Under section 305 note of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Section 111(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297) western Pacific communities eligible to participate in western Pacific community development programs are eligible to apply for and receive grants for related demonstration projects.  To be eligible for funding, a project must foster and promote the use of traditional indigenous fishing practices of western Pacific communities found on American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii or the Northern Mariana Islands.  A project must also identify and apply traditional indigenous fishing practices, develop or enhance western Pacific community-based fishing opportunities, and involve research, community education, or the acquisition of materials and equipment necessary to carry out any such demonstration project. -

        NMFS is developing the grants application process by which communities may apply for grants to fund projects.  This process will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register document; that notification will also solicit proposals for project grants. -
        The Council has developed criteria to determine what communities are eligible to participate in western Pacific community development programs and NMFS and the Council have developed definitions for certain terms appearing in section 305(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the criteria. -

        II.  Eligibility Criteria and Proposed Definitions
        A. Eligibility Criteria
        The following criteria have been recommended by the Council.  They incorporate all of the eligibility criteria set forth in section 305(i)(2)(B). -
        1. Be located in American Samoa, the Northern Marina Islands, Guam or Hawaii(Western Pacific Area); -
        2. Consist of community residents descended from aboriginal people indigenous to the western Pacific area who conducted commercial or subsistence fishing using traditional fishing practices in the waters of the western Pacific; -
        3. Consist of community residents who reside in their ancestral homeland; -
        4. Have knowledge of customary practices relevant to fisheries of the western Pacific; -
        5. Have a traditional dependence on fisheries of the western Pacific; -
        6. Experience economic or other barriers that have prevented full participation in the western Pacific fisheries and, in recent years, have not had harvesting, processing or marketing capability sufficient to support substantial participation in fisheries in the area; and -
        7. Develop and submit a Community Development Plan to the Western Pacific Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. -
        Because the Council’s recommended criteria incorporate all of the criteria specified in section 205(i)(2)(B) any community meeting the Council’s recommended criteria would be eligible would be eligible to participate in a western Pacific community development program. -
        B.  Definitions
        For purposes of section 305(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Council’s recommended eligibility criteria, the following definitions developed by NMFS and the Council would apply: -

          Community means a population of non-transient people descended from the aboriginal people indigenous to the area who share a common history based on social, cultural and economic interactions and a functional relationship sustained by participation in fishing and fishing related activities. -

          Economic barriers means barriers which add to the difficulty and cost of participation in a fishery by descendants of the aboriginal people of each area.  They include, but are not limited to, the  degradation of marine habitat, localized depletion of harvested stocks, and loss of access to long-fished grounds because of closure and/or lack of access to capital and expertise to compete for marine resources. -

          Subsistence fishing means harvesting of marine resources for personal, family or community use or for gifts of food to extended family members and friends that perpetuate community relationships and identities. -

          Traditional fishing practices and traditional indigenous fishing practices means methods of fishing and fishery utilization developed from aboriginal customary and traditional uses and practices that can be conducted within existing regulations.  -

          The cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery means, for each community, the accumulation and perpetuation of ancestral knowledge and participation that have resulted from historical dependence on marine resources as a principal source of food for the aboriginal people indigenous to the area. -
        Classification
        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 that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The proposed action is anticipated to lead to economic and social benefits for qualifying communities.  The proposed action will allow the distribution of funds through direct grants to eligible communities to establish demonstration projects.  It is anticipated that the economic and social benefits of approved projects will outweigh their associated costs.

          Dated: July 24, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Acting, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-18830 Filed 7-26-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S