        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 85
        [Docket No: FWS-HQ-WSR-2015-0006; FVWF94100900000-XXX-FF09W11000]
        RIN 1018-AW66
        Clean Vessel Act Grant Program

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is seeking comments to assist us in developing a proposed rule for the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program (CVA). The proposed rule will use plain language to clarify topics that have led to varying interpretations and will incorporate changes in legislation and technology. We seek public input to advise us on topics of interest to the boating community in regard to projects funded through CVA. We ask for response from anyone having an interest in CVA and associated topics, but particularly from members of the public having experience, expertise, or both in administering CVA; entities receiving services from CVA-funded facilities; entities manufacturing, selling, or installing CVA-funded facilities and equipment; or persons possessing other professional or practical knowledge of the subjects we present in this document. We present topics of interest, but encourage comments on any topic relevant to CVA and the proposed rulemaking. The terms you or your in this document refer to those members of the public from whom we seek response. The terms we, us, and our refer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before November 13, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by docket number FWS-R9-WSR-2015-0006, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R9-WSR-2015-0006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-4501.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-4501.

          We will not accept email or faxes. All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. We will post all comments received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and other information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for FWS-R9-WSR-2015-0006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lisa E. Van Alstyne, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Division of Policy and Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-1942.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (Act) (Pub. L. 102-587, title V, subtitle F) amends the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c) and establishes a program that provides matching grants to States for projects that address septic waste from recreational vessels. Grants may be used to conduct coastal surveys and establish plans; construct, renovate, operate, and maintain pumpout and other waste reception facilities for recreational vessels; and conduct programs to educate boaters about the environmental and health issues associated with improperly disposing of human waste. Priority consideration was established in the Act for projects that are in coastal States, include public/private partnerships, and include innovative ways to increase project availability and use. The Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Act of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, Title X, section 10131) amends the Clean Vessel Act to remove the preference for projects in coastal States.
        Since inception, the Clean Vessel Act grant program (CVA) has awarded more than $246 million. The projects funded have helped States to build an infrastructure that links services within and between States and raised awareness of the benefits of properly disposing of septic waste. As a result, States have experienced a reduction in beach and shellfish bed closures, enhanced boater awareness and satisfaction, and improved water quality in recreational areas.
        In the 1990s, we published in the Federal Register three documents related to CVA: Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Grant Program, Final rule (59 FR 11204, March 10, 1994); Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines, Notice of final guidelines (59 FR 11290, March 10, 1994); and Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Symbol, Slogan, and Program Crediting, Final rule (62 FR 45344, August 27, 1997). The CVA regulations are located in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 85 (50 CFR part 85).
        As we move forward in the program, we propose not only to build on the success of CVA to date, but also to seek new and innovative ways to serve the boating public into the future. We hosted four open forum discussions between October 2014 and February 2015 in which we asked States and other stakeholders to share their knowledge and opinions on topics associated with implementing CVA nationally. Participants informed us on challenges to implementation and consistency that have arisen since the program began, changes in focus that have evolved as the program has matured, and successful approaches they would like to continue. These discussions prompted us to seek input on certain topics from a larger audience.
        Information Requested

        With this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), the Service is seeking information, comments, and suggestions that will help us to consider how best to address updating the CVA regulations and Technical Guidelines. We ask for your help in identifying significant issues that interfere with participation in CVA, administration of CVA, services provided under CVA, or successful implementation of CVA projects. We ask for your responses on successful approaches or foundational benefits that you suggest we should preserve in future rulemaking. We intend to use your input to develop updated regulations and guidelines in one location at 50 CFR part 85. After receiving and considering your responses to our requests in this ANPR, we will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment. In particular, we encourage you to give comments and suggestions on the issues described in the body of the ANPR. When commenting, please indicate which of the listed issues your comment addresses and to which question you are responding. If your comments cover issues outside of those listed, please identify them as Other.

        There are several topics where your response may reference a State or local law, regulation, standard, or other legal reference. When your comments include a legal reference, please specifically cite the legal document. We recommend you use citation formats in Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) Guide to Legal Citation or Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation as your guide. If possible, please give a location where we may access the document electronically.
        Issue 1: Technical information
        (a) The Technical Guidelines (Guidelines) issued on March 10, 1994, reflect a collaborative effort between the Service and various entities that have expertise or interest in boating, clean water, waste disposal equipment, and other associated topics. We consulted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) when developing the guidelines. We also asked for advice and input from States, local municipalities, boat users, manufacturers of pumpout equipment, marina operators, conservation groups, interest organizations, and the public. The resulting document reflects the best available knowledge at that time and informs the public on basic principles that were foundational to the grant program in the beginning stages of development.
        (b) We are aware that advances have been made in technology, technique, and approach since we published the Guidelines. Through this notice, we ask for those same groups and any new user and interest groups, technical experts, and practitioners to advise us on some specific and some general technology issues. When responding to a topic, please address to the extent possible the following regarding the technology, technique, or approach:
        (1) For technology, if it is currently available or would need to be developed;
        (2) Cost;
        (3) Expertise needed;
        (4) Supporting infrastructure or other technology needed;
        (5) Long-term personnel investment; and
        (6) Any known obstacles.
        (c) We ask that if you have knowledge of such advancements, you discuss developments that have been made since 1994, or are anticipated in the next few years, that improve, support, or otherwise affect CVA. Discuss how you suggest we should use this information to inform new guidelines.
        (d) We ask your comments on these specific topics:
        (1) States that experience seasonal cold weather likely have pumpout facility operators that choose to close for the season, winterize their pumpout equipment, or both. However, boaters may travel to those areas seeking pumpout services. What technology, technique, or approach would address the need to provide pumpout services in cold weather areas?
        (2) How important is it for States to monitor the amount of waste removed through pumpouts? Should the guidelines strongly recommend meters or other “add-on” equipment to accomplish this? Should the regulations require it? If so, when should the new requirement be effective?
        (3) Floating restrooms are eligible for CVA funding. However, with the emphasis of the program on providing facilities that benefit boaters, the current regulations state they cannot be connected to land or anything else that is connected to land, restricting floating restrooms to water-only access. Therefore, floating restrooms connected to an attached dock cannot be funded through CVA. (Land-based restrooms are currently ineligible.) We have received requests to revisit this restriction and consider the possibility of allowing floating restrooms to be attached to a dock and to allow piping to run directly from the floating restroom to a land connection for waste disposal. We ask you to comment on:
        (i) Whether we should allow floating restrooms to be connected to land or docks. What are the advantages and disadvantages? Should there be limitations?
        (ii) Are you aware of legal issues that affect floating restrooms, such as State or local regulations, permit restrictions, or building standards? If so, please discuss the effect and cite the regulation, code, or standard.
        (iii) There are concerns with protecting floating restrooms from vandalism and other damage. If floating restrooms are allowed to be connected to land or docks, the potential for vandalism may increase with easier land-side access. Do you have any suggestions for how to address these concerns?
        (iv) Is it important to maintain the emphasis on floating restrooms serving only the boating public? If we were to allow floating restrooms to be connected to docks, what approaches would restrict use to serve only the boating public?
        (v) What approaches would ensure that floating restrooms are designed to limit land-side access and potential over-use by the non-boating public?
        (vi) Should we participate in efforts to develop standards or best management practices for floating restrooms?
        Issue 2: State Participation in Offering Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds for CVA Projects
        (a) Some States offer CVA O&M, and some do not. We suggest that offering O&M greatly benefits CVA by:
        (1) Increasing the number of pumpout facilities by supporting operators that otherwise might not be able to financially support ongoing service;
        (2) Providing a mechanism to reimburse operators when they respond to equipment failures, increasing pumpout facility availability and functionality; and
        (3) Helping to extend the useful life of the investment.
        (b) The Service does not have a comprehensive list of how many and which States do not participate in offering O&M for pumpout projects, or the reasons why these States have chosen this approach. We would like to know more about those States that participate, and those that do not, in order to identify if changes in regulations or guidelines could improve this aspect of CVA. We ask States to respond telling us:
        (1) Does your State offer O&M grant funding to subgrantees and operators?
        (2) If your State does offer O&M funding, describe your program, including:
        (i) Any restrictions on the type of projects that may receive O&M funds;
        (ii) Any limits on O&M funds;
        (iii) How you administer O&M processing; and
        (iv) Any obstacles you currently experience that you suggest we may alleviate either through regulation or other means.
        (3) If your State does not offer O&M funding, describe the reasons why your State has chosen not to offer O&M funding. If the reasons include laws or regulations, please cite as directed under Information Requested. Include in your comments changes you suggest we consider that might assist your State to begin a CVA O&M program.
        Issue 3: Do any existing or proposed State or local laws affect CVA?
        (a) Please cite, as directed under Information Requested, and discuss any State or local laws or regulations that either support or impede CVA projects. When available, include web links to the law or regulation.

        (b) Discuss specifically how the law or regulation affects CVA projects. If it is a positive effect, tell us if you believe the Service should consider adopting similar principles. If it is a negative effect, tell us how it restricts your ability to complete successful projects. Please suggest any changes in the CVA regulation that would increase your ability to complete successful projects within the parameters of current or proposed State and local laws and regulations.
        Issue 4: User Fees
        (a) The current regulations at 50 CFR 85.44 allow operators of facilities constructed, operated, or maintained with CVA grant funds to charge users a maximum $5 fee, with no justification. If an operator chooses to charge a higher fee, it must be justified. The proceeds must be accounted for and used by the operator to defray the operation and maintenance costs of the facility as long as the facility is needed and serves its intended purpose. The Service was to evaluate the maximum fee each year for inflation and other potential considerations. The Service has not taken this action to date.
        (b) During an open forum discussion at the States Organization for Boating Access Conference on October 6, 2014, we asked States to comment on the following questions:
        (1) Should the maximum fee be increased? Decreased?
        (2) What are the pros and cons of higher fees?
        (3) What alternatives do you suggest other than a maximum fee (Ex: sliding scale)?
        (4) Should fees correspond to usage (Ex: gallons pumped, holding tank size)?
        (5) Should the method of service influence the fees charged (Ex: self-serve vs. pumpout assistance)?
        (c) We received a range of responses that fall into five general categories:
        (1) Support no change to the current regulations. The $5 maximum fee works well, and boaters are used to it.
        (2) Suggest the regulations be changed to mandate or encourage free pumpout services. Offering free pumpout services increases the number of boaters using pumpouts, decreases the amount of inappropriately disposed boater septic waste, and reduces the burden for operators in States that offer CVA O&M funding.
        (3) Suggest the regulations be changed to allow a sliding scale with a $5 maximum for boats with smaller holding tanks, increasing fees with the size of the holding tank. An issue with this option is that not all pumpout equipment is installed with monitoring capability to gauge the number of gallons pumped.
        (4) Address the fee issue by maintaining a similar approach as in the current regulations, but increase the fee.
        (5) Allow operators to charge a fee according to the prevailing market rate for the area they serve.
        (d) We are interested in comments from States, boaters, operators, and interest organizations that address the questions and responses above. When responding, please consider:
        (1) The maximum fee that boaters will accept as reasonable for the service they receive;
        (2) How the fee schedule may influence boater usage;
        (3) How the fee schedule may affect water quality;
        (4) If we need to consider State and local laws or codes when establishing a fee schedule; and
        (5) How reduced fees may affect operators that incur additional costs for:
        (i) Removing septic waste via a waste hauler from an on-site holding tank where municipal sewer service is not available;
        (ii) Disposing of boater waste via municipal sewer connections where the municipality charges an additional fee for boater waste (Ex: hazardous waste disposal fee); or
        (iii) Other actions to process or dispose of boater waste.
        Issue 5: Defining “Recreational Vessel” and Access to CVA-Funded Services
        (a) We have received many comments requesting clarity on how to define “recreational vessel” in the context of CVA and whether we should consider allowing CVA-funded facilities to be available to non-recreational vessels (Ex: house boats, commercial vessels). We ask your comments on the following:
        (1) How should we define “recreational vessel” for CVA? Should the term include vessels that are not for personal use, but that transport the public to recreational opportunities? (Ex: dive boats, fishing charters)
        (2) What criteria might we use that would clearly separate a recreational vessel from a non-recreational vessel?
        (b) We have considered that the ultimate benefit of CVA is clean recreational waters that benefit all users. We have engaged in discussions that ask us to consider allowing CVA-funded pumpouts to be available for use by other than what we define as a “recreational vessel.” We ask for comments on the following:
        (1) Should CVA-funded facilities be available to serve all vessels, regardless of their designation as recreational or non-recreational? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
        (2) If CVA-funded facilities are used to service other than non-recreational vessels, should operators be allowed to charge a higher fee for non-recreational use? (The rationale is that the higher fees would help pay for replacement/repairs of the equipment that will have a reduced useful life due to the additional burden on the equipment.)
        (3) Are there any user groups or vessel types that should be fully excluded from consideration for expanding availability of CVA-funded pumpouts? Why or why not?
        (4) If we choose to expand eligible use, what restrictions, if any, should be imposed on non-recreational vessels using CVA-funded pumpouts?
        Issue 6: Definition of “Useful Life”
        (a) The term “useful life” as used in the current CVA regulations was intended to relate to the functional longevity of the equipment. Using this approach, there are multiple considerations that could influence the useful life of a pumpout project, such as environmental effects (marine vs. freshwater environment, weather), biological effects (quagga mussels), amount and type of usage, adequate maintenance, boater education on proper use, and equipment components that are more vulnerable to wear or failure. In addition, it is likely that more than one of these considerations are present at one time, compounding potential impacts. Many States indicate that they have moved away from looking at the operational longevity of the equipment and instead have set a contractual requirement for the number of years the operator must maintain the equipment.
        The above information has led us to reconsider our regulatory approach for how long a pumpout facility must be maintained and operational for its intended purpose. We also consider that a primary goal of CVA is to have sufficient available and functional pumpout facilities and that they contribute to a network of pumpout facilities for continued boater access and use.
        (b) We typically employ useful life consideration for capital improvements. We define a “capital improvement” as: (1) a new structure that costs at least $25,000 to build; or (2) altering, renovating, or repairing an existing structure if it increases the structure's useful life by 10 years or if it costs at least $25,000. The focus is on structures attached to real property.

        The cost of a typical land-based pumpout facility is below the threshold for a capital improvement. Mobile or movable pumpout facilities, such as boats and floating restrooms, we consider personal property and not a capital improvement. We, therefore, must consider that using useful life to measure obligation for a pumpout facility may not benefit the consistency and viability of the CVA program mission.
        We suggest the alternative approach of applying in regulation an obligation for a minimum number of years that an operator must maintain an operational pumpout for its intended purpose. After this time, an operator may choose to continue the obligation for another period under the CVA grant program, continue operation outside the CVA grant program, or cease operation of the pumpout facility.
        The majority of States responding to an inquiry suggested 10 years, but other suggestions ranged from 4 to 20 years.
        (c) We ask for your comments on the following:
        (1) Which approach do you suggest is the best for the continued success of CVA, and why do you prefer it?
        (2) What obligation do you suggest an operator assume when participating in CVA, including how long an operator must maintain a CVA-funded pumpout facility?
        (3) If a State offers O&M funding for existing facilities, should participation in O&M extend the obligation to maintain and operate the facility? For example, if we assume a fixed-year obligation for maintaining a pumpout facility, for each year that the operator receives O&M funding should it extend the obligation an additional year?
        (4) What CVA-funded actions would you suggest we identify that, if completed, will restart the fixed-year obligation period? (Ex: replacement, major renovation, etc.)
        (5) We discussed in Issue 5 the possibility of expanding the type of vessels that could be serviced by CVA-funded facilities. If we choose the approach to require a fixed-year obligation for a CVA-funded facility, the CVA-funded facility would be obligated to be maintained and functional for the designated period regardless of use, so additional wear and tear would be the responsibility of the operator to address during that period. What advantages, disadvantages, or other effects should we consider regarding this combined approach?
        Public Participation
        We seek comments from you in response to the topics and questions above. We also seek any relevant comments on other issues related to this proposed rulemaking. We especially seek recommendations for effective and efficient approaches to CVA. After analyzing the comments received from this ANPR, we will proceed with a proposed rulemaking.
        All submissions received must include the Service docket number for this notice. 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 information—may be made publicly available. 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.

        The Service supports a collaborative process as we develop the proposed rule. After the comment period ends for the ANPR, we will post information on other opportunities to comment prior to the proposed rule, background, and past comments received at: http://fawiki.fws.gov/display/CR5C8/CVA+Review+50+CFR+85+Home.

          Dated: August 31, 2015.
          Karen Hyun,
          Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2015-22723 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0725; FRL-9904-01-Region 9]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent cleaning machines and operations, coating of metal parts and products and polyester resin operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by March 3, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0725, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov or Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This proposal addresses the following local rules: SBCAPCD Rule 321, Solvent Cleaning Machines and Solvent Cleaning, SBCAPCD Rule 330, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products and SBCAPCD Rule 349, Polyester Resin Operations. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comments on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
        We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: November 22, 2013.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2014-01318 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BJ76
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery Off the South Atlantic States; Amendment 11

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

          ACTION:
          Availability of proposed amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Shrimp FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 11 to the Shrimp FMP (Amendment 11) would modify the transit provisions for shrimp trawl vessels with brown, pink, and white shrimp on board in Federal waters of the South Atlantic that have been closed to shrimp trawling to protect white shrimp as a result of cold weather events. The purpose of Amendment 11 is to update the regulations to more closely align with current fishing practices, reduce the socio-economic impacts for fishermen who transit these closed areas, and improve safety at sea while maintaining protection for overwintering white shrimp.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before September 8, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 11, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2020-0066,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0066, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Frank Helies, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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), 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).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 11, which includes a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-11-shrimp-trawl-transit-provisions/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Frank Helies, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: Frank.Helies@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) for review, and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.

        The Council prepared the Shrimp FMP that is being revised by Amendment 11. If approved, Amendment 11 would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        Amendment 9 to the Shrimp FMP revised the criteria and procedures by which a South Atlantic state may request that NMFS implement a concurrent closure to the harvest of penaeid shrimp (brown, pink, and white shrimp) in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) when state waters close as a result of severe winter weather (78 FR 35571; June 13, 2013). The Shrimp FMP provides that if a state has determined there is at least an 80-percent reduction in the population of overwintering white shrimp, or that state water temperatures were 9 °C (48 °F) or less for at least 7 consecutive days, the state can request NMFS to close the EEZ adjacent to that state's closed waters to the harvest of penaeid shrimp to protect the white shrimp spawning stock that has been severely depleted by cold weather.
        Currently, shrimp trawl vessels transiting these EEZ cold weather closed areas with penaeid shrimp on board are required to stow a trawl net with a mesh size of less than 4 inches (10.2 cm) below deck. Since the most recent cold weather EEZ closures off South Carolina (83 FR 2931; January 22, 2018) and Georgia (83 FR 3404; January 25, 2018), fishermen requested that the Council update these transit provisions. Fishermen requested this change to achieve increased ability to transit the closed areas, as recent vessel design changes have limited access to below deck storage.
        Amendment 11 is expected to update the FMP and the regulations to better match the current design of the vessels in the fishery, reduce the socio-economic impact for fishermen who have difficulty transiting the cold weather closed areas with penaeid shrimp onboard their vessels under the current regulations, and improve safety at sea for fishermen through reduced travel time around the closed areas and by not having to disassemble fishing gear while at sea for stowage below deck, while maintaining protection for overwintering white shrimp and regulation enforceability of the cold weather closed areas.
        Action Contained in Amendment 11
        Amendment 11 would allow a vessel to transit South Atlantic cold weather closed areas in the EEZ while possessing penaeid shrimp, provided the vessel is in transit and fishing gear is appropriately stowed. Transit would be defined as non-stop progression through the area with fishing gear appropriately stowed. Fishing gear appropriately stowed would be defined as trawl doors are in the rack (cradle) on deck, nets would be in the rigging and tied down, and the try net would be on the deck. Doors in the rack means the trawl doors are stowed in their storage racks out of the water on the vessel's deck. Nets in the rigging means the trawl nets are out of the water and are tied to the trawl vessel's rigging.
        The proposed transit provision was developed and recommended to the Council by the Council's Law Enforcement, Shrimp, and Deep-water Shrimp Advisory Panels. Amendment 11 and the proposed rule are expected to reduce adverse socio-economic and safety at sea impacts associated with the current transit provisions through reduced travel time around the closed areas and time on the water for fishermen by not requiring gear stowage below deck. Fishermen also stated that having to disassemble trawl gear for below deck stowage in rough sea conditions is a safety-at-sea concern.
        Proposed Rule for Amendment 11

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 11 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the Shrimp FMP, Amendment 11, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted Amendment 11 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 11 must be received by September 8, 2020. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 11 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 11. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: July 6, 2020.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-14815 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357; FRL-8264-3]
        RIN 2060-AO03
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          On December 15, 1995, EPA issued national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act for shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations (subpart II). The NESHAP requires existing and new major sources to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants to the extent achievable by the use of maximum achievable control technology. The proposal is intended to close an unintended gap in the scope of activities subject to the NESHAP by amending the definition of “ship” to include all marine or fresh-water vessels that are either (1) 20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, or (2) less than 20 meters in length and designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes. All shipbuilding and ship repair coating operations performed on “ships,” as so defined, are subject to subpart II if they take place at an “affected source,” as defined in 40 CFR 63.782. The only exception is that this NESHAP shall not be construed to apply to coating activities that are subject to emission limitations or work practices under the NESHAP for boat manufacturing at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. We have also added a definition of “commercial” to clarify the types of nonmilitary vessels less than 20 meters that we consider to be ships. The amended definition of “ship” renders the term “pleasure craft” unnecessary and the amendments, therefore, eliminate the use of that term in 40 CFR part 63, subpart II.

          DATES:

            Comments. Written comments must be received on or before January 29, 2007 unless a public hearing is requested by January 8, 2007. If a public hearing is requested, written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2007.

            Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, a public hearing will be held on January 16, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0093, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-1741 and (919) 541-3470.
          • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
          • Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.

          We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357, (Legacy No. A-92-11). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0357, (Legacy No. A-92-11), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI.

          The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0093, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

          NOTE:

          The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same.

          Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For further information contact Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2379; fax number (919) 541-3470; e-mail address: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by this action include:

            Category
            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            Facilities that are engaged in shipbuilding and ship repair operations. The term ship means all marine or fresh-water vessels that are either (1) 20 meters or more in length regardless of the purpose for which the vessel is constructed or used, or (2) that are less than 20 meters in length and are designed and built specifically for military or commercial purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, all military and Coast Guard vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise) ships, ferries, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot boats, yachts, and dredges.

              Note: An offshore oil and gas drilling platform is not considered a ship for purposes of this regulation.

            Federal government
            Federal Agencies which undertake shipbuilding or repair operations see above) such as the Navy and Coast Guard.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this rule.

        To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.781 of the rule, as well as in the direct final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular activity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          Submitting CBI. Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

          Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2379, e-mail address: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov, at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Dr. Serageldin to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.

          World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

          Direct Final Rule. The proposed amendments appear in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal Register as a direct final rule. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule.

        We are taking direct final action because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comments. We have explained our reasons for the amendments in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no material adverse comment, we will take no further action on the proposed rule. If we receive material adverse comment or a public hearing is requested, we will withdraw only the amendments, sections, or paragraphs of the direct final rule on which we received material adverse comment. We will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which will become effective and which are being withdrawn. If part or all of the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register is withdrawn, all comments pertaining to the amendments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
        Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business Administration size standards for companies mainly identified by NAICS codes 336611 (shipbuilding and repairing) with 1,000 or fewer employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government or a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

        EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the proposed rule. This action broadens the scope of the category through revision of the definition of ship which may impact facilities currently complying with subpart II, none of which are small entities. The direct final rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: December 22, 2006.
          Stephen L. Johnson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E6-22428 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
        Copyright Royalty Board
        37 CFR Part 350
        [Docket No. 17-CRB-0013 RM]
        Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of Standards of Conduct

          AGENCY:
          Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Copyright Royalty Judges propose to adopt a new Copyright Royalty Board rule that would authorize the Judges to bar, either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals and entities from participating in proceedings before the Judges.

          DATES:
          Comments are due no later than May 22, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          The proposed rule is posted on the agency's Web site (www.loc.gov/crb) and at Regulations.gov (www.regulations.gov). Interested parties may submit comments via email to crb@loc.gov. Those who choose not to submit comments via email should see How to Submit Comments in the Supplementary Information section below for online and physical addresses and further instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or crb@loc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), 37 CFR part 350 (CRB Rules), address proceedings conducted by the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) under chapter 8 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 801-805. Proceedings before the Judges are premised on the understanding that all participants, including party representatives, witnesses, attorneys, and agents, will provide only truthful evidence or testimony to the Board. For example, CRB Rule 351.10 (a) states that “[a]ll witnesses shall be required to take an oath or affirmation before testifying.” 37 CFR 351.10 (b). The oath or affirmation requires the witness to state that the evidence he or she is about to offer will be truthful. Neither Rule 351.10 nor any other CRB rule or provision of the Copyright Act specifies consequences for presenting to the CRB false or misleading information or testimony, or for filing false royalty claims.1

            1 See 18 U.S.C. 1621 re perjury.

        In the few instances in which the Judges determined that a witness's testimony was not truthful, the Judges exercised their authority under Section 801(c) to strike the testimony from the record or to take such other action as the Judges believed was warranted under the circumstances. In 2008, for example, the Judges found that an expert witness knowingly affirmed incorrect testimony on the record and in the presence of the Judges. Order Striking Certain Witness Testimony and Refusing Witness as Expert at 3, Docket No. 2006-3 CRB DPRA (Feb. 14, 2008). As a sanction for that false testimony, the Judges struck all of the witness's testimony that offered “conclusions and opinions only admissible if presented as qualified expert testimony.” Id. at 4. At the Judges' discretion, they retained portions of the witness's testimony that were “merely reports or compilations of industry facts and data such as might have been presented by a lay witness familiar with the industry and having access to documents provided in discovery.” Id.

        Under the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel system,2

           a participant in Library of Congress royalty distribution proceedings, pled guilty to a count of mail fraud for making fraudulent submissions to the Copyright Office in which he used false aliases and fictitious business entities to claim entitlement to cable and satellite system retransmission royalties. U.S. v. Galaz,
          No. 02-230 (D.D.C. May 30, 2002); U.S. v. Galaz, CR 02-0230-01 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2002).

            2 The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels arbitrated royalty rate and distribution controversies prior to enactment of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, which initiated the Copyright Royalty Judges program.

        After serving a prison term, and with approval of the sentencing court, the sanctioned individual continued to represent claimants in proceedings before the CRB. In one such proceeding, the Judges found that the same individual did not testify truthfully. Memorandum Opinion and Ruling on Validity and Categorization of Claims at 8, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II) and 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 SD (Phase II) (March 13, 2015) (Memorandum Opinion and Ruling). In determining a sanction for the false testimony, the Judges analyzed whether they had authority to debar or otherwise disqualify a claimant representative for misconduct. The Judges concluded that “[a]ssuming, without deciding, that the Judges do possess the inherent authority to debar or otherwise disqualify a claimant representative for misconduct, the Judges find that it would be inappropriate to exercise that authority in the absence of regulations governing how, and under what circumstances they may do so.” Id. at 9. The Judges concluded that:

          Participants are entitled to “official . . . guidance as to what acts will precipitate a complaint of misconduct, how charges will be made, met or refuted, and what consequences will flow from misconduct if found.” Even though, in this particular instance, all of the participants know—or should know—that giving false testimony under oath in an official proceeding is serious misconduct, there is nevertheless no “official guidance” in either the Copyright Act or CRB Rules concerning the consequences of that misconduct. Sadly, this case highlights the urgent need for such official guidance.

          Id., quoting Gonzales v. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (internal citation omitted).
        In the absence of official guidance on what consequences would flow from misconduct, the Judges denied the claimant representative presenting the witness the presumption of validity that each filed claim is compliant with the authority, veracity, and good faith standards now codified in 37 CFR 360.3(b)(1)(vi).3

            3 In response to the Judges' remedy, the claimant representative asserted that it could overcome the loss of the presumption of validity by simply appointing an agent to adjudicate the claims that it had been hired to represent. The Judges responded that “[g]iven the circumstances that have led to [the representative's] loss of the `presumption of validity,' such a transparent subterfuge could well constitute fresh and sufficient evidence to cast doubt on [the representative's] representation, underscoring the need to place the burden on [the representative] to substantiate its claims.” Memorandum Opinion and Ruling at 12-13, n.14.

          Nevertheless, in a subsequent distribution proceeding, the same representative assigned its right to represent claims to a family member doing business under a newly-registered business name, perhaps with the intention of avoiding the loss of the presumption of validity. See, e.g., MPAA's Motion for Disallowance of Claims Made by Multigroup Claimants at 3, Docket Nos. 14-CRB-0010 CD and 14-CRB-0011 SD (2010-2013) (Oct. 11, 2016). Regardless of the motivation behind the party's decision to replace itself as a claims representative with an affiliate in that particular proceeding, the claim representative's actions (about which the Judges do not currently opine) highlight the importance of a mechanism to sanction parties, witnesses, and counsel that violate CRB rules or the Judges' orders, or that otherwise engage in behavior that would warrant preventing them from future participation in proceedings before the Judges.

        The Judges have indicated they would “welcome petitions for rulemaking that discuss their authority to adopt, and recommend the content of, rules, if any, sanctioning misconduct on the part of counsel or parties in CRB proceedings.” Memorandum Opinion and Ruling at 9 n.7. The Judges received none. The Judges, therefore, propose these regulations to establish and publicize standards of conduct and to enumerate, without limitation, responses to violations of those standards.

        In designing procedures for imposing appropriate sanctions for fraud or misrepresentation to the CRB, the Judges stress the importance of providing more consistent guidance to individuals and entities that have business before the CRB. In addition, the Judges recognize the value of providing a mechanism that is less prone to evasion than the ad hoc approaches the Judges have employed in the past.4
           The Judges intend the proposed new rule to supplement rather than replace the case-specific evidentiary rulings or sanctions they have imposed in the past. Consistent with these goals, the Judges propose a new CRB Rule 350.9: Violation of Standards of Conduct. The proposed new rule clarifies the expectation and requirement that all persons appearing in proceedings before the Judges act with integrity and in an ethical manner.

            4 In the past to address objectionable behavior, the Judges have imposed, for example, discovery sanctions, evidentiary burden shifting, and have declined to consider material offered for the record.

        The proposed new rule language authorizes the Judges, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, to deny, either temporarily or permanently, to a person or entity that violates the expected standards of conduct the privilege of participating as a representative, agent, witness, or attorney in a CRB proceeding. In particular, the proposed new language would authorize the Judges to deny participation to any attorney who has been suspended or disbarred by a court of the United States or of any State or to any person whose license to practice as an accountant, engineer, or other professional or expert, has been revoked or suspended in any State.
        Moreover, under the proposed rule, the Judges could bar participation by any person who has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. The proposed new rule also would authorize the Judges to deny participation by any entity that employs or retains in any capacity any person described in paragraph (b)(1) to assist in administering the distribution of royalties to claimants or to submit or prepare royalty claims or evidence to be used in a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board.
        The proposed rule would authorize the Judges to deny participation by any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable. In addition, the proposed rule would authorize the Judges, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to deny participation by any person who knowingly or recklessly provides false oral or written testimony or who knowingly sponsors false documents under oath or affirmation in a proceeding. Finally, the proposed rule would authorize the Judges to deny participation by any person who has violated any CRB rule or regulation.
        The proposed rule would allow a person denied participation in a CRB proceeding or barred as a witness to apply for reinstatement at any time. The Judges may, in their discretion, permit a hearing on the reinstatement application, but the suspension or disqualification would continue unless and until the Judges have reinstated the applicant for good cause shown.
        Solicitation of Comments

        The Judges seek comments on the proposed new rule. Preliminarily, the Judges believe the proposed rule is necessary to allow them to carry out their responsibilities under the Copyright Act and is consistent with the Judges' goal to provide consistent guidance to people and entities regarding the Judges' expectations of conduct in Copyright Royalty Board proceedings and other dealings with the Copyright Royalty Board. The Judges seek comments on whether they should adopt the proposed rule. Any commenter that does not believe the proposed rule is necessary or appropriate, must discuss any alternatives that the Judges have available that would allow them to continue to preserve the integrity of Copyright Royalty Board proceedings.

        The Judges also seek comments on whether the categories described in the proposed rule are sufficient for the Judges to achieve the goal of preserving the integrity of Copyright Royalty Board proceedings or whether additional categories also should be included. If so, which categories should be added? Should any of the proposed categories be removed from the proposal? If so, which categories and why? Should time limits be placed on any or all of the categories? For example, if a person violated a CRB rule in the distant past (e.g., 5 years ago? 10 years ago?), should that person still be subject to a denial of participation in future proceedings? What criteria should the Judges' consider in determining whether a denial of participation should be temporary or permanent? If a claims representative is barred from participation in proceedings before the Judges, how should the claims that that person or entity represented be treated? For example, should the claimants be required to represent themselves (either individually or jointly) or should they be allowed to select a new representative? In the alternative, should the Judges assign the claims of a barred representative to another claims representative already participating in the proceeding?

        With respect to reinstatement applications, does the proposal provide a sufficient means for persons or entities to seek reinstatement? If not, what other means should be available? If the Judges deny a reinstatement application, when, if ever, should the applicant be permitted to file a subsequent application? For example, should there be a “cooling off” period between applications? If so, how long should that period be? In considering subsequent reinstatement applications, should the Judges apply the same standard as they applied in considering the first application or should a different standard apply (e.g., a showing of new evidence, other than the mere passage of time, subsequent to the initial application denial)?
        How To Submit Comments
        Interested members of the public must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. If not submitting by email or online, commenters must submit an original of their comments, five paper copies, and an electronic version in searchable PDF format on a CD.

          Email:
          crb@loc.gov; or

          Online:
          http://www.regulations.gov; or

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

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

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

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

          List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 350
          Administrative practice and procedure, Copyright.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Board proposes to amend 37 CFR part 350 as follows:

          PART 350—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 350 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          17 U.S.C. 803.

        2. Add § 350.9 to read as follows:

          § 350.9
          Violation of standards of conduct.
          (a) Standards of conduct. All persons appearing in proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Board are expected to act with integrity and in an ethical manner.
          (b) Suspension and debarment. After notice and opportunity for hearing, the Copyright Royalty Judges may deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of participating as a representative, agent, attorney, or witness in a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to:

          (1) Any attorney who has been suspended or disbarred by a court of the United States or of any State; any person whose license to practice as an accountant, engineer, or other professional or expert has been revoked or suspended in any State; or any person who has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. A disbarment, suspension, revocation, or conviction within the meaning of this section shall be deemed to have occurred when the disbarring, suspending, revoking, or convicting agency or tribunal enters its judgment or order, including a judgment or order on a plea of nolo contendere, regardless of whether the person has taken or could take an appeal of the judgment or order.
          (2) Any entity that employs or retains in any capacity any person described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to assist in administering the distribution of royalties to claimants or to submit or prepare royalty claims or evidence to be used in a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board.
          (3) Any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable.
          (4) Any person who knowingly or recklessly provides false oral or written testimony or who knowingly sponsors false documents under oath or affirmation in a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board.
          (5) Any person who has violated any Copyright Royalty Board rules or regulations.
          (c) Reinstatement. A person denied the privilege of participating in a Copyright Royalty Board proceeding or barred as a witness under this rule may apply for reinstatement at any time, but no more often than once in a 12-month period measured from the time of disposition of an application. The Copyright Royalty Judges may, in their discretion, permit a hearing on the application. The suspension or disqualification shall continue unless and until the Judges have reinstated the applicant for good cause shown.

          Dated: April 7, 2017.
          Suzanne M. Barnett
          Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.

      [FR Doc. 2017-07403 Filed 4-19-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 1410-72-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH40
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of a Public Hearing and Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Endangered Status for the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), give notice that we are holding a public hearing for the proposed rule to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti) as endangered with critical habitat under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We also give notice of the extension of the comment period for the proposed rule for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The extension of the comment period will be for 30 additional days (until December 5, 2001). We invite all interested parties to submit comments on this proposal. The extension of the comment period will allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal. Comments already submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determination.

          DATES:
          We will hold a public hearing at the Alamogordo Civic Center, 800 East First Street, Alamogordo, New Mexico, from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2001, to solicit comments on the proposed rule to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as endangered with critical habitat. The comment period for this proposal now closes on December 5, 2001. Comments must be received by the closing date. We will consider all comments received at the public hearing or those submitted in writing by December 5, 2001, the closing date of the comment period on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit written comments and materials concerning the proposal at the hearing or send them directly to Joy Nicholopoulos, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113. Written comments may also be sent by facsimile to (505) 346-2542 or through the Internet to R2FWE_AL@fws.gov. All comments, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released. You may also hand-deliver written comments to our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the above address. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule from the above address, by calling 505/346-2525, ext. 135, or from our website at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Library/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Hein, Endangered Species Biologist, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address (telephone 505/346-2525, ext. 135; facsimile 505/346-2542) or visit our website at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On December 27, 1999, we published a substantial 90-day finding indicating that listing the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly may be warranted and initiated a status review for the required 12-month finding (64 FR 72300). On September 6, 2001, we published a proposed rule to list the butterfly as endangered with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (66 FR 46575). The proposed rule constitutes our 12-month administrative finding. The 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule is extended and now closes on December 5, 2001. In the proposed rule, we determined that much of the remaining suitable habitat, and the long term persistence of the subspecies, is threatened by the direct and indirect effects, or some combination thereof, of commercial and private development, Forest Service projects (e.g., campground reconstruction, powerline construction, road maintenance), fire suppression activities, highway reconstruction, off-highway vehicle use, trampling, and overgrazed range conditions (66 FR 46575). The butterfly is also threatened by encroachment of conifers and non-native vegetation into non-forested openings, over collection, and, due to its limited range, vulnerability to local extirpations from extreme weather events or catastrophic wildfire. We concluded that the extent of known localities and the non-forested suitable habitat, and the quality of the remaining suitable habitat are threatened. We expect the significant amount of habitat conversion from commercial and private development, which has occurred over the last several decades, will increase and continue to further degrade or eliminate the quality and quantity of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly habitat, placing the animal in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The butterfly is vulnerable because of its limited range, over collection, and habitat degradation.
        If the proposed rule is finalized, section 7(a)(2) of the Act would require that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts that could arise from specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We request data and comments from the public and all interested parties on all aspects of the proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the proposed designation.

        We stated in the proposed rule that should a public hearing be requested, then we would announce the date, time, and place for the hearing in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the hearing. This notice provides information regarding that hearing and extends the comment period an additional 30 days.

        Public hearings are designed to gather relevant information that the public may have that we should consider in our rule-making. During the hearing, we will present information about the proposed action. We invite the public to submit information and comments either at the hearings or in writing. This notice and public hearing will allow all interested parties to submit comments on the proposed rule and proposed designation. We are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposal.

        We may have to limit the time allotted for oral statements, if the number of people who wish to comment necessitates such a limitation. We encourage persons wishing to comment at the hearings to provide a written copy of their statement at the start of the hearing. There is no limit on the length of written comments. Persons may send written comments to our office (see ADDRESSES section) at any time during the open comment period, which is extended and now closes on December 5, 2001. We will give equal consideration to oral and written comments. We are publishing legal notices announcing the date, time, and location of the hearing in newspapers, concurrently with this Federal Register notice.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). However, when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, pursuant to the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for the critical habitat designation. We will notify the public of the availability of the draft NEPA document for this proposal so that interested and affected parties may participate and contribute to a final decision. The draft NEPA document will be sent out for a minimum 45-day public comment period, during which comments will be solicited.

        In addition, we will conduct a robust economic analysis on the effects of the proposed critical habitat designation prior to a final determination. We will conduct an analysis that complies with the ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, et. al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. When the draft economic analysis is completed, we will announce its availability with a notice in the Federal Register, and we will reopen the comment period at that time to accept comments on the draft economic analysis, draft NEPA document, or further comment on the proposed rule. We will also transmit the draft documents to all who commented on the proposed rule, and send the documents to anyone who requests a copy. We are particularly interested in comments or suggestions on reasons why any particular area should or should not be designated as critical habitat, information on the distribution and quality of habitat for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, land use practices and current or planned activities in areas that may be affected by a designation of critical habitat, and any other pertinent issues of concern.

        Author: The primary author of this notice is Eric Hein (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: September 17, 2001.
          Nancy M. Kaufman,
          Regional Director, Region 2.

      [FR Doc. 01-24037 Filed 9-25-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0808; FRL-9932-49-Region 6]

        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to finalize a change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a 2014 EPA approval to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Texas' Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program and to show that the SIP deficiency identified in a prior partial disapproval for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has been addressed.

          DATES:
          Written comments should be received on or before October 5, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carl Young, 214-665-6645, young.carl@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is finalizing a change to the CFR without prior proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. The change is to reflect a 2014 EPA approval to a SIP revision to regulate GHGs in the Texas PSD permitting program and to show that the SIP deficiency identified in a prior partial disapproval has been addressed. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

        For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: August 26, 2015.
          Ron Curry,
          Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 2015-22036 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P