        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 012301A]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearing

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting/public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 108th meeting February 12 through February 15, 2001, in Honolulu, HI.

          DATES:

          The Council’s Standing Committees will meet on February 12, 2001, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.  The full Council meeting will be held on February 13, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and February 14 and 15, 2001, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.  A public hearing will be held on February 13, 2001, at 4 p.m. on a framework amendment to extend the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) lobster fishery closure. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times for these meetings and the hearing.

          ADDRESSES:
          The Council meeting, Standing Committee meetings, and public hearing will be held at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, HI; telephone: 808-955-4811.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Dates and Times
        Committee Meetings

        The following Standing Committees of the Council will meet on February 12, 2001.  Enforcement/Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.; International Fisheries/Pelagics from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.; Executive/Budget and Program from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.; Precious Corals from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.; Crustaceans from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.; Bottomfish from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m; Ecosystem and Habitat from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Fishery Rights of Indigenous People from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
        Public Hearing
        A public hearing will be held on February 13, 2000, at 4 p.m. on a framework amendment to extend the NWHI lobster fishery closure.
        The agenda during the full Council meeting will include the items listed below.  In addition, the Council will hear recommendations from its advisory panels, plan teams, scientific and statistical committee, and other ad hoc groups.  Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda.  The order in which agenda items are addressed may change.  The Council will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
        Agenda
        1. Introductions
        2. Approval of Agenda
        3. Approval of 107th Meeting Minutes
        4. Island Reports
        A. American Samoa
        B. Guam
        C. Hawaii
        D. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
        5. Federal Fishery Agency and Organization Reports
        A. Department of Commerce
        (1) NMFS
        (a) Southwest Region, Pacific Island Area Office
        (b) Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla and Honolulu Laboratories
        (2) NOAA General Counsel, Southwest Region
        B. Department of the Interior
        (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
        C. U.S. State Department
        6. Enforcement
        A. U.S. Coast Guard activities
        B. NMFS activities
        C. Commonwealth, Territories, and State activities
        D. Report on State/NMFS/USCG meeting
        E. Cooperative agreements for Guam/CNMI
        F. Status of violations
        7. VMS
        A. Hawaii VMS report
        B. Report on national VMS efforts
        C. Assessment of VMS needs in American Samoa, Guam, CNMI
        8.  Precious Corals
        A.  Status of 1999 framework amendment regarding new harvesting requirements
        B.  Status of 2000 framework adjustment regarding Hawaiian Islands exploratory area quota increase
        C. Precious Coral draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
        9.  Bottomfish Fisheries
        A. Status of the stocks
        B. Status of the fishery: litigation, Biological Opinion (BO), observers
        C. Status of DEIS
        10. Crustacean Fisheries
        A. Framework measure for closure of the fishery
        B. Status of spring research tagging charter
        C. Status of plans for 5-year review/technical review panel
        D. Status of DEIS
        E. Public hearing on a framework amendment to extend the NWHI lobster fishery closure.
        In early 2000, while developing the estimate of the annual exploitable lobster population and harvest guideline for the NWHI commercial  lobster fishery, NMFS’ scientists noted increasing uncertainty in model parameter estimates, as well as problems with the model assumptions, and concluded that the estimates may be inaccurate and should be used cautiously.
        The underlying concern with these population estimates revolves around the use of mixed species and spatially disaggregated data (i.e., under bank-specific harvest guidelines first implemented in 1998) in an algorithm designed to estimate aggregated, single species populations.
        Specific concerns surround the validity of the following assumptions of the model:  that homogeneous population dynamics exist between banks; that there is constant recruitment throughout the NWHI; that the model’s catchability estimates are correct; that natural mortality is constant irrespective of species, age, or sex; and that commercial catch per unit of effort (CPUE) is a reliable index of lobster abundance in the NWHI.  Based on new information from research surveys, tagging data, and recent advances in NMFS’ understanding, these assumptions have been increasingly called into question.  Declining commercial CPUE in recent years suggests that lobster populations are not rebuilding.  Based on the above problems, including reductions in both catches and catch rates, NMFS closed the NWHI commercial lobster fishery for the 2000 lobster season as a precautionary measure.  NMFS scientists are continuing work to refine the model used to estimate exploitable populations, as well as to gather fishery independent data that can be used to reassess the model’s assumptions and parameters. A charter tagging cruise is tentatively planned for the spring and a research cruise for the summer (if funding is available). Last year’s emergency closure of the fishery was authorized under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) based on recent data suggesting low recruitment in the fishery.
        11. Pelagic Fisheries
        A. Fourth quarter 2000 Hawaii and American Samoa longline fishery report
        B. Turtle management
        (1) Pelagic DEIS:  preferred alternative
        (2) BO, recommended measures
        C. Shark management:  Amendment 9 blue shark quota following state and Federal finning bans.
        In July 2000, the Council sent NMFS Amendment 9 to its Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP).  Among the measures contained in the amendment was a 50,000 blue shark annual harvest guideline that was based on the average number of blue sharks caught and retained for finning, i.e., removing the fins from sharks and discarding the remainder of the carcasses at sea.
        However, a new Federal law was enacted in December, 2000, (the Shark Finning Prohibition Act), that amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act and banned the landing of shark fins without the accompanying shark carcasses throughout the United States.  Consequently, the Council will revisit the provisions of Amendment 9 since the basis of the 50,000 harvest guideline for blue sharks is no longer relevant and, in its present form, the amendment would only be partially approved by NMFS.  The Council will review the amendment and consider several options, including a no-harvest guideline for blue sharks, maintaining the present 50,000 blue shark harvest guideline with a requirement specifying that carcasses must be landed with fins, or a new harvest guideline based on a potential directed fishery for blue sharks.

        D. Seabird management:  USFWS BO regarding interactions with the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery
        E. Proposed Kingman Reef wildlife refuge: environmental assessment
        F. Hawaii offshore handline fishery and gear conflicts at Cross seamount
        G. Exclusion of purse-seine vessels from American Samoa 50 nautical mile (nm) closed area proposal
        In October 2000, the Council sent NMFS an FMP framework measure to its Pelagics FMP, that would establish a 50 nautical mile closed area around all the islands of American Samoa, in which U.S. pelagic fishing vessels > 50 ft (15.24 m) in overall length would be prohibited from fishing.  This would include large longline, purse seine, and trolling vessels.  This measure, requested by American Samoa fishermen, is intended to protect the expanding small-scale artisanal longline fishery based on small 30-40 ft (9.1-12.2 m) outboard-powered catamarans.  At the 107th  Council Meeting in November 2000, the American Samoa Council members expressed the American Samoa government’s desire that purse seine vessels be exempted from the terms of this management measure.  The Council voted at the 107th  meeting to discuss this exemption at the next Council meeting.  The Council will review the framework measure and the options for exemption of purse seiners from the provisions of the 50 nm closed area.
        H. Re-categorization of Hawaii longline fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
        12. Ecosystems and Habitat
        A. Draft Coral Reef Ecosystems Fishery Management Plan and Draft EIS
        (1) Aspects for further discussion
        (2) Review of (initial) public and agency comments
        B. Impacts of Executive Order 13178 on NWHI fisheries:  Fishery disaster relief
        13. Fishery Rights of Indigenous People
        A. Eligibility criteria for Community Development Program bottomfish Mau zone permit
        B. Eligibility criteria for Community Demonstration Projects
        C. Local observer program update
        D. Hawaiian green sea turtle cultural and religious uses
        E. Status of Marine Conservation Plans
        14. Program Planning
        A. Reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens Act, ESA, and Antiquities Act
        B. Status of marine debris initiative
        C. Palmyra Atoll
        (1) Establishment of National Wildlife Refuge
        (2) Fisheries management and development
        D. Fishing activities, support operations at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
        E. Report on program planning activities
        F. Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network/Fisheries Data Coordinating Committee
        15. Administrative Matters
        A. Administrative reports
        B. Upcoming meetings and workshops including the 109th Council meeting
        C. Advisory group member changes
        16. 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 any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided 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:
          1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 1, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-3098 Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 18-184; FCC 18-69]
        New FM Radio Broadcast Class C4 and To Modify the Requirements for Designating Short-Spaced Assignments

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of inquiry.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), based on a petition for rulemaking filed by SSR Communications, Inc., in which the Commission sought comment on a proposal to create a new class of FM radio stations, Class C4, and to establish a procedure for designating certain FM stations.

          DATES:
          Comments may be filed on or before August 13, 2018 and reply comments may be filed on or before September 10, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 18-184, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          • People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2721; James Bradshaw, Deputy Division Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2739. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Inquiry, FCC 18-69, adopted June 4, 2018, and released June 5, 2018. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://https://www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
        1. Introduction. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission explores the possibility of amending part 73 of the Commission's Rules to create an intermediate class of FM broadcast stations in Zone II between Class A and Class C3, to be designated Class C4. Commission staff estimates that 127 Class C3 stations, or 14 percent of the total number of Class C3 stations, are operating with facilities that are less than the proposed Class C3 minimums and thus could be subject to reclassification to Class C4. It also explores the possibility of establishing a procedure whereby an FM station in the non-reserved band (Channels 221-300), regardless of Zone or station class, could be designated as a Section 73.215 facility, resulting in such station receiving interference protection based on its actual authorized operating parameters rather than the maximum permitted parameters for its station class.
        2. Class C4 proposal. This proceeding was initiated by a petition for rulemaking filed by SSR Communications, Inc. (SSR). SSR advocates the creation of a new Class C4 with an effective radiated power (ERP) that must exceed 6 kilowatts, a maximum ERP of 12 kilowatts, and a reference HAAT of 100 meters. The ERP that Class C3 stations must exceed would increase from 6 kilowatts to 12 kilowatts, but the maximum ERP would remain at 25 kilowatts. In addition, under the current rules, a station can operate below the minimum ERP for its class provided its HAAT allows it to exceed the class contour distance for the next lower class (for example, a Class C3 station must exceed the Class A contour distance of 28 kilometers). Under the SSR proposal, the next lower class for a Class C3 station would be Class C4, with a contour distance of 33 kilometers. SSR proposes amending Sections 73.207(b)(1), 73.210(a), 73.210(b), 73.211(a)(1), 73.211(b), and 73.215(e) of the Rules to implement these changes. SSR argues that a new Class C4 would provide upgrade opportunities for Class A facilities, particularly minority-owned stations, and create consistent ERP intervals between FM classes.
        3. Affected stations and their listeners. Would the creation of a Class C4 materially benefit existing Class A stations by providing them with an opportunity to upgrade that is not possible today based on the current Class C3 parameters? Would Class A stations and their listeners, particularly in rural or underserved areas, benefit from the new Class C4? Is there a significant demand for the rule changes proposed by SSR? How many stations are likely to be affected by such a rule change? As suggested by SSR, would the creation of a Class C4 be particularly beneficial for minority-owned Class A stations by providing them with an opportunity to upgrade? Would this action encourage diversity of ownership in the FM broadcast industry? Would there be a detrimental effect on existing stations and/or their listeners generally, either from increased interference or reclassification (upgrade or downgrade)?
        4. Secondary services. How would a new Class C4 affect secondary services (FM translators and LPFM stations), as well as AM primary stations that rebroadcast on FM translator stations? Are there lawful ways to mitigate or eliminate the impact of this proposal on secondary services, and, if so, what measures would be effective or appropriate? To what extent, if any, does the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA) impact the Commission's ability to protect existing FM translator and LPFM stations? In particular, would such protections be consistent with the LCRA directive that the “Federal Communications Commission, when licensing new FM translators, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations . . . ensure . . . that . . . (3) [these stations] remain equal in status and secondary to existing and modified full-service FM stations”? In this respect, the Commission notes that it would be reluctant to adopt any proposal in this area that would have a significantly negative impact on FM translators and LPFM stations.
        5. Allocation goals. Given the maturity of the FM service, would an increased density of signals resulting from Class A stations upgrading to Class C4 provide improved FM service coverage, or merely contribute to a higher “noise floor” overall while only modestly benefiting individual stations? Would upgrades to Class C4 increase the overall number of radio stations available to listeners or create interference that would degrade reception for stations in areas where there is currently a listenable signal, resulting in fewer listening choices for listeners? More generally, is there a “tipping point” at which increasingly granular station classifications are no longer conducive to efficient signal coverage and, if so, has that point been reached?
        6. Implementation procedures. What is the appropriate balance of interests between the anticipated benefit of creating a new class of FM stations and the disruption entailed in the reclassification of existing stations? If a new class is created, should the Commission implement a blanket reclassification process, as it did in 1983 and 1989, by requiring existing Class C3 stations to file for modification to meet the proposed revised minimum facility requirements for Class C3 stations within a set time frame or be reclassified based on their actual operating facilities? Should the mere filing for a modification be sufficient to avoid reclassification or should the Commission also require construction to be completed by a date certain? If a date certain is set for filing a modification or completing construction, what would be a reasonable amount of time for licensees to comply? Would a blanket reclassification provide more reliable and timely opportunities for upgrade than the show cause procedure outlined in the next paragraph?
        7. Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a show cause procedure similar to that currently in use for Class C0, whereby a Class C3 station operating below the proposed revised minimum facility requirements for Class C3 stations would be reclassified only after the filing of a “triggering” application that requires it to be reclassified to Class C4? Should the affected Class C3 station have the opportunity to preserve its Class C3 status by filing a construction permit application to upgrade its facility to meet Class C3 minimums? The Commission notes that the Commission's licensing staff has found that the Class C0 show cause procedure appears to incentivize delay and contention between the parties. Have licensees experienced delay or other difficulties using the Class C0 show cause procedure? Is the blanket reclassification process described in the preceding paragraph preferable for that reason? Are there other implementation approaches the Commission should consider that might address or avoid problems identified with this show cause procedure?
        8. Other issues. To what extent, if any, does the LCRA impact the Commission's creation of a new class of FM stations or reclassification of existing FM stations; in particular, the provision that the Commission “shall not amend its rules to reduce the minimum co-channel and first- and second-adjacent channel distance separation requirements in effect on [January 4, 2011] between—(A) low-power FM stations; and (B) full-service FM stations”? Are there specific rule changes that would be necessary or advisable to implement any of the foregoing proposals? The Commission also invites commenters to make suggestions as to how the Commission's forms and databases should be modified to implement the above proposals.
        9. Section 73.215 proposal. SSR argues that, by providing interference protection to a station's contours based on maximum class facilities, as opposed to the actual facilities, the Commission's rules overprotect stations operating with facilities below their class maximum. Accordingly, SSR proposes an amendment to Section 73.3573 of the Rules that would require such “sub-maximum” stations to be designated as Section 73.215 facilities using a procedure similar to the existing Class C0 show cause and reclassification procedure. Designation as a Section 73.215 facility would result in the sub-maximum station receiving interference protection based on its actual authorized operating parameters rather than the maximum permitted parameters for its station class. Under SSR's proposed procedure, stations not already authorized under Section 73.215 that, for ten years prior to the filing of a triggering application, have continuously operated with a HAAT or ERP below that of the class maximum (or equivalent class maximum HAAT and ERP combination in the case of station operating with a HAAT exceeding its reference HAAT) would be given an opportunity to upgrade to maximum class facilities or be subject to designation as a Section 73.215 facility.
        10. SSR recommends a show cause procedure to implement its Section 73.215 proposal. Specifically, the procedure would be initiated by the filing of a “triggering” application that specifies facilities that require the designation of the affected sub-maximum station as a Section 73.215 facility. Triggering applications may utilize Section 73.215 and must certify that no alternative channel is available for the proposed service. Copies of a triggering application and related pleadings would be required to be served on the licensee of the affected sub-maximum station. If the staff concludes that a triggering application is acceptable for filing, it would issue an order to show cause why the affected sub-maximum station should not be designated as a Section 73.215 station. The order to show cause would provide the licensee of the sub-maximum station 30 days to express in writing an intention to seek authority to modify its technical facilities to its maximum class HAAT and ERP (or equivalent combination thereof) or to otherwise challenge the triggering application. If no such intention is expressed and the triggering application is not challenged, the affected sub-maximum station would be designated as a Section 73.215 station and processing of the triggering application would be completed. If such intention is expressed within the 30-day period, an additional 180-day period would be provided during which the licensee of the sub-maximum station would be required to file an acceptable construction permit application to increase HAAT and/or ERP to its class maximum values (or equivalent combination thereof). Upon grant of such a construction permit application, the triggering application would be dismissed. As with Class C0 reclassifications, the licensee of the sub-maximum station would be required to serve on triggering applicants copies of any FAA submissions related to the application grant process. If the construction is not completed as authorized, the affected sub-maximum station would be automatically designated as a Section 73.215 facility. SSR's proposal raises issues similar to those posed by the Class C4 proposal, and the Commission seeks comment generally on the costs and benefits of the proposal.
        11. Affected stations and their listeners. Would the proposed Section 73.215 mechanism materially benefit stations seeking to upgrade and their listeners? What is the demand for such upgrades? Would there be a corresponding detrimental effect on listeners regarding loss of existing interference-free service provided by sub-maximum stations? The Commission has explained that its policy of protecting all stations as if they are operating at maximum permitted height or power for their class, even if they are in fact operating at or near the minimum permitted height and power for their class, “permits stations to improve technical facilities over time and provides a certain degree of flexibility for transmitter relocations.” To what extent would adoption of the Section 73.215 proposal undermine this policy? Is this policy still desirable in the mature FM service? What are the relevant factors that might affect the sub-maximum station's ability to upgrade to the class maximums, and have those factors changed due to technological or other developments? If a station has operated below maximum facilities for a sufficient period of time, can the Commission conclude that the station is either unwilling or unable to operate at maximum facilities, thereby justifying protecting such station based on actual operating parameters and allowing for more efficient utilization of FM spectrum? Is ten years of continuous “sub-maximum” operation the appropriate period of time before a station would be subject to involuntary Section 73.215 designation, as suggested by SSR, or is another period of time appropriate? To what extent should transfers of control or assignments of licensees impact the relevant time period? That is, should the time period apply per station or per licensee? For example, if the relevant time period is ten years and a station that has operated below class maximums for nine years is transferred or assigned to a third-party, should the new licensee have ten additional years to upgrade to class maximums free from potential designation as a Section 73.215 facility?
        12. Secondary services. The Commission seeks comment on the likely impact of full service station upgrades using the proposed Section 73.215 procedure on nearby secondary services or AM primary stations that rebroadcast on FM translator stations. Are there lawful ways to mitigate or eliminate the impact of this proposal on secondary services, and, if so, what measures would be effective or appropriate?
        13. Allocation goals. Would SSR's Section 73.215 proposal, if adopted, result in increased interference levels in the FM band? In particular, would the increased density of signals resulting from upgraded stations provide improved FM service coverage, or merely contribute to a higher “noise floor” overall while only modestly benefiting individual stations? Is this proposal in tension with the original purpose of Section 73.215 to afford applicants greater flexibility in the selection of transmitter sites? Should the Commission significantly expand the applicability of Section 73.215 as proposed by SSR, and what would be the policy and legal justifications for doing so? Does the Commission's long history of licensing thousands of stations in the reserved band—using a contour methodology based on stations' authorized facilities—show that expanding eligibility for Section 73.215 processing would result in increased or decreased services for listeners?
        14. Implementation procedures. If the Section 73.215 proposal is adopted, should the Commission follow SSR's suggested procedures, which are based on those currently in use for Class C0? Should the triggering applicant be required to certify that no alternative channel is available for the proposed service? Should the Commission use a show cause procedure, and if so, what deadlines would be appropriate?
        15. Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a more streamlined procedure whereby all sub-maximum stations would be provided a date certain by which they must file an upgrade application or automatically become subject to immediate designation as a Section 73.215 facility upon the filing of an acceptable application from another licensee seeking to upgrade its facilities? What would be a reasonable amount of time to allow sub-maximum stations to file upgrade applications before becoming subject to automatic designation as a Section 73.215 facility? Would such a procedure avoid unnecessary delays in providing new FM service and incentivize more stations to upgrade to their class maximums? Would there be any disadvantages with this approach? Are there other streamlined implementation approaches the Commission should consider?
        16. Other issues. The Commission invites comment on other details of SSR's Section 73.215 proposal. Which applicants should be permitted to use the proposed Section 73.215 procedure? Does “sub-maximum” include all stations operating at less than class maximums, or should the Commission establish a cutoff whereby a station would not be subject to designation as a Section 73.215 facility if it operates at a minimal distance below its class maximum contour distance, such as two kilometers? How would the proposal affect stations that are short-spaced under Section 73.213 of the Rules? Are there specific rule changes that would be necessary to implement the proposal? The Commission also invites commenters to make suggestions as to how its forms and databases should be modified to implement the Section 73.215 proposal.
        17. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule. None.
        Ex Parte Rules
        18. Permit But Disclose. The proceeding this NOI initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        Filing Procedures

        19. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

          Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

          Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

         Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

         All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
         Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
         U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

          People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Ordering Clause
        20. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2018-14880 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 228
        [EPA-R04-OW-2020-0056; FRL-10006-07-Region 4]
        Ocean Dumping: Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore of Port Everglades, Florida

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a modification of the existing EPA designated ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) offshore of Port Everglades, Florida (referred to hereafter as the existing Port Everglades ODMDS) pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The primary purpose for the site modification is to enlarge the site to serve the long-term need for a location to dispose of suitable material dredged from the Port Everglades Harbor and for the disposal of suitable dredged material for persons who receive a MPRSA permit for such disposal. The modified site will be subject to monitoring and management to ensure continued protection of the marine environment.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 13, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-2020-0056, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments and accessing the docket and materials related to this proposed rule.
          • Email:
            OceanDumpingR4@epa.gov.
          • Mail: Wade Lehmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Division, Oceans and Estuarine Management Section, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-2020-0056. The EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours from the regional library at the EPA, Region 4 Library, 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For access to the documents at the Region 4 Library, contact the Region 4 Library Reference Desk at (404) 562-8190, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and between the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, for an appointment.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Wade Lehmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Division, Oceans and Estuarine Management Section, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone number (404) 562-8082; email: Lehmann.Wade@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Potentially Affected Persons
        Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The EPA's proposed action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean waters offshore of Port Everglades, Florida. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be most affected by this action. Potentially affected categories and persons include:

            Category
            Examples of potentially regulated persons

            Federal Government
            USACE Civil Works projects, and other Federal agencies.

            Industry and general public
            Port authorities, marinas and harbors, shipyards and marine repair facilities, berth owners.

            State, local and tribal governments
            Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this proposed action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        II. Background
        a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of Port Everglades, Florida
        There is currently one designated ODMDS off the coast of Port Everglades, Florida. The existing Port Everglades ODMDS is located three nautical miles offshore of Fort Lauderdale. It is currently 1.43 square nautical miles (nmi2) in size. The Port Everglades ODMDS received final designation in 2005.
        The USACE Port Everglades District and the EPA Region 4 have identified a need to either designate a new ODMDS or modify the existing Port Everglades ODMDS. The need for modifying current ocean disposal capacity is based on future capacity requirements, historical dredging volumes, estimates of dredging volumes for future proposed projects, and limited capacity of upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs) in the area.

        The EPA is proposing to modify, by expansion, the existing Port Everglades ODMDS rather than designate a new site off the coast of Port Everglades for ocean disposal of dredged material. The proposed modification of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS for dredged material does not mean that the USACE or the EPA has approved the use of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS or a modified Port Everglades ODMDS for open water disposal of dredged material from any specific project. Before any person can ocean dump dredged material at the existing Port Everglades ODMDS or a modified Port Everglades ODMDS, the EPA and the USACE must evaluate the project according to the ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR 227) and the USACE must authorize the disposal. Under section 103 of the MPRSA, the USACE is the federal agency that decides whether to issue a permit authorizing the ocean disposal of dredged materials. In the case of federal navigation projects, the USACE may implement the MPRSA directly in the USACE projects involving ocean disposal of dredged materials. The USACE relies on the EPA's ocean dumping criteria when evaluating permit requests for (and implementing federal projects involving) the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. MPRSA permits and federal projects involving ocean dumping of dredged material are subject to the EPA's review and concurrence in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1413(c). The EPA may concur with or without conditions or decline to concur (i.e., non-concur) on the permit. If the EPA concurs with conditions, the final permit or authorization must include those conditions. If EPA the declines to concur, the USACE cannot issue the permit for ocean dumping of dredged material or authorize the disposal. This action is supported by a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), which was provided for public notice and comment in February 2020 and is accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.
        b. Location and Configuration of the Proposed Modified Port Everglades ODMDS
        This action proposes the modification of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS. The proposed modified ODMDS is in -587 to -761 feet of water (-179 to -232 meters). The proposed modified ODMDS would expand the existing Port Everglades ODMDS from a size of approximately 1.34 nmi2 to 3.21 nmi2 in size. The location of the proposed modified ODMDS is bounded by the coordinates listed below. The proposed coordinates for the site are in North American Datum 83 (NAD 83):
        Proposed Modified Port Everglades ODMDS
        (A) 26°08.750′ N, 80°01.000′ W
        (B) 26°08.750′ N, 80°02.578′ W
        (C) 26°06.500′ N, 80°02.578′ W
        (D) 26°06.500′ N, 80°01.000′ W
        The proposed modification of the existing ODMDS will allow the EPA to adaptively manage the site to maximize its capacity, minimize the potential for mounding and loss of fine sediments outside of the site, and minimize the potential for any long-term adverse effects to the marine environment.
        c. Management and Monitoring of the Site

        The proposed modified ODMDS is expected to receive dredged material from the Federal navigation project at Port Everglades Harbor, Florida, and dredged material from other applicants who obtain a permit for the disposal of dredged material at the proposed modified ODMDS. All persons using the site will be required to follow the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the ODMDS that is specifically developed for the proposed modified ODMDS. A draft SMMP for the proposed modified ODMDS was noticed for public review in January 2020 along with the DEA and is accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices. The SMMP will be finalized by the EPA Region 4 and the USACE Jacksonville District following the consideration of comments received. The SMMP includes management and monitoring requirements to ensure that dredged materials disposed at the proposed modified ODMDS are suitable for disposal in the ocean and that adverse impacts of disposal, if any, are addressed to the maximum extent practicable. This includes provisions to avoid and minimize potential impacts to coral reefs present near Port Everglades. The SMMP for the proposed modified ODMDS also addresses management of the site to ensure adverse mounding and dispersal of fine sediments does not occur and ensures that disposal events minimize interference with other uses of ocean waters near the proposed modified ODMDS.
        d. MPRSA Criteria
        In evaluating the proposed modified ODMDS, the EPA assessed the site according to the criteria of the MPRSA, with emphasis on the general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part 228, to determine whether the proposed site designation satisfies those criteria. The EPA's DEA provides an extensive evaluation of the criteria and other related factors for the modification of the existing ODMDS.
        General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)

          (a) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).

        Historically, an interim site located approximately 1.6 nautical miles from shore was used for ocean disposal of dredged material from Port Everglades Harbor but was discontinued in the 1980s due to potential impacts of sediments on nearby coral reef resources. The existing Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS was designated in 2005 under Section 103 of the MPRSA, as there was no nearby EPA-designated ODMDS. The evaluation for the 2005 designation included considerations of potential interference with other activities in the marine environment including avoiding areas of existing critical fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation. These evaluations were reconsidered from 2010 through to the present time as the proposed modified ODMDS continued to be assessed.

          (b) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).

        The proposed ODMDS modification area will be used for disposal of suitable dredged material as determined by Section 103 of the MPRSA. Based on the USACE and EPA sediment testing and evaluation procedures, disposal of dredged maintenance material and proposed new work material is not expected to have any long-term impact on water quality. The existing Port Everglades ODMDS and proposed modified ODMDS are located sufficiently far from shore and fisheries resources to allow temporary water quality disturbances caused by disposal of dredged material to be reduced to ambient conditions before reaching any environmentally sensitive areas.

          (c) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts, and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size, configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).

        The location, size, and configuration of the proposed modified ODMDS provides long-term capacity, while also permitting effective site management, site monitoring, and limiting environmental impacts to the surrounding area to the greatest extent practicable.
        Based on projected new work and maintenance dredging, and permitted dredged material disposal needs, it is estimated that the proposed modified ODMDS should be approximately 3.21 nmi2 in size to meet the anticipated long-term disposal needs of the area. This would provide the proposed modified ODMDS with an estimated capacity of approximately 6.7 million cubic yards, which is sufficient to manage risk, account for future unknown disposal operations from private entities, and provide a margin of navigation safety.

        By adding approximately 2.2 nmi2 to the existing Port Everglades ODMDS, the total area of the proposed modified Port Everglades ODMDS would be 3.21 nmi2. An ODMDS of this size and capacity will provide a long-term ocean disposal option for the greater Port Everglades area.

        When determining the size of the proposed site, the ability to implement effective monitoring and surveillance programs was considered to ensure that the environment of the site could be protected, and that navigational safety would not be compromised by the mounding of dredged material. An SMMP is being developed and will be implemented to determine if disposal at the site is significantly affecting adjacent areas and to detect the presence of adverse effects. At a minimum, the monitoring program will consist of bathymetric surveys, sediment grain size analysis, chemical analysis of constituents of concern in the sediments, and an assessment of the constitution of the benthic community.

          (d) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).

        The existing Port Everglades ODMDS and proposed expansion of the ODMDS are beyond the edge of the continental shelf.
        Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
        (1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and Distance From Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1))
        The proposed modified ODMDS is on the Florida Continental Slope, four nautical miles offshore of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Water depths range from -179 to -232 meters (-587 to -761 feet), with an average depth of 207 meters (-678 feet). Sediments consist of sand with various mixtures of sand and silts with scattered rubble hardbottom. The DEA contains a map of the proposed ODMDS modification. The expansion retains the ODMDS off the continental shelf in a range that is not expected to allow sediments to travel to nearby shore-associated coral reef habitat.
        (2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40 CFR 228.6(a)(2))
        The proposed modified ODMDS has been selected to avoid the presence of any exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas for adult or juvenile phases of living resources.
        (3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 228.6(a)(3))
        The center of the proposed modified ODMDS is several miles from any beaches or amenity areas. No significant impacts to beaches or amenity areas associated with the existing Port Everglades ODMDS have been detected. The U.S. Navy has facilities south of the ODMDS and were consulted to verify that no impediments will exist with the expanded ODMDS.
        (4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be Disposed of, and Proposed Methods of Release, Including Methods of Packing the Waste, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4))
        Only suitable dredged material that meets the Ocean Dumping Criteria in 40 CFR 220-228 and receives a permit or is otherwise authorized for dumping by the USACE will be disposed in the proposed modified ODMDS. Dredged materials dumped in this area will be primarily sand and rock with some fines that originate from the Port Everglades Harbor. Average yearly disposal of dredged maintenance material into the proposed modified ODMDS is expected to be approximately 30,000 cubic yards and variable volumes of new work dredged material up to 6.7 million cubic yards. None of the material is packaged in any manner.

        Under section 103 of the MPRSA, the USACE is the federal agency that decides whether to issue a permit authorizing the ocean disposal of dredged materials. In the case of federal navigation projects involving ocean disposal of dredged materials, the USACE is subject to MPRSA, but does not require a USACE permit. The USACE relies on the EPA's ocean dumping criteria when evaluating permit requests for (and implementing federal projects involving) the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. MPRSA permits and federal projects involving ocean dumping of dredged material are subject to the EPA's review and concurrence. The EPA may concur, with or without conditions, or decline to concur on the permit, i.e. non-concur. If the EPA concurs with conditions, the final permit must include those conditions. If the EPA declines to concur (non-concurs) on an ocean dumping permit for dredged material, the USACE cannot issue the permit.
        (5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5))
        The EPA expects monitoring and surveillance at the proposed modified ODMDS to be feasible and readily performed from ocean or regional class research vessels. The area of the proposed modified ODMDS has been surveyed and sampled in 2004, 2007 and 2014. The EPA will monitor the site for physical, biological and chemical attributes as well as for potential impacts. Bathymetric surveys will be conducted routinely, and benthic infauna and epibenthic organisms will be monitored, as described in the SMMP for the site.
        (6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6))
        Current velocities vary throughout the water column and are subject to wind and the Florida Current based circulations which is generally northerly with eddies occuring that drive currents south. Currents measured at nearby sites are predominantly to the north or south on the order of 1-4 knots (50-200 centimeters per second).
        (7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7))
        Previous disposal of dredged material in the existing Port Everglades ODMDS has resulted in temporary increases in suspended sediment concentrations during disposal operations, burial of benthic organisms within the site, and slight changes in the abundance and composition of benthic assemblages. Short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects of dredged material disposal in the proposed modified ODMDS would be similar to those for the existing Port Everglades ODMDS, which are expected to be temporary and return to baseline over time.
        (8) Interference With Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8))

        There will be minor, short-term interferences with commercial and recreational boat traffic during the transport of dredged material to the proposed modified ODMDS. The site has not been identified as an area of special scientific importance. There are no aquaculture areas near the site. There may be recreational fishing in the area. The likelihood of direct interference with these activities is low, provided there is close communication and coordination among users of the ocean resources. The U.S. Navy, Fort Lauderdale Branch, Naval Surface Warfare Center range is located south of the existing and proposed expanded ODMDS. There will be no impact to either U.S. Navy operations due to the expansion of the ODMDS. The SMMP for the proposed modified ODMDS contains provisions for corrective measures if impacts to potential hardbottom habitat related to dredged material disposal are identified.
        (9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9))
        Water quality of the existing site is typical of the Florida coast. Water and sediment quality analyses conducted in the vicinity of the proposed modified ODMDS and experience with past disposals in the existing Port Everglades ODMDS have not identified any adverse water quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged material. The site supports benthic and epibenthic fauna characteristic of the region.
        (10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10))
        Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the vicinity of, the proposed modified ODMDS. Disposal of dredged material, as well as monitoring, has been ongoing for the past 14 years. Nuisance species have not been found. The dredged material to be disposed at the ODMDS is expected to be from similar locations to those dredged previously; therefore, it expected that any benthic organisms transported to the site would be relatively similar in nature to those already present.
        (11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40 CFR 228.6(a)(11))
        A maritime survey of this site was conducted in 2013 to identify areas of potential hardbottom resources as well as any historical artifacts. These efforts showed the presence of only two anomalies that when investigated were not likely to be indicative of potential historical or natural features. Wreckage from one modern sailing vessel was potentially identified in the northeast corner of the site. Scattered rubble hardbottom habitat was potentially identified within the expanded footprint.
        The SMMP for the ODMDS contains measures to monitor potential identified resources.
        III. Environmental Statutory Review
        a. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

        The EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document for expanding the existing Port Everglades ODMDS is the DEA, prepared by the EPA in cooperation with the USACE and issued for public review and comment in January 2020. Anyone desiring a copy of the DEA may access it at https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices, or obtain a copy from the address given above. The DEA issued in January 2020 amends a DEA that was previously issued for public review and comment in August 2013 to capture prior corresponding agency comments. Any comments received regarding the DEA issued in January 2020 will be provided in the Final Environmental Assessment for this proposed action. The DEA and its Appendices provide the threshold environmental review for modification of the ODMDS. The information from the DEA is used above in the discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.
        The proposed action discussed in the DEA is the permanent designation of a modified ODMDS offshore Port Everglades, Florida. The purpose of the proposed action is to provide an environmentally acceptable option for the ocean disposal of dredged material. The need for the proposed modified ODMDS is based on a demonstrated USACE need for ocean disposal of dredged material from the Port Everglades Harbor Federal Navigation Project, including the deepening and widening portions of the Project. The need for ocean disposal for these and other future projects, and the suitability of the material for ocean disposal, will be determined on a case-by-case basis as part of the USACE process for reviewing ocean disposal actions and a public review process for its own actions to ocean dump dredged material from federal projects. These permit/authorization evaluations will include evaluation of disposal alternatives.
        The DEA discusses the need for the proposed modified ODMDS and examines ocean disposal site alternatives to the proposed actions. The need for expanding the existing Port Everglades ODMDS is based on future capacity modeling, movement of fine sediments in the Miami ODMDS which correlate to this site, estimated dredging volumes for proposed projects, and limited capacity of upland disposal facilities in the area. Other options were considered nearer to the Port, but the other options were discarded due to potential impacts to protected coral resources. The following three ocean disposal alternatives were considered in the DEA.
        No Action Alternative
        The No Action Alternative is defined as not modifying the size of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS. Implementation of this alternative would not address the need for an adequately sized ocean dump site to accommodate future ocean disposal of dredging projections. As a result, the No Action Alternative does not meet the proposed action's purpose and need. However, the No Action Alternative was evaluated in the DEA as a basis to compare the effects of the other alternatives considered.
        Alternative 1: Modification of the Existing Port Everglades ODMDS To Encompass a 3.21 nmi2 Area in a North-South Orientation (Preferred Alternative)
        Modification of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS to encompass a 3.21 nmi2 area as described above is the environmentally and operationally preferred alternative and considered the most viable option. The existing Port Everglades ODMDS is relatively small and has a limited capacity. Modifying the existing Port Everglades ODMDS to increase capacity would sustain the disposal needs associated with: The federally authorized Port Everglades Harbor sand bypass and navigation projects; authorized maintenance dredging; and potential future private interests. It is the most feasible option based on containing dredged material from disposal operations while impacting the least potential hardbottom habitat. A detailed justification for this preferred alternative is included in Section 2 in the DEA.
        Alternative 2: Modification of the Existing Port Everglades ODMDS To Encompass a 2.89 nmi2 Area in an East-West Orientation

        In order to inform viable options for expanding the existing site, the EPA evaluated the data and information included in the September 2013 Evaluation of Dredged Material Behavior at the Port Everglades Harbor Federal Project Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. The EPA specifically considered the option of expanding the site in an east-west orientation. Although designating an expanded ODMDS in an east-west orientation would provide adequate site capacity, there is the possibility that disposal to a site within this orientation would result in a higher level of impact to hardbottom habitat. As described in the DEA, a site more adequately protective of potential hardbottom areas was selected as the preferred alternative (Alternative 1).
        b. Magnuson-Stevens Act

        The USACE, in conjunction with EPA, submitted an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment, pursuant to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USACE determined that the modification of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS will not significantly affect managed species or EFH; however, underwater surveys are being conducted to verify conclusions. Discussions with the NMFS are ongoing, and consultation will be completed prior to finalization of the rule.
        c. Coastal Zone Management Act
        Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23, 1989, the EPA has evaluated the proposed site designations for consistency with the State of Florida's (the State) approved coastal zone management program. On behalf of the EPA, the USACE, Jacksonville District determined that the proposed action is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program to the maximum extent practicable. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP) issued Coastal Zone Consistency for the Port Everglades ODMDS on April 29, 2011. The EPA is communicating with the State of Florida to determine appropriate next steps to ensure consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
        d. Endangered Species Act
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The EPA is opting to address consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(d) due to the expected publication of an updated Biological Opinion for the South Atlantic District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is expected to address the species to which this action may apply.
        e. National Historic Preservation Act
        The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, requires federal agencies to consider the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The depths of the ODMDS (greater than 700 feet depth) exclude potential habitation or resources related to human settlements. In a letter dated February 4, 2013, the Florida Department of State concurred with the determination that no historic properties would be affected by the expansion of the ODMDS. The EPA is in communication with the State of Florida to determine whether any additional information has become available that may warrant changes to their 2013 determination.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        This rule proposes to modify the Port Everglades ODMDS pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This proposed action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
        a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
        b. Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection
        This proposed action considers Executive Order 13089 on Coral Reef Protection “to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment.” Conditions are present in the SMMP which are designed to reduce potential impacts from sediments during transit to the ODMDS.
        c. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed site designation, does not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report, or publicly disclose information to or for a federal agency.
        d. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires federal agencies 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 impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 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. The EPA determined that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the proposed rule will only have the effect of regulating the location of site to be used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule, the EPA certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        e. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        This proposed action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.
        f. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

        This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comments on this proposed action from State and local officials.

        g. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the modification of the existing Port Everglades ODMDS will not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian Tribes. In addition, the depths of the ODMDS (greater than 700 feet depth) exclude potential habitation or resources related to human settlements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, the EPA specifically welcomes comments on this proposed action from tribal officials and any comments related to this Executive Order.
        h. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. However, the EPA welcomes comments on this proposed action related to this Executive Order.
        i. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866. However, we welcome comments on this proposed action related to this Executive Order.
        j. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through Office of Management and Budget, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed action includes environmental monitoring and measurement as described in the EPA's proposed SMMP. The EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods for monitoring and managing the proposed modified ODMDS. The Agency plans to allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and measurement criteria discussed in the SMMP. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this proposed action.
        k. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness of modifying the existing Port Everglades ODMDS against the criteria established pursuant to the MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. The EPA welcomes comments on this proposed action related to this Executive Order.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
          Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

          Authority:
           This action is issued under the authority of Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

          Dated: February 18, 2020.
          Mary S. Walker,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Register as follows:

          PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING

        1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

        2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(14)(i) through (iii) and (vi) to read as follows:

          § 228.15
           Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

          (h) * * *
          (14) * * *
          (i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD 1983) 26° 06.500′, 80° 01.000′; 26° 06.500′, 80° 02.578′; 26° 08.750, 80° 02.578′; 26° 08.750′, 80° 01.000′.
          (ii) Size: Approximately 2.31 square nautical miles in size.
          (iii) Depth: Ranges from approximately 587 to 761 feet (179 to 232 meters).

          (vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material from the Port Everglades, Florida area;
          (B) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR 220-228;
          (C) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements contained in the currently approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP);
          (D) Monitoring, as specified in the currently approved SMMP, is required.

      [FR Doc. 2020-04650 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AY26
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 14

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 14), incorporating the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and is requesting comments from the public.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Council prepared an FEIS for Amendment 14 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 14, including the FEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The FEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0128, by any 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-2013-0128, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on MSB Amendment 14 NOA.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Aja Szumylo.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9195; fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The goals of Amendment 14 are to: Implement an effective program for monitoring river herring and shad incidental catch and bycatch in the MSB fisheries; and reduce the incidental catch and bycatch of river herring and shad in the MSB fisheries. The Council initially notified the public of its intent to consider the impacts of alternatives for addressing river herring and shad interactions with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) fisheries, as well as catch shares to limit harvesting capacity in the Illex and longfin squid fisheries, in a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Amendment 14 on June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32745). Based on written comments and comments received during scoping meetings held in June 2010, the Council decided to proceed with the analysis for Amendment 14 without including consideration of catch shares in the squid fisheries.
        The Council conducted public hearings for Amendment 14 in April and May of 2012. Following the public comment period on the Amendment 14 DEIS that ended on June 4, 2012, the Council adopted Amendment 14 on June 14, 2012. The Council submitted Amendment 14 to NMFS for review on February 26, 2013. After making necessary revisions, the Council submitted Amendment 14 on June 3, 2013. In Amendment 14, measures recommended by the Council would:
        • Require weekly vessel trip reports (VTRs) for all MSB permits, consistent with VTR provisions for other fisheries;
        • Require a 48-hr pre-trip notification in order to retain, possess, or transfer more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of Atlantic mackerel (mackerel) in order to facilitate observer placement;
        • Require the use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS), as well as the submission of daily VMS catch reports, for limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits to facility quota monitoring;
        • Require a 6-hr pre-landing notification via VMS in order to land more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel, to facilitate enforcement;
        • Expand dealer reporting requirements;
        • Increase observer coverage on limited access mackerel vessels using midwater and small-mesh bottom trawl, and require industry contributions of $325 per day;
        • Expand vessel requirements related to at-sea observer sampling to help ensure safe sampling and improve data quality;
        • Establish measures to minimize the discarding of catch before it has been made available for sampling;
        • Require that the Council meet formally to review the results of the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition/University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology river herring and shad bycatch avoidance project, and consider the appropriateness of developing a framework adjustment to implement the catch avoidance strategies suggested in the study;
        • Establish a mortality cap for river herring and shad to directly control mortality in the mackerel fishery, with caps amounts set during specifications; and
        • Add river herring and shad mortality caps and time/area hotspot closures to the list of measures that can be addressed via framework adjustment.
        The geographic range and vessel participation in the mackerel fishery overlap with the Atlantic herring fishery to a large extent. Some of the management measures in Amendment 14 are the same or similar to those in the New England Fishery Management Council's (NEFMC) Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP (Amendment 5), which was partially approved by NMFS on July 18, 2013. A Notice of Availability soliciting public comments on Amendment 5 was published on April 22, 2013 (77 FR 23733), with a comment period ending June 21, 2013. The proposed rule to implement Amendment 5 (78 FR 33020) was published on June 3, 2013, with a comment period ending July 18, 2013.
        The disapproved measures in Amendment 5 lacked adequate rationale or development by the NEFMC, and included the following: A dealer reporting requirement; a cap that, if achieved, would require vessels discarding catch before it had been sampled by observers (known as slippage) to return to port; and a requirement for 100-percent observer coverage on Category A and B vessels, coupled with a limited industry contribution of $325 per day toward observer costs. A summary of the comments received, and NMFS's responses to those comments, will be published in the final rule implementing Amendment 5. NMFS's concerns with similar measures in Amendment 14 will be outlined in the Amendment 14 proposed rule.

        Amendment 5 contained a requirement that herring dealers must accurately weigh all fish and, if catch is not sorted by species, dealers would be required to document how they estimated relative species composition. The same requirement is proposed in Amendment 14 for MSB dealers for transactions with greater than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) mackerel, or greater than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) longfin squid. Dealers currently report the weight of fish, obtained by scale weights and/or volumetric estimates. Because this measure does not specify the methods dealers must use to determine weight and allows volumetric estimates, it is not expected to change dealer behavior and, therefore, is not expected to improve the accuracy of catch weights reported by dealers. Additionally, a qualitative description of how relative species composition is estimated cannot be incorporated into catch monitoring because we must use the weights reported by the dealers, regardless of the methods used to determine weights. Without standards for estimating species composition, we would be unable to evaluate the sufficiency of the information submitted. If this measure was a requirement, and dealers did not document how they estimated relative species composition, it would become a compliance issue and could affect future permit issuance. NMFS disapproved this measure in Amendment 5 because we believe that it does not comply with National Standard 7's requirement to minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, and the Paperwork Reduction Act's requirement for the utility of the measure to outweigh the additional reporting and administrative burden on the dealers.

        Amendment 5 contained a measure that would require limited access herring permit holders to bring all catch aboard the vessel and make it available for sampling by an observer. If catch is discarded before it has been made available to the observer, that catch is considered slippage. Amendment 5 would allow catch to be slipped only if: (1) Bringing catch aboard compromises the safety of the vessel, (2) mechanical failure prevents the catch from being brought aboard, or (3) spiny dogfish prevents the catch from being pumped aboard. But if catch is slipped, the vessel operator would be required to complete a released catch affidavit detailing why catch was slipped and the estimated amount of slipped catch. Additionally, once there have been 10 slippage events in a herring management area by vessels using a particular gear type (including midwater trawl, bottom trawl, and purse seine) and carrying an observer, vessels that subsequently slip catch in that management area, using that particular gear type and carrying an observer, would be required to return to port. Amendment 14 would prohibit slipped catch on limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium trips with an observer aboard, with the same exemptions that were proposed in Amendment 5, would require a released catch affidavit to document slippage events, and would require trip termination after 10 slippage events for the entire mackerel fleet (no trip termination requirement would apply for longfin squid).
        NMFS did approve the prohibition on slippage and the released catch affidavit requirement in Herring Amendment 5. However, we were concerned about the rationale for, and legality of, the slippage caps in Amendment 5, and ultimately chose to disapprove that aspect of the measure. The threshold for triggering a slippage cap (10 slippage events by area and gear type) does not have a strong supporting analysis in the EIS for Amendment 5. Once a slippage cap has been met, vessels that slip catch, even if the reason for slipping was safety or mechanical failure, would be required to return to port. This aspect of the measure has the characteristic of a sanction, inconsistently applied. Vessels may continue fishing following slippage events 1 through 10, but must return to port following the 11th slippage event, regardless of the vessel's role in the first 10 slippage events. Additionally, this measure may result in a vessel operator having to choose between trip termination and bringing catch aboard, despite a safety concern. For these reasons, NMFS determined that the slippage caps in Herring Amendment 5 were inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and National Standards 2 and 10, and had to be disapproved. While Amendment 14 does not count exempted slippage events towards the slippage cap on the mackerel fishery, NMFS remains concerned about the rationale for the cap trigger, and the legality of requiring a vessel to return to port regardless of the vessel's role in the first 10 slippage events.
        Finally, Amendment 5 contained a measure that would have required 100-percent observer coverage on Category A and B herring vessels. The 100-percent observer requirement was coupled with a target maximum industry contribution of $325 per day. The at-sea costs associated with an observer in the herring fishery are higher than $325 per day. The Department of Commerce (DOC) Office of General Counsel has advised that such cost-sharing would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Based on DOC's advice, there is no current legal mechanism to allow cost-sharing of at-sea costs between NMFS and the industry. Budget uncertainties prevent NMFS from being able to commit to paying for increased observer coverage in the herring fishery. Requiring 100-percent observer coverage would amount to an unfunded mandate. Because Amendment 5 does not identify a funding source to cover all of the increased costs of observer coverage, the measure was not sufficiently developed and was disapproved. NMFS has similar concerns about the proposed measure for increased observer coverage and industry contribution in Amendment 14.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on Amendment 14 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in the DATES section of this NOA. Separate from this NOA, a proposed rule including regulations for implementing Amendment 14 will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS's further evaluation under Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. The public comment period for the proposed rule may close after the public comment period for this NOA has closed. In addition, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), supports Amendment 14, and NMFS has announced the availability of the FEIS for public review for 30 days, with comments due on September 14, 2013. Although NMFS has published three documents soliciting public comment, interested public need only comment once to be considered in NMFS's decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 14.

        The timing of comments, given the different dates in the three notices, is important. In order to be considered in NMFS's decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 14, public comments must be received by NMFS on or before the last day of the comment period provided in this NOA (see DATES). Comments received after that date will not be considered for the decision on Amendment 14, including comments postmarked or otherwise transmitted, but not received by NMFS on or before the closing date specified in the DATES section of this NOA. NMFS will consider all comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA of Amendment 14, whether specifically directed to Amendment 14, the proposed rule, or the FEIS, in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 14.

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

          Dated: August 7, 2013.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-19496 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P