        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 27
        [GN Docket No. 18-122; GN Docket No. 21-230; DA 21-958; FRS 42256]
        Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seek Comment on Implementation of the Commission's Incremental Reduction Plan for Phase I Accelerated Relocation Payments

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Request for comment.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau) seeks comment on its proposed implementation of the Commission's incremental reduction plan for Phase I Accelerated Relocation Payments (ARP) relating to the ongoing transition of the 3.7 GHz band. On August 4, 2021, as directed by the Commission in the Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band Report and Order, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, FCC 20-22 (Mar. 3, 2020) (3.7 GHz Report and Order), WTB issued a Public Notice to prescribe the filing procedures for eligible space station operators to submit Certifications of Accelerated Relocation (Certifications) and stakeholders to submit related challenges as part of the Phase I migration of incumbent services in this band. Related to this process, WTB hereby seeks comment on its proposed approach for calculating an incremental reduction for an eligible space station operator's ARP due to its failure to meet the Phase I Accelerated Relocation Deadline. Filers responding to this Public Notice should submit comments in GN Docket No. 21-320.

          DATES:
          Interested parties may file comments on or before August 27, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit Certification, identified by GN Docket No. 21-320, by any of the following methods:

            Electronic Filers: Elections may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ in docket number GN 21-320.

            Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
           Filings can be sent 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.
           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 45 L ST NE, Washington, DC 20554.

           Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
           During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Mort, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at Susan.Mort@fcc.gov or 202-418-2429.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Implementation of the Commission's Incremental Reduction Plan for Phase I Accelerated Relocation Payments, GN Docket No. 18-122; GN Docket No. 21-320; DA 21-958 (Public Notice), released on August 4, 2021. The complete text of the Public Notice, is available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/wtb-seeks-comment-c-band-phase-i-incremental-reducation-plan or by using the search function for GN Docket No. 18-122 or GN Docket No. 21-320 on the Commission's ECFS web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

        Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file elections on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document.

          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).

          Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenters 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 Commission's 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.

          Synopsis: With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau) seeks comment on its proposed implementation of the Commission's incremental reduction plan for Phase I Accelerated Relocation Payments (ARP) relating to the ongoing transition of the 3.7 GHz band. On August 4, 2021, as directed by the Commission in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, WTB issued a Public Notice to prescribe the filing procedures for eligible space station operators to submit Certifications of Accelerated Relocation (Certifications) and stakeholders to submit related challenges as part of the Phase I migration of incumbent services in this band. Related to this process, WTB hereby seeks comment on its proposed approach for calculating an incremental reduction for an eligible space station operator's ARP due to its failure to meet the Phase I Accelerated Relocation Deadline. Filers responding to this Public Notice should submit comments in GN Docket No. 21-320.
        In the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to make 280 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use (plus a 20 megahertz guard band) throughout the contiguous United States by transitioning existing services out of the lower portion of the band and into the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band (i.e., 4.0-4.2 GHz). The 3.7 GHz Report and Order established that new 3.7 GHz Service licensees would reimburse the reasonable, actual relocation costs of eligible FSS space station operators, incumbent FSS earth station operators, and incumbent Fixed Service licensees (collectively, incumbents) to transition out of the band.
        The 3.7 GHz Report and Order established a deadline of December 5, 2025, by which incumbent space station operators were to complete the transition of their operations to the upper 200 megahertz of the band, but it also provided an opportunity for accelerated clearing of the band by allowing eligible space station operators to voluntarily commit to relocate on a two-phased accelerated schedule, with a Phase I deadline of December 5, 2021, and a Phase II deadline of December 5, 2023. All five eligible space station operators elected accelerated relocation. By electing accelerated relocation, the eligible space station operators, among other things, have voluntarily committed to perform all the tasks necessary to enable any incumbent earth station that receives or sends C-band signals to a space station owned by that operator to maintain that functionality in the upper 200 megahertz of the band. The 3.7 GHz Report and Order stated that “[t]o the extent eligible space station operators can meet the Phase I and Phase II Accelerated Relocation Deadlines, they will be eligible to receive the accelerated relocation payments associated with those deadlines.” Once validated, the ARPs will be disbursed by the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse).
        The 3.7 GHz Report and Order specified that an “eligible space station operator's satisfaction of the Accelerated Relocation Deadlines will be determined by the timely filing of a Certification of Accelerated Relocation demonstrating, in good faith, that it has completed the necessary clearing actions to satisfy each deadline” and directed WTB to prescribe the form of such Certifications. Further, “the Bureau, Clearinghouse, and relevant stakeholders will have the opportunity to review the Certification of Accelerated Relocation and identify potential deficiencies.”
        The 3.7 GHz Report and Order also directed that if “credible challenges as to the space station operator's satisfaction of the relevant deadline are made, the Bureau will issue a public notice identifying such challenges and will render a final decision as to the validity of the certification no later than 60 days from its filing.” Absent notice from WTB of deficiencies in the Certification within 30 days of its filing, the Certification will be deemed validated. Following validation, the Clearinghouse shall promptly notify overlay licensees, who must pay the ARP to the Clearinghouse within 60 days of the notice. The Clearinghouse must disburse the ARP to the eligible space station operator within seven (7) days of receipt. Should an eligible space station operator miss the Phase I or Phase II deadline, it may still receive a reduced, but non-zero, ARP if it otherwise meets the Certification requirements within six months after the relevant Accelerated Relocation Deadline.
        The 3.7 GHz Report and Order directed WTB to: (1) “prescribe the form” of Certifications and any challenges by relevant stakeholders, and (2) establish the process for how such challenges will impact incremental decreases in the ARP. On August 4, 2021, the Bureau issued a Public Notice implementing filing procedures for Phase I Certifications and related challenges. With the instant Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment on how different Phase I Certification scenarios will affect both the challenge process and incremental decreases in the ARP.

        At the outset, we recognize the two most straightforward scenarios. First, all Certifications filed without subsequent change—whether by amendment or superseded by a refiled Certification—will not be subject to any incremental decrease in the ARP if the Certification was filed before the Phase I deadline and is ultimately validated. Second, any Certifications filed for the first time after the Phase I deadline and later validated without amendment or refiling will be subject to the incremental reduction schedule established by the Commission in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, using the Certification filing date as the “Date of Completion” for determining the applicable percentage by which the ARP will be reduced. In both situations, the challenge process laid out in our recent Public Notice would remain unaffected. Below we seek comment on more complex scenarios involving the potential amendment or refiling of Certifications, as well as on how to take into account possible remedial actions and agreements between eligible space station operators and other stakeholders on the Certification process.

          Amending or Refiling a Certification by the Phase I Deadline. In the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission stated that it was adopting accelerated relocation rules “to facilitate the expeditious deployment of next-generation services nationwide across the entire 280 megahertz made available for terrestrial use.” In furtherance of this goal, we propose that eligible space station operators may amend or refile an incomplete or invalid Certification without any incremental reduction in the ARP if, prior to the Phase I deadline, the eligible space station operator corrects any underlying problems and submits an amended or refiled Certification that has no invalidating infirmities. Such amendment or refiling may be either on the eligible space station operator's own motion, in response to a challenge, or in response to the Bureau's determination that the original Certification was invalid. In this scenario, any issues in the Certification would be resolved before the Phase I deadline, and the certifying space station operator would have, in fact, come into compliance with all the requirements for claiming the ARP by said deadline.

        In these circumstances, we propose that the amended or refiled Certification take the place of the original and start a new challenge process. Thus, new challenges to this amended or refiled Certification would be permitted but would be limited to matters involving changes made to the original Certification (whether the addition of new information, modifications of information that had been included in the original Certification, or the deletion of previously included information). If, however, WTB has not already ruled on the original Certification, the Bureau could nevertheless consider all points raised during the original challenge cycle to the extent those points may still be relevant to the amended or refiled Certification. We seek comment on this approach.
        If WTB ultimately decides that the amended or refiled Certification was valid, the eligible space station operator's ARP would be based on the filing date of the amended or refiled Certification. As noted above, where the amended or refiled Certification is submitted before the Phase I deadline, we propose that there will be no reduction in the ARP.

          Amending or Refiling a Certification After the Phase I Deadline. Alternatively, if WTB rejects a Certification filed before the Phase I deadline (whether the original or an amended or refiled one), the eligible space station operator would have to finish any incomplete aspects of the transition and file a new, valid Certification before its entitlement to an ARP could be determined. Where the filing date of this new, valid Certification falls after the Phase I deadline, the ARP would thus be subject to the incremental reduction schedule established by the Commission in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, as applicable based on such Certification's filing date. We propose the same treatment in cases where the Bureau has not yet ruled on a Certification and the eligible space station operator either submits an amended or refiled Certification on its own motion, or in response to a challenge, after the Phase I deadline. We seek comment on this approach.
        Where a Certification is amended or refiled after the Phase I deadline, we propose the same challenge process as where an amended or refiled Certification is filed before the Phase I deadline. Thus, new challenges to the amended or refiled Certification would be permitted but would be limited to matters involving changes made to the original Certification (whether the addition of new information, modifications of information that had been included in the original Certification, or the deletion of previously included information). If, however, WTB has not already ruled on the original Certification, the Bureau could nevertheless also consider all points raised during the original challenge cycle to the extent those points may still be relevant to the amended or refiled Certification. We seek comment on this approach.

          Accounting for Remedial Action by Eligible Space Station Operators. WTB proposes to consider remedial action that an eligible space station operator may take only if said operator has memorialized that action in a Certification (whether amended or refiled). Thus, if WTB issues a final determination rejecting a Certification, the fact that the eligible space station operator may have taken remedial action—after filing its Certification but before WTB's decision—to address the problems in said Certification that had prompted WTB's rejection would not in itself invalidate or otherwise affect WTB's determination. Rather, for such remedial action to be considered, the eligible space station operator would need to submit an amended or refiled Certification reflecting that remedial action. The amended or refiled Certification would initiate a new challenge process as to those aspects that had not yet been subject to the initial challenge process and would establish a new date by which the eligible space station operator's ARP was calculated. We seek comment on this approach.

          Agreements. Notwithstanding the proposals in the preceding sections, we propose to allow eligible space station operators and stakeholders (including, but not limited to, incumbent earth station operators) to enter into agreements to resolve any outstanding issues raised in a challenge to a Certification and submit any such agreements to WTB before the Bureau has made a final determination regarding the validity of the Certification. For instance, if an eligible space station operator submits a Certification (either before or after the Phase I deadline) that is credibly challenged, and it attempts to address any alleged deficiency before WTB has issued a decision, the eligible space station operator and challenging parties can enter into an agreement to resolve all outstanding issues between those parties and submit this agreement to WTB. If after review WTB accepts this agreement as a good faith resolution of issues in the eligible space station operator's Certification, the Bureau would find that the original Certification is valid and dismiss the related outstanding challenges. If such agreement resolved all outstanding challenges, the Bureau would calculate the ARP as of the date the original Certification was filed. If the agreement does not resolve all outstanding issues in an eligible space station operator's Certification and requires further remedial steps by the operator, then the Bureau proposes that it would calculate the ARP as of the date the eligible space station operator files an amended Certification, attesting that it has completed the remedial steps as per its agreement with the challenging parties (and assuming this Certification is found valid). We seek comment on this approach.
        Although we propose to allow eligible space station operators and stakeholders to enter into agreements to resolve issues raised in challenges, to ensure the integrity of the transition process we also propose to bar the use of greenmail in agreements to avoid incremental reductions. For example, whenever a challenge against a Certification is withdrawn through an agreement with an eligible space station operator, we propose to require that the written withdrawal agreement be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that no parties involved have received or will receive any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the agreement or withdrawal of the challenge. We seek comment on this approach.
        Finally, we propose that if the eligible space station operator takes remedial action to address any challenges but does not attempt to negotiate with the challengers or such negotiations fail, WTB will proceed to make a decision based on the information submitted by the eligible space station operator in its Certification (original, amended, or refiled). We seek comment on this approach.

          Amy Brett,
          Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2021-17034 Filed 8-10-21; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI61
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to make permanent the provisions of the emergency rule listing the Sonoma County distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The emergency rule listing the population is published concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register. The Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander is currently known from only seven viable breeding sites and associated uplands.
          This species is imperiled by a variety of factors including habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due to urban development. Other threats include road construction, pesticide drift, collection, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Extinction also could occur by naturally occurring events due to the small, isolated nature of the remaining breeding sites. We find these threats constitute a significant and immediate risk to the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander.
          We solicit additional data and information that may assist us in making a final decision on this proposed action. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Federal protection and recovery provisions of the Act to this species.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments until the close of business on September 20, 2002. Public hearing requests must be received by September 5, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods:
          (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor (Attn: SCCTS), Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
          (2) You may hand-deliver written comments to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above.

          (3) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: fw1sccaliforniatiger@r1.fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information on electronic filing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Chris Nagano or David Wooten, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6713).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        For a discussion of biological background information, previous Federal action, factors affecting the species, critical habitat, and conservation measures available to listed and proposed species, consult the emergency rule on the Sonoma County Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Sonoma County California tiger salamander) published concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we are soliciting comments from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We are particularly seeking comments concerning:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the Sonoma County California tiger salamander;
        (2) The location of any additional populations or breeding sites of this species, and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
        (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
        (4) Current or planned activities or land use practices in the subject area and their possible impacts on this species.
        If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: [RIN-AI61]” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at 916/414-6600.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowed by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        In making any final decision on this proposal, we will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from this proposal.
        Public Hearings

        The Act requires that we hold one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested within 45 days of the date of publication of a proposed rule. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the Field Supervisor, (Attn: SCCTS), Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Should a public hearing be requested, then we will announce the date, time, and place for the hearing in the Federal Register, through legal notices in area newspapers, and in news releases to the media.
        Peer Review

        In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of this review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send the peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule, as well as the emergency rule, immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite them to comment, during the public comment period, on specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed rule to list the Sonoma County California tiger salamander.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have determined that an environmental assessment and environmental impact statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
        Executive Order 12866

        Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal (grouping and order of the sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This rule does not include any new collections of information other than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget control number 1018-0094 which expires on July 31, 2004. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. For additional information concerning permit and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.22.
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Author

        The primary author of this proposed rule is Chris Nagano, Deputy Chief, Endangered Species Division, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES section).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Transportation.

        Regulation Promulgation

        For the reasons given in the preamble to the emergency rule listing the Sonoma County Distinct Vertebrate Population of the California tiger salamander as endangered, published concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

          2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

            § 17.11
            Endangered and threatened wildlife.

            (h) * * *

                Species
                Common name
                Scientific name
                Historic range

                Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
                Status
                When listed

                Critical habitat

                Special rules

                *         *         *        *         *         *         *

                  Amphibians

                *         *         *        *         *         *         *

                Salamander, California tiger

                  Ambystoma californiense

                U.S.A. (CA)
                U.S.A. (CA—Sonoma County)
                E
                729
                NA
                NA

                *         *         *        *         *         *         *

            Dated: July 16, 2002.
            Marshall P. Jones,
            Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-18451 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 030128024-3024-01; I.D. 121002A]
        RIN 0648-AQ63
        Fisheries of the United States; National Standard 1

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of revision to national standard 1 guidelines.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the agency is considering revisions to the national standard guidelines for national standard 1 that specify criteria for determining overfishing and establishing rebuilding schedules.  There have been concerns expressed by the scientific community, fisheries managers, the fishing industry, and environmental groups regarding the appropriateness of some aspects of these guidelines, particularly in light of new issues arising from rebuilding programs that have been underway for several years.  This action solicits public input on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the national standard 1 guidelines in complying with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by March 17, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to Mr. John H. Dunnigan, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Room 13362, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910; or faxed to 301-713-1193.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mark R. Millikin, at 301-713-2341 or via e-mail at Mark.Millikin@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        National standard 1 reads, “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”  In 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) to, among other things, provide definitions for “overfishing” and modify the definition of “optimum yield.”  The Magnuson-Stevens Act, in section 303(a)(10), now requires each fishery management plan (FMP) to “specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the FMP applies is overfished.”  In addition, section 304(e) specifies requirements for rebuilding overfished fisheries.  The revised national standard guidelines, including national standard 1, were proposed at 62 FR 41907, August 4, 1997, and published as final guidelines at 63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998.
        As they currently exist, the national standard 1 guidelines provide definitions and require determination, to the extent possible, of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), or an acceptable surrogate; specification of status determination criteria including a maximum fishing mortality threshold and a minimum stock size threshold; ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks; and specification of optimum yield (OY) in fisheries.
        In response to the SFA, these national standard guidelines were implemented in 1998, over 5 years ago.  Since that time, we have developed new perspectives, new issues, and new problems regarding their application.  Concerns that have been identified for possible revision include, but are not limited to, the following:
        1.  The definition and use of the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) for determining when a stock is overfished.  There has been considerable discussion about the utility of the concept of MSST, the definition of MSST contained in the guidelines, difficulties in estimating the MSST (especially in data-poor situations), and identifying appropriate proxies for MSST.
        2.  Calculation of rebuilding targets appropriate to the prevailing environmental regime.  Currently, the guidelines do not address how rebuilding targets should accommodate changing environmental conditions.  Rebuilding rates based upon current stock productivity may be inconsistent with rebuilding targets based upon historical stock productivity when there are persistent, long-term changes in environmental conditions.
        3.  Calculation of maximum permissible rebuilding times for overfished fisheries.  The SFA established a maximum allowable 10-year rebuilding time for a fishery, except where the biology of the fish will not allow it or the fishery is managed under an international agreement.  If the minimum time for a fishery to rebuild is 10 years or greater, the maximum allowable rebuilding time under the guidelines becomes the time to rebuild in the absence of any fishing mortality, plus one mean generation time.  This has created a discontinuity where the difference in allowable rebuilding times between a stock with a minimum rebuilding time of 9 years and another stock with a minimum rebuilding time of 11 years, may be several decades in the case of long-lived species.  This results in the need for much more restrictive management measures in the first case compared to the second, even though there is not much difference between them in terms of rebuilding potential.
        4.  The definitions of overfishing as they relate to a fishery as a whole or a stock of fish within that fishery.  There are currently over 900 fish stocks identified for the purpose of determining their status with regard to overfishing, many of which are caught in small amounts and whose status is unknown.  Combining assessments and status determination criteria for assemblages of minor stocks may make more sense biologically and economically than attempting to assess and manage them one by one.  Further guidance is needed on the most ecologically sound and economically expedient ways to manage these fisheries.
        5.  Procedures to follow when rebuilding plans require revision after initiation, especially with regard to modification of the rebuilding time frame.  The guidelines do not currently address what to do when observed rebuilding rates are greater or lower than expected or when new assessments change estimates of rebuilding targets or other parameters.
        NMFS solicits input from the public regarding: (1) whether or not the national standard 1 guidelines should be revised and (2) if revisions are desired, what parts of the national standard 1 guidelines should be revised, how they should be revised, and why.  NMFS will use the information in determining whether to proceed with a revision to the existing guidelines, and if so, the issues to be addressed.
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated:  February 10, 2003.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-3758 Filed 2-13-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 070607119-7119-01]
        RIN 0648-AV11
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. This harvest guideline has been calculated according to the regulations implementing the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and establishes allowable harvest levels for Pacific sardine off the Pacific coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 30, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-AV11, by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AV11.SWR@noaa.gov. Include the identifier “0648-AV11” in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Following the instructions for submitting comments.

          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
          • Fax: (562) 980-4047.
          Copies of the report Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2007 may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The CPS FMP, which was implemented by publication of the final rule in the Federal Registeron December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), divides management unit species into two categories: actively managed and monitored. Harvest guidelines for actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates. Biomass estimates are not calculated for species that are only monitored (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid).,/P>

        During public meetings each year, the biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team) and the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel). At that time, the biomass, the harvest guideline (HG), and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. This information is then presented to the Council along with recommendations and comments from the Team and Subpanel. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comments, the Council makes its recommendation to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The annual HG is published in the Federal Register as close as practicable to the start of the fishing season.
        Public meetings of the Team, Subpanel and CPS Subcommitee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) were held in October 2006. During these meetings the current stock assessment update for Pacific sardine, which included a preliminary biomass estimate and HG, was presented and reviewed in accordance with the procedures of the FMP. In November, the Council held a public meeting in San Diego, California (71 FR 62998) during which time the Council reviewed the current stock assessment, biomass numbers and proposed harvest guideline. Following the Team and Subpanel reports and hearing public comments, the Council adopted the Team's recommended harvest guideline for the 2007 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007) of 152,564 metric tons (mt). Although this HG is 28 percent higher than the HG for 2006, it is over 50,000 mt greater than the largest recent harvest by U.S. west coast fisheries. The Council also adopted the Subpanel recommendation of an incidental catch allowance for Pacific sardine of up to 45 percent by weight in other CPS fisheries in the event that the coastwide harvest of Pacific sardine exceeds a seasonal allocation prior to the next scheduled reallocation.

        The size of the sardine population was estimated using the Age-Structured-Assessment-Program (ASAP) stock assessment model. ASAP was recommended as the most appropriate framework for conducting future Pacific sardine assessments by the stock assessment review (STAR) panel which met in June of 2004 at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California. The ASAP model uses a forward-projection that evaluates the relationship between the species' population dynamics and associated fishery operations. Information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2007 (see ADDRESSES).
        The formula in the FMP uses the following factors to determine the harvest guideline:
        1. Biomass. The estimated July 1, 2006, stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above 1,319,072 metric tons (mt).
        2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.
        3. Distribution. The portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.
        4. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested. The fraction used varies (5-15 percent) with current ocean temperatures; a higher fraction for warmer ocean temperatures and a lower fraction for cooler temperatures. Warmer ocean temperatures favor the production of Pacific sardine. For 2007, the fraction used was 15 percent, based on three seasons of sea surface temperature at Scripps Pier, California.
        Based on the estimated biomass of 1,319,072 mt and the formula in the FMP, a harvest guideline of 152,564 mt was determined.
        The Pacific sardine HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme established by Amendment 11 (71 FR 36999) to the CPS FMP: 35 percent (53,397 mt) is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent (61,025 mt), plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent (38,141 mt), plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations is released.

        If the total harvest guideline or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery shall be closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. The Regional Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register, through appropriate rulemaking procedures, the date of the closure of the directed fishery for Pacific sardine.
        Classification
        These proposed specifications are issued under the authority of, and NMFS has preliminarily determined that it is in accordance with, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and the regulations implementing the FMP.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2007 harvest guideline for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual harvest guideline for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the formula in the FMP. The harvest guideline is derived by a formula applied to the current biomass estimate.

          The HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme: 35% of the harvest guideline is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40% of the harvest guideline, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is then reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25%, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations will be released. If the total harvest guideline or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery is closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the harvest guideline and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet.
          The harvest guideline would apply to approximately 86 small fishing vessels (105 permits) coastwide that fish for Pacific sardine within U.S. waters; 61 permits in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 44 permits in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. This proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. These vessels are considered small business entities by the U.S. Small Business Administration since the vessels do not have annual receipts in excess of $4.0 million. Therefore, there would be no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large business entities under the proposed action.
          The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable.
          For the 2006 fishing year, the harvest guideline was set at 118,937 mt with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $15 million. Around 90,000 mt (49,000 in California and 41,000 in Oregon and Washington) of this harvest guideline was actually harvested during the 2006 fishing season valued at an estimated $10 million.
          The proposed harvest guideline for the 2007 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007) is 152,564 metric tons (mt). This HG is 28 percent higher than the HG for 2006, but is over 50,000 mt greater than the largest recent harvest by U.S. west coast fisheries. If the fleet were to take the entire 2007 harvest guideline, and assuming no change in the coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $116, the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $18 million. Whether this occurs depends greatly on market forces within the fishery and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleets and the fleets ability to find pure schools of Pacific sardine. A change in the market and/or the potential lack of availability of the resource to the fleets could cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific sardine that is harvested, in turn, reducing the total revenue to the fleet.
          NMFS does not anticipate a drop in profitability based on this rule due to the fact that it allows fishermen to harvest more than last year. Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, this rule if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities.

        As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated: June 22, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-12566 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Unarmored Threespine Stickleback

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Finding that the designation of critical habitat should not be made.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), find that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculaetus williamsoni) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) should not be made final. On November 17, 1980, we proposed designating approximately 51 kilometers (31.7 miles) of streams in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties, California, as critical habitat for this species (45 FR 76012).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Chief, Branch of Listing, U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone 703/358-2105).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The unarmored threespine stickleback is a small fish that we listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047), under the authority of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275 (1969)). The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 had no requirement to designate critical habitat and accordingly, at the time of its listing, critical habitat was not proposed for the unarmored threespine stickleback.
        The Endangered Species Act of 1973 referred to the concept of critical habitat, requiring that Federal agency actions not modify or destroy habitat determined to be critical. However, the 1973 Act did not define critical habitat or specify a procedure for its designation (Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (1973), codified at 16 U.S.C. 1536).
        Amendments to the Act, enacted on November 10, 1978, defined  “critical habitat” and provided that critical habitat “may be established” for species listed prior to the date of enactment of the 1978 amendments, but did not make designation mandatory nor set a certain timeframe for designation (Pub. L. 95-632, section 2(2), 92 Stat. 3751 (1978)). In 1982, amendments to the Act established the requirement to designate critical habitat at the time of listing to the extent such designation was prudent and determinable, but excluded from that requirement any species listed prior to November 10, 1978 (Pub. L. 97-304, sections 2(a), 2(b)(4), 96 Stat. 1411 (1982)). Therefore, for species listed prior to the 1978 amendments, such as the unarmored threespine stickleback, we are not required to designate critical habitat.
        At our discretion, on November 17, 1980, we published a proposal (45 FR 76012) to designate a total of approximately 51 kilometers (31.7 miles) of streams in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties, CA, as critical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback. We have not made a final designation of critical habitat for this species. The Endangered Species Act amendments of 1982 specified that, for any proposed designation of critical habitat pending at the time of enactment of the 1982 amendments, the procedures for revisions to critical habitat would apply (Pub. L. 97-304, section 2(b)(2)). Consequently, our 1980 proposal to designate critical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback is subject to the procedures for revisions to critical habitat.

        The relevant procedures for revisions to critical habitat are set out under section 4 of the Act. Section 4(a)(3)(B) provides that the Service “may” make revisions to critical habitat “from time-to-time * * * as appropriate” (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)). Section 4(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires that within one year of publishing a proposed revision to critical habitat, the Service must publish in the Federal Register one of four possible actions: (1) A final rule to implement the revision; (2) a notice that the one-year period is being extended for up to six months for purposes of soliciting additional data due to substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data; (3) a notice that the proposed revision is being withdrawn, because there is insufficient evidence to justify the action; or (4) a finding that the revision should not be made. As explained below, we are taking the fourth of these possible actions.
        Finding
        This notice presents our finding that the November 17, 1980, proposed designation of critical habitat, which is subject to the procedures for revisions to critical habitat in accordance with the 1982 amendments to the Act, should not be made. In making this finding, we are exercising our discretion, provided under the 1978 and 1982 amendments to the Act, not to designate critical habitat for this species. The basis for this finding is described below.
        Under the 1978 and 1982 amendments to the Act, the Service is not required to designate critical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback, but may do so at our discretion. Since the Service decided in 1980 to exercise its discretion and propose the designation of critical habitat for the species, section 4(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires the Service to take one of four actions: implement the proposed designation, extend the time for taking action on the proposed designation, withdraw the proposed designation, or make a finding that the designation should not be made. After considering all of the relevant factors, we have determined that taking any of the first three actions is not justified, and have concluded that the critical habitat designation should not be made.
        We cannot justify exercising our discretion to issue a final rule to implement the proposed critical habitat designation, because the 1980 proposal clearly does not satisfy the Act's requirement that the designation or revision of critical habitat shall be made on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The degree of specificity and scientific rigor that the Service now uses for designating critical habitat has evolved considerably since 1980. Moreover, it is likely that considerable new information regarding changes in habitat or other conditions has become available since 1980, and would need to be assessed to determine if the proposal needs to be revised. The economic information associated with the 1980 proposal is also out of date, and would need to be completely replaced with a new economic analysis.
        We also cannot justify formally extending the proposed action for six months to solicit additional data to address concerns regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the data in the proposal. Considerable time and effort would be needed to update the information and conduct new analyses to bring the 1980 proposal to the point at which it would meet current standards, and to complete other procedural steps that would be associated with completing this discretionary action. Such an effort would come at the expense of critical habitat designations that the Service is required to make for other species. At the present time, we have a backlog of actions involving non-discretionary designations of critical habitat for approximately 475 species. These include actions that are mandated by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, as well as actions necessary to implement the requirements of the Act pertaining to critical habitat designations. It will take us several years to clear this backlog, and during that time we also will need to meet non-discretionary requirements to designate critical habitat as additional species are listed. Meeting these requirements, for which we have no discretion, is a higher priority than taking discretionary actions.

        Finally, we cannot justify withdrawing the proposed regulation. To withdraw the proposed regulation, we must have made a judicially reviewable finding that “there is not sufficient evidence to justify the action proposed by the regulation” (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(B)(ii)). We have not made such a finding and would need to compile and analyze all the existing available information in order to determine whether such a finding could be made. Such an effort would come at the expense of critical habitat designations that the Service is required to make for other species. As discussed above, we currently have a large backlog of non-discretionary critical habitat designations, and meeting those requirements is a higher priority than taking discretionary actions.
        Due to the discretion we have regarding the designation of critical habitat for species listed prior to the 1978 amendments to the Act, the staleness of the proposed rule, and our need to give priority to funding the large number of outstanding non-discretionary designations and to address new designations that will be required as additional species are listed, we find that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback should not be made.
        This finding means that Federal agencies no longer are required to confer with us, under section 7(a)(4) of the Act, regarding any agency action that is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the areas that were proposed for designation as critical habitat. The fact that we are making this finding and exercising our discretion not to designate critical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback does not, however, alter the protection this species and its habitat will continue to receive under the Act. Specifically, it does not alter the requirement of section 7(a)(2) of the Act that all Federal agencies must insure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to “jeopardize the continued existence” of a listed species. Further, the section 9 prohibition of take of the species, which applies to all land ownerships, is independent of whether critical habitat is designated and is unchanged by this finding.
        Authority
        The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(A)(i)(II) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(A)(i)(II)), Pub. L. 95-632, at 2(2), 92 Stat. 3751 (November 10, 1978), and Pub. L. 97-304, at 2(b)(2), 2(b)(4), 96 Stat. 1411, 1416 (October 13, 1982).

          Dated: September, 11, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-23645 Filed 9-12-02; 4:09 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 120412409-2409-01]
        RIN 0648-BB95
        Control Date To Limit Excessive Accumulation of Control, Qualifying Landings History, and Referendum Eligibility in the Monkfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          At the request of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils), this notice announces a control date that may be applicable to, but not limited to, limits on the accumulation of excessive control or ownership of fishing privileges, qualifying landings history for an allocation-based management program, and referendum qualification, should one be required in the monkfish fishery. This notice is intended to promote awareness of possible rulemaking; provide notice to the public that any future accumulation of fishing privilege interests in the monkfish fishery may be affected, restricted, or even nullified; and to discourage speculative behavior in the market for fishing privileges while the Councils consider whether and how such limitations on accumulation of fishing privileges should be developed. Interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their ownership or control of monkfish permits and other fishing privileges, as well as monkfish landings history in Federal waters.

          DATES:
          May 9, 2012, shall be known as the “control date” for the monkfish fishery and may be used as a reference date for future management measures related to the maintenance of a fishery with characteristics consistent with the Councils' objectives and applicable Federal laws. Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, June 8, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0080,” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0080” in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Daniel Morris, Acting Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Monkfish Accumulation Limits Control Date.”
          • Fax (978) 281-9135; Attn: Douglas Christel.

          Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. 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.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 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 or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9141, fax: 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Monkfish FMP is jointly managed by the Councils. The Councils have managed the fishery since 1999 primarily through the allocation of days-at-sea (DAS) and establishment of trip limits for both the directed (DAS) and incidental fisheries. While scientific evidence for stock structure remains equivocal, the fishery has been managed as two stocks divided by a boundary that bisects Georges Bank. Since 2007, both stock components have been determined by stock assessments to be rebuilt (above their respective biomass targets) and not subject to overfishing.

        On November 30, 2010, the Councils published a Notice of Intent to prepare an amendment (Amendment 6) to the FMP to consider modifications to the management program that may include one of several catch shares management alternatives, including sectors or Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs). Sectors are voluntary, self-selected groups of fishermen that are allocated a portion of the available catch. Sector management has already been adopted in the Northeast Multispecies FMP, and a substantial number of vessels that have limited access permits in the monkfish fishery also participate in groundfish sectors. LAPPs are a category of management approaches that provides a person or entity (for example, a community) the exclusive privilege to harvest a specific portion of a fishery's total allowable catch. LAPPs can include individual fishery quotas (IFQs) or community development quotas. Section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specified general requirements for LAPPs, including the requirement that such programs be approved in a referendum of eligible participants (as defined by the Councils) for New England fisheries.
        The Councils are considering catch shares management in the monkfish fishery to address some operational considerations for vessels that participate in the monkfish fishery and also are members of groundfish sectors. NOAA's 2010 Catch Share Policy promotes catch shares management and encourages Councils to consider such programs, where appropriate, to achieve the conservation, social, and economic goals of sustainable fishery management.
        Because some elements of catch share programs involve allocation of privileges based on historical performance in the fishery, including, in the case of LAPPs, eligibility to participate in the required referendum, on February 2 and February 16, 2012, the Councils requested that NMFS publish this ANPR announcing a control date in the monkfish fishery, in part to discourage speculative activity, including, but not limited to, increasing landings history, accumulation of fishing permits, or participation in the fishery solely for the purpose of qualifying to vote in the referendum.
        The date of publication of this notification, May 9, 2012, shall be known as the “control date” for the monkfish fishery and may be used as a reference date for future management measures in determining how to treat fishing privileges or landings history acquired before this date and those acquired after this date, depending on the Councils' determinations on limiting control and ownership of such privileges and landings. The establishment of a control date, however, does not obligate the Councils to use this control date or take any action, nor does it prevent the Councils from picking another control date or imposing limits on permits acquired prior to the control date.
        Accordingly, this notification is intended to promote awareness that the Councils may be developing management measures to address these concerns, to provide notice to the public that any current or future accumulation of fishing privilege interests in the monkfish fishery may be affected, restricted, or even nullified, and discourage speculative behavior in the market for fishing privileges while the Councils consider whether and how such limitations on accumulation of fishing privileges should be developed. Any measures the Councils are considering may require changes to the Monkfish FMP. Such measures may be adopted in a future amendment to the FMP, which would include opportunity for further public participation and comment.
        If the Councils decide to propose a LAPP for the monkfish fishery, this control date may be used in determining eligibility for referendum voters. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) section 303A(c)(6)(D) requires that any IFQ program developed by the New England Fishery Management Council must be approved by a referendum. NMFS published guidelines for conducting a referendum on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 75968), that detailed the procedures for (1) determining procedures and voting eligibility requirements for IFQ program referenda, and (2) conducting such referenda in a fair and equitable manner. A referendum conducted on a proposed IFQ program in New England must be approved by more than 2/3 of those voting in the referendum among eligible permit holders and other eligible voters. Other eligible voters may include crew members who derive a significant portion of their income from the monkfish fishery.
        This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their ownership or control of monkfish permits and other fishing privileges in the monkfish fishery, as well as monkfish landings in Federal waters. Fishing privileges include, but are not limited to, vessels, fishing permits, DAS, and any other type of catch share.
        This notification and control date do not impose any legal obligations, requirements, or expectation.

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

          Dated: May 4, 2012.
          Paul Doremus,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-11202 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-2060, MB Docket No. 04-250, RM-11006]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Medical Lake, WA

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Thomas Desmond proposing the allotment of DTV channel 51 to Medical Lake, Washington, as the community's first local commercial television service. DTV Channel 51 can be allotted to Medical Lake, Washington, at reference coordinates 47-34-12 N. and 117-41-32 W. Since the community of Medical Lake is located within 400 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence from the Canadian government must be obtained for this allotment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before September 9, 2004, and reply comments on or before September 24, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Commission permits the electronic filing of all pleadings and comments in proceeding involving petitions for rule making (except in broadcast allotment proceedings). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rule Making Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113 (rel. April 6, 1998). Filings by paper can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's  Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 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 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,  DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Thomas S. Desmond, 3216 Verbena Drive, Plano, Texas 75075 (Petitioner).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 04-250, adopted July 8, 2004, and released July 19, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 301-816-2820, facsimile 301-816-0169, or via-e-mail joshir@erols.com.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Digital television broadcasting, Television.

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

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

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

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Washington is amended by adding Medical Lake, DTV channel 51.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Barbara A. Kreisman,
            Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-16891 Filed 7-23-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 117
        [CGD13-05-023]
        RIN 1625-AA09
        Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Willamette River, Portland, OR

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to revise the drawbridge operation regulations for bridges on the Willamette River, Oregon. This proposed revision would reorganize the text into a more understandable format with minor editing of the regulations, and change the operating regulations for the draw of the Burnside Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.4, at Portland, Oregon. The proposed change to the Burnside Bridge operating regulation will enable the bridge owner to provide single-leaf operation of the bridge, except during the Rose Festival, to facilitate major structural and mechanical rehabilitation of the bridge. Repairs are currently expected to last approximately two years, after which it is expected that the operating regulation will be revised to provide for double-leaf operation again.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 21, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oan), 13th Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-1067 where the public docket for this rulemaking is maintained. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, 13th Coast Guard District, (206)220-7282.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Comments
        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD13-05-023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
        Public Meeting

        We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
        Background and Purpose
        The operating regulations currently in effect for the drawbridges on the Willamette River are at 33 CFR 117.897. The regulations as they are currently written are confusing as to which exceptions apply to which bridge. The reorganization of the text will simplify and clarify the regulations.
        The proposed rule would also enable Multnomah County, the owner of the Burnside Bridge, to rehabilitate the structure. The work includes repairing the drawbridge mechanism, replacing the concrete deck and repairing corroded steel. One side would be disabled throughout the period. The operable side will be indicated via a Local Notice to Mariners.
        The Burnside Bridge in the closed position provides 65.5 feet of vertical clearance above 0.0 datum according to the Corps of Engineers at the center of the bascule and 205 feet of horizontal clearance. Drawbridge openings are provided on average 40 times monthly for recreational vessels, tugs and tows, and floating construction equipment. This averages less than twice a day for opening frequency.
        The current regulation provides that the spans need not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except New Years Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. From 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, one hour's notice is required for all openings of the upper deck of the Steel Bridge, the Burnside Bridge and the Morrison Bridge, and two hours notice is required at all other times for those 3 bridges. Notice at least 2 hours in advance is also required at all other times to open the draws of the Broadway and Hawthorne Bridges. The draw operates on signal during Rose Festival Week and whenever the river level reaches and remains above +12 feet.
        Reorganization of Text
        This proposed rule would reorganize the text of 33 CFR 117.897. Currently, the regulation is confusing as to which exceptions to normal bridge operations apply to which bridges. This change will enhance and facilitate comprehension of the regulation.

        The conflict between the open period, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the closed periods, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., would be resolved by changing the open period hours to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Additionally, the bridge-specific sound signals would be deleted because they have not been used by mariners for years. The signal would default to the general sound signal of one prolonged blast followed by one short blast prescribed in 33 CFR 117.15.
        The regulations covering the Union Pacific railroad bridge, mile 84.3, at Salem would be removed because, under a bridge permit amendment, the bridge has been converted to a fixed span and is therefore no longer an operating drawbridge.
        Change of Burnside Bridge Operating Regulation
        This proposed rule would provide Multnomah County the opportunity to perform much needed maintenance by allowing it to operate only one leaf instead of two. During the Rose Festival, double-leaf openings would be provided. Recreational vessels should be able to easily pass safely through a single-leaf opening. Most recreational vessels do not require an opening of the draw. Tugs and tows may experience greater difficulty because of winds, currents, loading, etc. The bridge owner is offering an assist tug for such vessels if a request for this assistance is made at least 4 hours in advance. This offer is not embodied in this proposed rule.
        Preliminary analysis indicates that most vessel operators will not be inconvenienced by the special operations. Large oceangoing vessels do not normally travel this far upstream on the Willamette and the majority of recreational vessels can pass the drawbridge without an opening. Tugs and tows are the most common vessels that would have to proceed with extra caution. There is a single frequent user of the drawspan. The Burnside Bridge is part of a heavily traveled commuter arterial that serves downtown Portland.
        Regulatory Evaluation
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security.
        We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
        The Coast Guard reached this conclusion based on the fact that the few substantive changes being made are very minor. Most vessels will be able to plan transits to avoid the closed periods. Most commercial vessel owners have indicated that they can tolerate the proposed hours by working around them.
        Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
        The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed temporary change may affect some recreational sailboat owners insofar as they must plan their transits around the periods during which the bridges are closed to regain moorage above the drawbridges. We expect these to be few in number.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        Assistance for Small Entities
        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, at (206) 220-7282. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
        Federalism
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
        Indian Tribal Governments

        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

        Energy Effects
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated this as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
        Technical Standards

        The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
        This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
        Environment
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. There are no expected environmental consequences of the proposed action that would require further analysis and documentation.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
          Bridges.

        Regulations
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

          PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
          1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

          2. Revise section 117.897 to read as follows:

            § 117.897
            Willamette River.
            (a) The draws of the Union Pacific railroad bridges, mile 119.6 at Albany; and mile 164.3 near Harrisburg, need not open for the passage of vessels. However, the draws shall be returned to operable condition within six months after notification by the District Commander to do so.
            (b) The draw of the Oregon State highway bridge, mile 132.1 at Corvallis, shall open on signal if at least seven days notice is given. However, the draw need not be opened on Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal Holidays.
            (c) The draws of the bridges listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section shall open on signal if the specified advance notice is given, subject to the following requirements and exceptions:
            (1) The draws need not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. every Monday through Friday; except that on New Year's Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day, the draws shall open during those hours in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
            (2) During Rose Festival Week or when the water elevation reaches and remains above +12 feet, no advance notice is required; except that the closed periods described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section apply.
            (3)(i) Broadway Bridge, at Portland, mile 11.7. No advance notice is required. The closed periods described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section do not apply to oceangoing vessels of 750 gross tons or over.
            (ii) Steel Bridge (upper deck only), at Portland, mile 12.1. From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, notice must be given at least one hour in advance for draw openings. At all other times, notice at least two hours in advance is required.
            (iii) Burnside Bridge, at Portland, mile 12.4. Only single-leaf openings will be provided, except that double-leaf openings will be provided during the Rose Festival. From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, notice at least one hour in advance shall be given for draw openings. At all other times, notice at least two hours in advance is required.
            (iv) Morrison Bridge, at Portland, mile 12.8. From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, notice shall be given at least one hour in advance for draw openings. At all other times, notice at least two hours in advance is required.
            (v) Hawthorne Bridge, Portland, mile 13.1. No advance notice is required.

            Dated: August 8, 2005.
            Richard R. Houck,
            Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 05-16516 Filed 8-19-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-15-P