        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 170322302-7999-01]
        RIN 0648-BG74
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Amendment 16 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 16 of the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The purpose of this proposed rule is to amend the CPS regulations to allow for very small amounts of directed, non-live bait fishing on CPS finfish to occur when a fishery is otherwise closed to directed fishing. Currently, when directed fishing closures are enacted, a small sector of the CPS fishery that is not part of the primary commercial directed fishery has been precluded from fishing and/or harvesting even minor amounts because this activity does not fall under the existing exemptions during closures for incidental harvest or for harvesting CPS to be sold as live bait. NMFS is proposing changes to the CPS regulations to allow this sector to continue directed fishing after other directed fisheries are closed, unless otherwise specified or if an applicable annual catch limit (ACL) is anticipated to be exceeded. As a further restriction, to ensure this minor directed fishing provision is not exploited to make large aggregate harvests, minor directed fishing would not be allowed to exceed landings of 1 metric ton (mt) per day per vessel or person or one fishing trip per day by any vessel.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by December 22, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0135, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0135, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4250; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.

            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).

          Copies of the draft CPS FMP as amended through Amendment 16, with notations showing how Amendment 16 would change the FMP, if approved, are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2017-0135, or by contacting the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034; or Kerry Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Species managed under the CPS FMP include Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, northern anchovy, market squid and krill. The CPS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and was implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I.

        The MSA requires each regional fishery management council to submit any amendment to a FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The MSA also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to a FMP, publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 16.
        At its April 2017 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) voted to submit Amendment 16 to NMFS for review and approval; this proposed rule would revise the implementing regulations for the CPS FMP to implement Amendment 16 by allowing “minor directed” fishing for CPS finfish after a directed fishery has been closed. Current regulations provide for potential allowances of live bait fishing and incidental landings in the event of a directed fishery closure; this action would allow a small sector of the CPS fishery that is not part of the primary commercial directed fishery to harvest minor amounts of CPS. This sector of the fishery intentionally targets CPS and typically sells the catch as specialty dead bait to recreational and commercial fisheries, or as fresh fish to restaurants and the public. Total landings from this sector typically make up less than one percent of the total landings of any particular CPS stock. Currently, when directed fishing closures are enacted, these very small-scale fisheries have been precluded from fishing and/or harvesting these minor amounts because they do not fall under the existing exemptions during closures.

        If this proposed rule is approved, minor directed fishing will be allowed to continue after a directed fishery is closed. Minor directed fishing will be allowed unless otherwise specified, or if an applicable ACL is anticipated to be exceeded. As a further restriction, to ensure the minor directed landing provision is not exploited to make large aggregate harvests, this action proposes regulations to limit this directed fishing exemption so that landings cannot exceed 1 mt per day per vessel or person, and which is limited to one fishing trip per day by any vessel. The intent of distinguishing between a “vessel” and “person” in these regulations is that some participants in this small sector of the CPS fishery fish from a platform other than a vessel (e.g., beach seine) and in a single fishing trip (e.g., a single haul of a beach seine) may only land a few hundred pounds. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to allow a person to make multiple fishing trips in a single day as long as their total landings do not exceed 1 mt in a day. The Council recommended that vessels be limited to a single trip as their typical landings are much greater per trip. For vessels, it was the Council's intent that the 1 mt daily landing restriction function like a trip limit.
        This rule also proposes to update the definition of “Regional Administrator” to reflect the absorption of the former NMFS Southwest Region into the West Coast Region, and to explicitly reference the fact that directed “live bait” fisheries may continue to operate after most other directed fishing is prohibited (which is an original provision of the FMP, not a change proposed in Amendment 16).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 16, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
        The purpose of this rule is to add an exemption to the CPS regulations that would allow very small levels of directed fishing to occur during times when directed fishing would normally be disallowed.
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The primary entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels and individuals that target very small levels of CPS finfish as part of a small sector of the CPS fishery that is not part of the primary commercial directed fishery and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards. This small sector of the fishery intentionally targets CPS and typically sells the catch as specialty dead bait to recreational and commercial fisheries, or as fresh fish to restaurants and the public. Total landings from this sector typically make up less than one percent of the total landings of any particular CPS stock. For example, the highest landing year for Pacific sardine from this sector between 2005 and 2015 included 134 landings by 12 vessels, totaling only 50 mt of sardines, with an average of 20 mt per year over this same time period. In comparison, the average total landings of Pacific sardine over this time period was around 69,000 mt. Although the landings from this sector are small in comparison to the primary directed fisheries for CPS, the revenue derived from these small landings make up an important revenue stream for the participants.
        The proposed action is not expected to have direct or indirect adverse socioeconomic impacts as the primary function of this action is to provide relief for the small entities who harvest small amounts of CPS but are precluded from doing so under the existing directed fishery closure regulations. Although the CPS FMP requires prohibitions on directed fishing in certain situations, such as to protect the stock when biomass is low, any fishing done under the proposed minor harvest regulations would be accounted for and tracked under any applicable catch limit for that year thereby continuing to protect the stock and prevent overfishing. Additionally, because the landings from this sector are so small this action is not expected to indirectly negatively impact, through lost harvesting potential, those that are currently provided exemptions during closures, such as the live bait sector or the traditional purse seine vessels that utilize the incidental harvest provisions during closures.
        Based on the analysis above, the proposed action, 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.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: November 16, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.502, revise the definition of “Regional Administrator” to read as follows:

          § 660.502
          Definitions.

            Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, or a designee.

        3. In § 660.505, revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:

          § 660.505
          Prohibitions.

          (i) When a directed fishery has been closed, take and retain, possess, or land more than the incidental trip limit announced in the Federal Register, or a directed trip limit as described in § 660.511(d).

        4. In § 660.511, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

          § 660.511
          Catch restrictions.

          (d) After the directed fishery for a CPS is closed under § 660.509, no person may take and retain, possess or land more of that species than the incidental trip limit set by the Regional Administrator, except the following directed fisheries may continue until the effective date of a Federal Register notice published by the Regional Administrator that the annual catch limit has been reached or is projected to be reached:
          (1) Fishing exclusively for live bait;
          (2) Minor directed fishing for finfish that does not exceed 1 mt per day per vessel or person, and which is limited to 1 fishing trip per day by any vessel.

      [FR Doc. 2017-25200 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-XE502
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of a public meeting.

          SUMMARY:

          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Whiting Committee on April 5, 2016, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

          DATES:
          This meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 5, 2016, at 10 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden, 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 734-9600; fax: (401) 734-9700.

            Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Agenda

        The Committee will evaluate options for limited access qualification criteria for Amendment 22. They will discuss other potential measures that could reduce the risk that catches exceed Annual Catch Limits for `choke' species, including but not limited to Georges Bank yellowtail flounder and northern red hake. The Committee will also discuss other business as necessary.
        Special Accommodations
        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: March 14, 2016.
          Tracey L. Thompson,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-06048 Filed 3-16-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 141
        [FRL-7854-3]
        Notice of a Public Meeting To Discuss Research Related to the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of a public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding a public meeting to discuss recent research related to the proposed Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR).

          DATES:
          The public meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time, on Tuesday, January 18, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held on the first floor of the East Building of EPA Headquarters in Room 1153. The address is EPA East, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general information about this meeting, contact Sarah Bahrman by phone at (202) 564-2335, by e-mail at bahrman.sarah@epa.gov, or by mail at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. For technical inquiries regarding the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, contact Tom Grubbs at (202) 564-5262, or by e-mail: grubbs.thomas@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss recent research related to the Stage 2 DBPR. EPA proposed the Stage 2 DBPR on August 18, 2003 (68 FR 49547) and is currently working on the final rule. The proposed Stage 2 DBPR was developed based on recommendations from a Federal Advisory Committee, which consisted of a broad range of stakeholders. EPA will build on this collaborative process by way of this public meeting.

        Research areas and examples of recent studies that the Agency plans to discuss at the meeting are listed at the end of this notice. This is not a comprehensive list of all recent disinfection byproduct research. A longer list of recent research can be found on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html. All copyrighted studies are available only in hard copy form and are accessible at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
        Attendees will have an opportunity to make oral remarks at specific points during the meeting. EPA also welcomes written remarks received by February 17, 2005, which can be sent to Sarah Bahrman by e-mail or by mail at the address listed in the previous section.
        The main entrance to the building on Constitution Avenue is a short distance from the Federal Triangle Metro Station, which is located on 12th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues and is served by the Blue and Orange Lines. Please note that attendees will be required to pass through security checks at the front desk and obtain a visitor's badge. All attendees will need to present a photo I.D. The building is accessible to persons using wheelchairs or scooters. Any person needing special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact Sarah Bahrman (contact information provided in the previous section) at least five business days before the meeting so that the Agency can make appropriate arrangements.
        Examples of Recent Research
        Reproductive and Developmental Epidemiology
        Cedergren, M.I., A.J. Selbing, O. Lofman, et al. 2002. Chlorination byproducts and nitrate in drinking water and risk for congenital cardiac defects. Environmental Research. 89(2): 124-130
        Dodds, L., W. King, A.C. Allen, B.A. Armson, D.B. Deshayne and C. Nimrod. 2004. Trihalomethanes in public water supplies and risk of stillbirth. Epidemiology. 15(2):179-186
        Fenster L., K. Waller, G. Windham, T. Henneman, M. Anderson, P. Mendola, J.W. Overstreet and S.H. Swan. 2003. Trihalomethane levels in home tap water and semen quality. Epidemiology. 14:650-658
        Hwang B.F. and J.J.K. Jaakkola. 2003. Water chlorination and birth defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Environmental Health. 58(2):83-91

        Infante-Rivard, C. 2004. Drinking water contaminants, gene polymorphisms, and fetal growth. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(11):1213-1216

        Shaw, G.M., D. Ranatunga, T. Quach, E. Neri, A. Correa and R.R. Neutra. 2003. Trihalomethane exposure from municipal water supplies and selected congenital malformations. Epidemiology. 14(2):191-199
        Toledano, M.B., M.J. Nieuwenhuijsen, N. Best, H. Whitaker, P. Hambly, C. de Hoogh, J. Fawell, L. Jarup and P. Elliott. 2004. Relation of trihalomethane concentrations in public water supplies to stillbirth and birth weight in three water regions in England. Environmental Health Perspectives. In Press (Online 21 October 2004)
        Wright J.M., J. Schwartz and D.W. Dockery. 2003. Effect of trihalomethane exposure on fetal development. Occup. Environ. Med. Mar;60(3):173-80
        Wright, J.M., J. Schwartz and D.W. Dockery. 2004. The effect of disinfection by-products and mutagenic activity on birth weight and gestational duration. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(8):920-925
        Yang, C.-Y. 2004. Drinking water chlorination and adverse birth outcomes in Taiwan. Toxicology. 198(2004): 249-254
        Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology
        Bielmeier, S.R., D.S. Best and M.G. Narotsky. 2004. Serum hormone characterization and exogenous hormone rescue of bromodichloromethane-induced pregnancy loss in the F344 rat. Toxicol. Sci. 77(1):101-108
        Bodensteiner K.J., H.R. Sawyer, C.L. Moeller, C.M. Kane, K.-Y.F. Pau, G.R. Klinefelter and D.N.R. Veeramachaneni. 2004. Chronic exposure to dibromoacetic acid, a water disinfection byproduct, diminishes primordial follicle populations in the rabbit. Toxicological Sciences. 80(1):83-91
        Goldman, J.M. and A.S. Murr. 2003. Dibromoacetic acid-induced elevations in circulating estradiol: effects in both cycling and ovariectomized/steroid-primed female rats. Reproductive Toxicology. 17(5):585-592
        Klinefelter, G.R., L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, N.L. Roberts, J.M. Goldman and A.S. Murr. 2004. Continuous exposure to dibromoacetic acid delays pubertal development and compromises sperm quality in the rat. Toxicological Sciences. 81(2):419-429
        Klinefelter, G.R., L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez and N.L. Roberts. 2002. Bromochloroacetic acid exerts qualitative effects on rat sperm: implications for a novel biomarker. Toxicological Sciences. 68:164-173
        Tully, D.B., J.C. Luft, J.C. Rockett, H. Ren, J.E. Schmid, C.R. Wood and D.J. Dix. 2004. Reproductive and genomic effects in testes from mice exposed to the water disinfectant byproduct bromochloroacetic acid. Reproductive Toxicology. In Press (Online 2 September 2004)
        Health Effects Reviews
        Graves, C.G., G.M. Matanoski and R.G. Tardiff. 2001. Weight of evidence for an association between adverse reproductive and developmental effects and exposure to disinfection by-products: a critical review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 34:103-124
        Cancer Epidemiology
        Chevrier, C., B. Junod and S. Cordier. 2004. Does ozonation of drinking water reduce the risk of bladder cancer? Epidemiology. 15(5):605-614
        Goebell, P.J., C.M. Villanueva, A.W. Rettenmeier, et al. 2004. Environmental exposure, chlorinated drinking water, and bladder cancer. World Journal of Urology. 21(6):424-432
        Ranmuthugala, G., L. Pilotto, W. Smith, T. Vimalasiri, K. Dear and R. Douglas. 2003. Chlorinated drinking water and micronuclei in urinary bladder epithelial cells. Epidemiology. 14(5):617-622
        Villanueva, C., M. Kogevinas and J. Grimalt. 2001. Chlorination of drinking water in Spain and bladder cancer. Gac Sanit. 15(1):48-53
        Villanueva, C.M., K.P. Cantor, S. Cordier, J.J.K. Jaakkola, W.D. King, C.F. Lynch, S. Porru and M. Kogevinas. 2004. Disinfection byproducts and bladder cancer a pooled analysis. Epidemiology. 15(3):357-367
        Cancer and Other Toxicology
        Echigo, S., S. Itoh, T. Natsui, T. Araki and R. Ando. 2004. Contribution of brominated organic disinfection by-products to the mutagenicity of drinking water. Water Sci Technol. 50(5):321-8
        George, M.H., G.R. Olson, D. Doerfler, et al. 2002. Carcinogenicity of bromodichloromethane administered in drinking water to male F344/N rats and B6C3F(1) mice. International Journal of Toxicology. 21(3):219-230
        Geter, D.R., M.H. George, T.M. Moore, et al. 2004. Vehicle and mode of administration effects on the induction of aberrant crypt foci in the colons of male F344/N rats exposed to bromodichloromethane. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health—Part A. 67(1):23-29
        Hooth, M.J., K.S. McDorman, S.D. Hester, M.H. George, L.R. Brooks, A.E. Swank and D.C. Wolf. 2002. The carcinogenic response of Tsc2 mutant Long-Evans (Eker) rats to a mixture of drinking water disinfection by-products was less than additive. Toxicol Sci. 69(2):322-31
        McDorman, K.S., M.J. Hooth, T.B. Starr and D.C. Wolf. 2003. Analysis of preneoplastic and neoplastic renal lesions in Tsc2 mutant Long-Evans (Eker) rats following exposure to a mixture of drinking water disinfection byproducts. Toxicology. 187(1):1-12
        McDorman, K.S., S. Chandra, M.J. Hooth, S.D. Hester, R. Schoonhoven and D.C. Wolf. 2003. Induction of transitional cell hyperplasia in the urinary bladder and aberrant crypt foci in the colon of rats treated with individual and a mixture of drinking water disinfection by-products. Toxicol Pathol. 31(2):235-242
        Minear, R.A. and M.J. Plewa. 2003. Comparative genotoxicity assessment of DBPs in drinking water. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF
        Moser, V.C., P.M. Phillips, A.B. Levine, K.L. McDaniel, R.C. Sills, B.S. Jortner and M.T. Butt. 2004. Neurotoxicity produced by dibromoacetic acid in drinking water of rats. Toxicological Sciences. 79(1):112-122
        Pereira, M.A., W. Wang, P.M. Kramer and L. Tao. 2004. Prevention by Methionine of Dichloroacetic Acid Induced Liver Cancer and DNA Hypomethylation in Mice. Toxicological Sciences. 77(2):243-248
        Pereira, M.A., P.M. Kramer, P.B. Conran and L.H. Tao. 2001. Effect of chloroform on dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid-induced hypomethylation and expression of the c-myc gene and on their promotion of liver and kidney tumors in mice. Carcinogenesis. 22(9):1511-1519
        Plewa, M.J., E.D. Wagner, S.D. Richardson, A.D. Thruston Jr., Y.-T. Woo and A.B. McKague. 2004. Chemical and biological characterization of newly discovered iodo-acid drinking water disinfection by-products. Environmental Science & Technology. 38(18): 4713-4722
        Plewa, M.J., S.D. Richardson and P. Jazwierska. 2004. Halonitromethane drinking water disinfection byproducts: chemical characterization and mammailian cell cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. Environmental Science & Technology. 38(1): 62-68

        Poon, R., I. Chu, G. LeBel, A. Yagminas and V.E. Valli. 2003. Effects of dibromoacetonitrile on rats following 13-week drinking water exposure. Food Chem Toxicol. 41(8):1051-61
        Sehata, S., T. Maejima, M. Watanabe, S. Ogata, T. Makino, K. Tanaka, S. Manabe and M. Takaoka. 2002. Twenty-six-Week carcinogenicity study of chloroform in CB6F1 rasH2-transgenic mice. Toxicol Pathol. 30(3):328-38
        Torti, V.R., A.J. Cobb, V.A. Wong, et al. 2002. Induction of micronuclei in wild-type and p53(+/-) transgenic mice by inhaled bromodichloromethane. Mutation Research-Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 520(1-2):171-178
        Cessation Lag
        Brennan, P., O. Bogillot, S. Cordier, E. Greiser, W. Schill, P. Vineis, G. Lopez-Abente, A. Tzonou, J. Chang-Claude, U. Bolm-Audorff, K.H. Jockel, F. Donato, C. Serra, J. Wahrendorf, M. Hours, A. T'Mannetje, M. Kogevinas and P. Boffetta. 2000. Cigarette smoking and bladder cancer in men: a pooled analysis of 11 case-control studies. International Journal of Cancer. 86(2):289-294
        Brennan, P., O. Bogillot, E. Greiser, J. Chang-Claude, J. Wahrendorf, S. Cordier, K.H. Jockel, G. Lopez-Abente, A. Tzonou, P. Vineis, F. Donato, M. Hours, C. Serra, U. Bolm-Audorff, W. Schill, M. Kogevinas and P. Boffetta. 2001. The contribution of cigarette smoking to bladder cancer in women (pooled European data). Cancer Causes and Controls. 12(5):411-417
        Hartge, P., D. Silverman, R. Hoove, C. Schairer, R. Altman, D. Austin, K. Cantor, M. Child, C. Key and L.D. Marrett. 1987. Changing cigarette habits and bladder cancer risk: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 78(6):1119-1125
        Zeegers, M.P., R.A. Goldbohm and P.A. van den Brandt. 2002. A prospective study on active and environmental tobacco smoking and bladder cancer risk (The Netherlands). Cancer Causes Control. 13(1):83-90
        Exposure Routes
        Miles, A.M., P.C. Singer, D.L. Ashley, M.C. Lynberg, P. Mendola, P.H. Langlois and J.R. Nuckols. 2002. Comparison of Trihalomethanes in Tap Water and Blood. Environ. Sci. Technology. 36(8):1692-1698
        Formation of Disinfection Byproducts and Occurrence Studies
        Bichsel, Y. and D. von Gunten. 2000. Formation of iodo-trihalomethanes during disinfection and oxidation of iodide-containing waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:2784-2791
        Cancho, B., F. Ventura, M. Galceran, A. Diaz and S. Ricart. 2000. Determination, synthesis and survey of iodinated trihalomethanes in water treatment processes. Wat. Res. 34(13):3380-3390
        Chellam, S. and S.W. Krasner. 2001. Disinfection byproduct relationships and speciation in chlorinated nanofiltered waters. Environmental Science & Technology. 35(19):3988-3999
        Choi, J. and R.L. Valentine. 2002. A kinetic model of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) formation during water chlorination/chloramination. Journal of Water Science and Technology. 46(3):65-71
        Choi, J. and R.L. Valentine. 2002. Formation of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) from reaction of monochloramine: a new disinfection by-product. Water Research. 36(4):817-824
        Choi, J., S.E. Duirk and R.L. Valentine. 2002. Mechanistic studies of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) formation in chlorinated drinking water. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 4(2):249-252
        Choi, J. and R.L. Valentine. 2003. N-nitrosodimethylamine formation by free-chlorine-enhanced nitrosation of dimethylamine. Environmental Science & Technology. 37(21):4871-4876
        Gerecke, A.C. and D.L. Sedlak. 2003. Precursors of N-nitrosodimethylamine in natural waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37(7):1331-1336
        Mitch, W.A. and D.L. Sedlak. 2002. Formation of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) from dimethylamine during chlorination. Environmental Science & Technology. 36(4):588-595
        Richardson, S.D., A.D. Thruston, Jr., C. Rav-Acha, L. Groisman, I. Popilevsky, O. Juraev, V. Glezer, A.B. McKague, M.J. Plewa and E.D. Wagner. 2003. Tribrompyrrole, brominated acids, and other disinfection byproducs produced by disinfection of drinking water rich in bromide. Environmental Science & Technology. 37(17):3782-3793
        Singer, P.C., H.S. Weinberg, K. Brophy, L. Liang, M. Roberts, I. Grisstede, S. Krasner, H. Baribeau, H. Arora, and I. Najm. 2002. Relative dominance of haloacetic acids and trihalomethanes in treated drinking water. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF
        Speitel, G.E., P.G. Pope, M.R. Collins, and M. Martin-Doole. Disinfection by-product formation and control during chloramination. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF
        Von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinkingwater: Part II. Disinfection and by-product formation in presence of bromide, iodide or chlorine. Water Research. 37:1469-1487

        Weinberg, H.S., S.W. Krasner, S.D. Richardson and A.D. Thruston, Jr. 2002. The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. EPA/600/R-02/068. http://www.epa.gov/athens/publications/ EPA600R02068.pdf

        Westerhoff, P. and H. Mash. 2002. Dissolved organic nitrogen in drinking water supplies: a review. Journal of Water Supply Research and Technology-Aqua. 51(8):415-448

          Dated: December 17, 2004.
          Clare Donaher,
          Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

      [FR Doc. 04-28094 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 679 and 680
        [Docket No. 060424108-6108-01; I.D. 040706A]
        RIN 0648-AT43
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cost Recovery Program for North Pacific Halibut, Sablefish, and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Individual Fishing Quota Programs

          AGENCY:

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes an amendment to the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Cost Recovery Program for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Programs. This action modifies the procedure NMFS uses to publish notification of adjustment of the IFQ fee percentage for the IFQ Cost Recovery Program in the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization Programs. This action is necessary to provide timely and efficient notice of fee obligations while maintaining compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This action is intended to improve the fee collection methods required for all Alaska IFQ programs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and is necessary to promote the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect to the IFQ fisheries managed by NMFS in the Alaska Region.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than June 7, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Walsh. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: 0648-AT43@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: IFQ Cost Recovery RIN 0648-AT43. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to five megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.
          Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), regulatory impact review (RIR), and regulatory flexibility certification prepared for this action are available from NMFS at the above address or by calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Bubba Cook, 907-586-7425 or bubba.cook@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        NMFS, Alaska Region, administers the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization Programs in the North Pacific. These programs are limited access systems authorized by section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines IFQ as a Federal permit under a limited access system to harvest a quantity of fish, expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person. The Halibut and Sablefish Program and the Crab Rationalization Program meet this statutory definition of IFQ and are therefore subject to cost recovery fees under section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended (by Public Law 104-297) to require, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce “collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of any . . . individual fishing quota program” (section 304(d)(2)(A)). The upper limits on these fees, fee collection times, and fee deposit locations are specified by section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 303(d)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows NMFS to reserve up to 25 percent of the fees collected for use in an IFQ loan program to aid in financing the purchase of IFQ or quota share (QS) by entry-level and small-vessel fishermen.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies the following with respect to the imposition of cost recovery fees:
        1. Fees must recover actual costs directly related to management and enforcement of the IFQ Program;
        2. Fees must not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under any such program;
        3. Fees are in addition to any other fees charged under the Magnuson-Stevens Act;
        4. With the exception of money reserved for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization loan program, fees must be deposited in the Limited Access System Administrative Fund (LASAF) in the U.S. Treasury; and
        5. Fees must be collected during one of the following times: when landing; when filing a landing report; when selling the fish during a fishing season; or in the last quarter of the calendar year in which the fish were harvested.
        The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program and the Crab Rationalization Program are the only IFQ fisheries off Alaska currently subject to the cost recovery requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Fishing under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program began in March 1995 through regulations set forth at 50 CFR part 679. Fishing under the Crab Rationalization Program began in August 2005 through regulations set forth at 50 CFR part 680.

        This action would only affect the methods by which NMFS calculates fee percentages and provides notice under the cost recovery provisions of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program and Crab Rationalization Program. Specifically, this action proposes a structure for public notification of the fee percentage. Calculation of the fee percentage under this proposed action would become a ministerial duty conducted by NMFS. This proposed action would not affect the ex-vessel value determination under either program nor would it affect the current structure or administration of the standard prices calculated for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program or the Catcher/Processor ex-vessel values calculated for the Crab Rationalization Program. However, NMFS would make minor changes to the current fee regulations to ensure full compliance with the APA (5 U.S.C. 501 et seq., 701 et seq.) while improving administrative efficiency.
        Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery
        On March 20, 2000, NMFS published regulations (65 FR 14919) implementing the IFQ Cost Recovery Program for IFQ landings of halibut and sablefish (set forth at 50 CFR 679.45). Under the regulations, an IFQ permit holder incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish that is landed under his or her IFQ permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the fee liability for all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings on his or her permit(s). The IFQ permit holder also is responsible for submitting a fee liability payment to NMFS on or before the due date of January 31, following the year in which the IFQ landings were made. For each permit, the dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the annual IFQ fee percentage (3 percent or less) by the ex-vessel value of each IFQ landing. If the permit holder has more than one permit, the total amounts of each permit are added.

        Section 304(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets a maximum fee of 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under an IFQ program. Current regulations allow NMFS to reduce the fee percentage if actual management and enforcement costs are recoverable through a lesser percentage. NMFS will not know the actual annual costs of IFQ-related management and enforcement until after the end of each Federal fiscal year (September 30). If the management and enforcement costs total less than the 3 percent fee, NMFS will reduce the fee percentage for the new Federal fiscal year. Fishermen will not know at the time they sell their IFQ fish exactly what fee percentage will be applied to their IFQ landings made from February (season opening) through September (Federal fiscal year-end). Therefore, NMFS encourages IFQ permit holders to set aside the full 3 percent throughout the fishing year so a lump sum payment may be made by January 31 of the following calendar year. Early payments are allowed but do not relieve a permit holder of associated reporting requirements.
        Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery
        Section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides supplementary authority to section 304(d)(2)(A) and additional detail for cost recovery provisions specific to the Crab Rationalization Program. As a quota program, the Crab Rationalization Program must follow the statutory provisions set forth by section 304(d) and section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Section 313(j) requires the Secretary to approve a cost recovery program for the Crab Rationalization Program, conducted in accordance with the existing Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery program. Similar to the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery program, the Crab Rationalization cost recovery program allows for the collection of actual management and enforcement costs up to 3 percent of ex-vessel gross revenues and a loan program using 25 percent of the fees collected.
        Section 313(j) includes specific cost recovery requirements to accommodate the crab processing industry and to address problems experienced under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery program. This section provides NMFS the authority to collect 133 percent of the actual costs of management and enforcement. By collecting 133 percent, 25 percent of that amount can be set aside for the IFQ loan program and the remaining 75 percent more fully reimburses the management and enforcement costs of the program. Additionally, section 313(j) requires cost recovery fees to be paid in equal shares by the harvesting and processing sectors. Catcher/Processors, a combination of both sectors, pay the full fee percentage.
        NMFS developed the Crab Rationalization cost recovery program to conform with statutory requirements and to partially compensate the agency for the unique added costs of management and enforcement of the Crab Rationalization Program. Key provisions of the Crab Rationalization cost recovery program include: (1) a new definition and application of “fee liability"; (2) the establishment of a Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit system to streamline management and reporting; (3) the establishment of a “crab fishing year” for biological and administrative purposes; and (4) a new administrative process that requires the collection and submission of fees by RCRs rather than requiring separate billings to each person that receives a crab allocation (crab allocation holder). The crab allocations include IFQ, Crew IFQ, Individual Processing Quota (IPQ), Community Development Quota (CDQ), and the Adak community allocation.
        In the crab rationalization fishery, a crab allocation holder generally incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of crab landed. The RCR permit holder must collect any fee liability of the crab allocation holder landing crab. Additionally, the RCR permit holder must self-collect their own fee liability for all crab delivered to the RCR. The RCR permit holder is responsible for submitting this payment to NMFS on or before the due date of July 31, following the crab fishing year in which payment for the crab is made. The dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the fee percentage (not to exceed 3 percent) by the ex-vessel value of crab debited from the allocation. Specific details on the Crab Rationalization cost recovery program may be found in the implementing regulations for the Crab Rationalization Program set forth at 50 CFR 680.44, and published March 2, 2005, at 70 FR 10174.
        The Crab Rationalization Program established a fee percentage calculation structure similar to the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. To budget their costs, fishermen need to know the fee percentage that would apply to any crab deducted from a crab allocation in a crab fishing year at the time of sale. Based on preliminary calculations, however, NMFS determined that 3 percent of ex-vessel value will not be enough to cover the management and enforcement costs of the Program. Hence, NMFS began the cost recovery program using the maximum of 3 percent. NMFS will reduce the fee in subsequent seasons if calculated to be less than 3 percent.
        Overpayment of Fees
        In the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and Crab Rationalization Programs, the fee percentage calculation adjusts for overpayment of the management and enforcement costs through a variable that considers the account balance in the LASAF account. Separate accounts are designated within the LASAF to ensure that funds from one program's cost recovery only pay for the costs directly related to the management and enforcement of that program, and not other IFQ programs.
        The Proposed Change
        This proposed action, if approved, would accomplish three goals:
        1. Inform the public of the equation and all factors used to calculate the fee percentage, thereby allowing the public to comment on the methodology used to conduct the standard calculation of the fee percentage;
        2. Calculation of direct program costs (DPC) through a new, independently-developed timekeeping system that automatically calculates management costs by individual employee; and
        3. Publish an annual fee percentage by Federal Register notice, rather than by proposed and final rulemaking. This action would make the publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the fee percentage a ministerial duty performed by NMFS. The determination of the fee percentage would become simply an administrative calculation rather than the current and more complicated process of changing the default percentage.
        Under the current cost recovery programs for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization Programs, the fee percentage is calculated according to the following general equation:
        [100 (DPC-AB) /V]/ (1-NPR)
        “DPC” represents the direct program costs for the applicable IFQ program for the previous fiscal year. “AB” is the end of the fiscal year LASAF account balance for the applicable IFQ program. “V” is the estimated ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the cost recovery fee liability for the current year. V is based on the value reported by an established port or port group as reported by the fishery participants, which is subsequently summed and applied by NMFS. “NPR” is the calculated nonpayment rate based on the previous year as determined by subtracting the percentage of IFQ holders subject to a fee liability who do not pay from the percentage of IFQ holders subject to a fee liability. NPR, AB, and V are variables taken directly from sources which NMFS has no ability to change.

        This proposal would simplify the current calculation by eliminating or consolidating some variables. The NPR variable would be eliminated because it has had negligible effect on the overall calculation of the percentage since the inception of the program. The changes proposed by this action primarily affect the DPC variable. First, as part of this action, the AB variable would be automatically incorporated into the DPC variable rather than treated separately. Second, NMFS is adopting a new time and attendance management system that will more efficiently and accurately track individual management responsibilities. The new management system will remove all NMFS discretion in determining the DPC for any IFQ program. Therefore, in conjunction with the calculation of other variables used to calculate the fee percentage, the determination of DPC will be determined by formula. NMFS would then apply the automatically calculated DPC to the fee percentage formula to achieve the fee percentage for the prescribed fee period.
        DPC Calculation
        Prior to this proposed action, the DPC calculation became an automated process managed by the Operations, Management, and Information (OMI) Division, Alaska Region, NMFS. The new process receives time allocation information from all personnel who engage in management or enforcement associated with any IFQ program. This information also is distinguished according to the specific IFQ program (i.e., Crab Rationalization or Halibut and Sablefish).
        For instance, a NMFS employee working on a regulation for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program would record the amount of time he or she spends on that IFQ program in a special timekeeping program by 15-minute intervals over each two-week pay period. The timekeeping program would document and sum the specific time expended by that NMFS employee on work directly related to the management of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. The time expended by that NMFS employee would be automatically multiplied by his or her hourly rate-of-pay to achieve the management costs of that individual for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. The NMFS employee's management costs then would be automatically added with other employee's costs and added to any other documented costs incurred by NMFS (e.g., printing, training, and supply costs). Enforcement costs would continue to be calculated based on agents' salaries as dedicated full time to IFQ enforcement plus any other documented costs incurred by NMFS Enforcement (e.g., training, equipment, and travel costs). OMI would then add all individual DPCs to achieve the DPC variable.
        This action also proposes to revise existing regulatory text to clarify the public's obligations under the regulations and to clarify how the fee percentage will be calculated by substituting terms such as “shall” and “must” regarding NMFS duties in places where “would,” “will,” or “may” were previously used.
        APA Compliance

        The APA requires Federal agencies to advise the public through a notice in the Federal Register of the terms or substance of a proposed substantive rule and provide the public a period to comment. This is the “notice and comment” requirement of the APA. The requirement is designed to give interested persons, through written submissions or oral presentations, an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Generally, the procedural safeguards of the APA help ensure that government agencies are accountable to the public and their decisions are reasoned. This proposed rule would provide substantive elements that are subject to the APA's notice and comment procedures and is intended to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed provisions.

        If this proposal is implemented, the fee percentage calculation would become a simple administrative calculation subject to a statutory maximum fee cap (3 percent) rather than a maximum fee value subject to a reduction. As a result of this regulatory change, subsequent administrative calculations of the fee percentage would be published in the Federal Register as a notice because they would have no substantive effect beyond the requirements of the existing regulations and would only serve to inform the public of their preexisting duty to pay fees. This change in methodology would make the cost recovery fee calculation process more compliant with the APA.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the associated FMPs and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council considered all quantitative and qualitative measures and chose a preferred alternative based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the affected public.
        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. Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act directs the Secretary of Commerce collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of any individual fishing quota program and that such fee shall not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under the program. The proposed rule would only explain the process for notifying the public of fee obligations and would not substantively change the amount of fees owed by any regulated entities. The proposed rule would clarify the regulations governing the methods NMFS uses to determine the appropriate level of cost recovery fees to collect. The proposed rule will not affect the definitions of the costs that NMFS is required to recover under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the size or distribution of the cost recovery fees that fishermen are expected to pay. Additionally, the proposed rule will not directly regulate, impose, or change any obligations of entities, and will thus not directly regulate any small entities. The proposed regulatory change is not expected to change the size or distribution of the cost recovery fees imposed on fishermen and should not impose any economic impact on small entities.
        The two criteria recommended to determine significant economic impact are the disproportionality and profitability of the action. The proposed action would not place a substantial number of small entities at a disadvantage relative to large entities, and it does not reduce the profit for small entities. No entities appear to be directly regulated by this action. The economic analysis in the RIR describes the proposed rule and its operation in detail. It is apparent from the description of the rule that it would not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

        According to NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, including the criteria used to determine significance, this rule would not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment beyond those effects identified in previous NEPA analyses. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for the final rule implementing the original Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery Program regulations (65 FR 14919, March 15, 2000) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the final rule implementing the Crab Rationalization Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). These NEPA documents analyzed all potential and cumulative environmental impacts of the cost recovery systems. The scope of these analyses includes the potential environmental impacts of this proposed rule. Based on the nature of the proposed rule and the previous environmental analyses, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, in accordance with Section 5.05b of NAO 216-6. Copies of the EA for the original Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery Program, the EIS for the original Crab Rationalization Program, and the categorical exclusion for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 679 and 680
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: May 2, 2006.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 679 and 680 are proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et seq.

          2. In § 679.45 paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

            § 679.45
            IFQ cost recovery program.
            (d) IFQ fee percentage—(1) Established percentage. The annual IFQ fee percentage is the amount as determined by the factors and methodology described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This amount will be announced by publication in the Federal Register in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. This amount must not exceed 3 percent pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)(B).
            (2) Calculating fee percentage value. Each year NMFS shall calculate and publish the fee percentage according to the following factors and methodology:
            (i) Factors. NMFS must use the following factors to determine the fee percentage:
            (A) The catch to which the IFQ fee will apply;
            (B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; and
            (C) The costs directly related to the management and enforcement of the IFQ program.
            (ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the following equation to determine the fee percentage:
            100 (DPC / V)
            where:
            “DPC” is the direct program costs for the IFQ fishery for the previous fiscal year, and “V” is the ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the IFQ fee for the current year.
            (3) Publication—(i) General. During or before the last quarter of each year, NMFS shall publish the IFQ fee percentage in the Federal Register. NMFS shall base any calculations on the factors and methodology in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
            (ii) Effective period. The calculated IFQ fee percentage shall remain in effect through the end of the calendar year in which it was determined.
            (4) Applicable percentage. The IFQ permit holder must use the IFQ fee percentage in effect at the time an IFQ landing is made to calculate his or her fee liability for such landed IFQ pounds. The IFQ permit holder must use the IFQ percentage in effect at the time an IFQ retro-payment is received by the IFQ permit holder to calculate his or her IFQ fee liability for the IFQ retro-payment.

            PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          3. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1862.

          4. In § 680.44 paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (c)(1) through (3) are revised; paragraph (c)(4) is removed; and paragraph (c)(5) is redesignated as paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:

            § 680.44
            Cost recovery.
            (a) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (iii) NMFS will provide a summary to all RCR permit holders during the last quarter of the crab fishing year. The summary will explain the fee liability determination including the current fee percentage, details of raw crab pounds debited from CR allocations by permit, port or port-group, species, date, and prices.
            (c) * * *
            (1) Established percentage. The crab fee percentage is the amount as determined by the factors and methodology described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. This amount will be announced by publication in the Federal Register in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section. This amount must not exceed 3 percent pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)(B).
            (i) The calculated crab fee percentage will be divided equally between the harvesting and processing sectors.
            (ii) Catcher/Processors must pay the full crab fee percentage determined by the fee percentage calculation for all CR crab debited from a CR allocation.
            (2) Calculating fee percentage value. Each year NMFS shall calculate and publish the fee percentage according to the following factors and methodology:
            (i) Factors. NMFS must use the following factors to determine the fee percentage:
            (A) The catch to which the crab cost recovery fee will apply;
            (B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; and
            (C) The costs directly related to the management and enforcement of the Crab Rationalization Program.
            (ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the following equations to determine the fee percentage:
            Harvesting and Processing Sectors: [100 (DPC/ V)] 0.5
            Catcher/Processors: 100 (DPC /V)
            Where:
            “DPC” is the direct program costs for the Crab Rationalization Program for the previous fiscal year, and
            “V” is the ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the crab cost recovery fee liability for the current year.
            (3) Publication—(i) General. During the first quarter of each crab fishing year, NMFS shall calculate the crab fee percentage based on the calculations described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
            (ii) Effective period. The calculated IFQ fee percentage remains in effect through the end of the crab fishing year in which it was determined.

      [FR Doc. E6-6925 Filed 5-5-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90; Report No. 3146; FRS 16673]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Proceedings

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's proceedings by Cynthia B. Schultz, on behalf of Illinois Office of Broadband; Doug Boone, on behalf of Heartland Telecommunications Company of Iowa d/b/a Premier Communications; and Sarah L.J. Aceves on behalf of Vermont Department of Public Service.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before May 18, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 26, 2020.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ian Forbes, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7400.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3146, released April 14, 2020. Petitions may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, Connect America Fund, FCC 20-5, published at 85 FR 13773, March 10, 2020 in WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of petitions filed: 3.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2020-08721 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        RIN 0648-XB089
        [Docket No. 120425024-5625-04]
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings; Second Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          On March 23, 2015, NMFS and USFWS (or the Services) published a proposed rule to revise the listings of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas; hereafter referred to as the green turtle) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We opened a public comment period that lasted through June 22, 2015. On June 7, 2015, we published a notice extending the public comment period through July 27, 2015. Having received requests to further extend the comment period, with this document we extend the comment period to August 26, 2015.

          DATES:
          Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be received by close of business on August 26, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.
          OR
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13535, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by the Services. All comments received will be a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. The Services will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). The proposed rule is available electronically at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm and http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301-427-8443, email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov), or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS (ph. 904-731-3032, email annmarie_lauritsen@fws.gov). Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The green turtle is currently listed under the ESA as a threatened species globally, with the exception of the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast breeding populations, which are listed as endangered. On March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15271), the Services published a proposed rule to revise these listings because we found that the green turtle is composed of 11 distinct population segments (DPSs) that qualify for listing under the ESA. We proposed to remove the current listings and, in their place, list eight DPSs as threatened and three as endangered. We also proposed to apply existing protective regulations to the DPSs and to continue the existing critical habitat designation (i.e., waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico) in effect for the North Atlantic DPS. We solicited comments on these proposed actions and indicated that comments must be received by June 22, 2015. On June 7, 2015 (80 FR 34594), we announced public hearings in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa, and extended the public comment period through July 27, 2015. On July 13, 2015, we received requests to further extend the public comment period due to a typhoon and the island-wide loss of internet in Saipan, CNMI. We concur with these requests and hereby extend the public comment period by an additional 30 days, until August 26, 2015. Previously submitted comments do not need to be resubmitted.

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

          Dated: July 21, 2015.
          Paul N. Doremus,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.
          Dated: July 20, 2015.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-18246 Filed 7-24-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 71
        [Docket No. FAA-2017-0724; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-1]
        Proposed Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways in the Vicinity of Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-2, V-26, V-84, V-218, and V-510 in the vicinity of Lansing, MI, and to remove airway V-410 in the vicinity of Pontiac, MI. The proposed modifications are required due to the planned decommissioning of the Lansing, MI, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Pontiac, MI, VORTAC navigation aids which provide navigation guidance for portions of the above routes. Three additional VOR Federal airways impacted by the planned Lansing VORTAC decommissioning (V-45, V-103, and V-233) were proposed for amendment previously in a separate NPRM.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 7, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0724 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-1 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1 (800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

          FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

          FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Authority for This Rulemaking
        The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System (NAS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.
        Comments Invited
        Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

        Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0724 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

        Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0724 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
        All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
        Availability of NPRMs

        An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

        You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd., Fort Worth, TX, 76177.
        Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

        This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
        Background

        The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI, VORTACs to take place in 2018. These VORTACs were identified for discontinuance by the VOR Minimum Operating Network (VOR MON) program and listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
        With the planned decommissioning of the Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI, VORTACs, the FAA has determined the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the areas is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to VOR Federal airways V-2, V-26, V-84, V-218, and V-510 will result in gaps in the route structures. Additionally, the V-410 is proposed to be removed as well. To overcome the gaps that would result in the route structures, the FAA plans to amend the current fixes contained within the project area by converting them into RNAV waypoints that would remain in place to assist pilots and air traffic controllers already familiar with them, for navigation purposes. Instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could file point-to-point through the affected area using the waypoint fixes that will remain in place, or could receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. VFR pilots who elect to navigate via airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the waypoint fixes or ATC services listed previously.
        The Proposal
        The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-2, V-26, V-84, V-218, and V-510; and to remove V-410, due to the planned decommissioning of the Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI, VORTACs. Three additional VOR Federal airways impacted by the planned decommissioning of the Lansing and Pontiac VORTACs (V-45, V-103, and V-233) have been proposed for amendment in a separate NPRM (82 FR 11859, February 27, 2017) and are not addressed in this action. The proposed route changes for this action are described below.

          V-2: V-2 currently extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and the Gardner, MA, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. In a separate NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada (82 FR 11859, February 27, 2017). The FAA now proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Nodine, MN, 122°(T)/121°(M) and Waukon, IA, 053°(T)/048°(M) radials (WEBYE fix) and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC in this NPRM. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the two remaining segments.

          V-26: V-26 currently extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. In a separate NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada (82 FR 11859, February 27, 2017). The FAA now proposes to remove the airway segment between the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC in this NPRM. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.

          V-84: V-84 currently extends between the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME and the Flint, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the Syracuse, NY, VORTAC. In a separate NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and the Flint, MI, VORTAC (82 FR 11859, February 27, 2017). The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Pullman, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC in this NPRM. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the two remaining segments.

          V-218: V-218 currently extends between the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR/DME and the Rockford, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Keeler, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC. In a separate final rule action effective August 17, 2017, the FAA added and re-designated a portion of the V-161 airway between the International Falls, MN, VORTAC and the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR/DME to V-218 (82 FR 27986, June 20, 2017). The FAA now proposes to remove the airways segments between the Waukon, IA, VORTAC and the Rockford, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Keeler, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC in this NPRM. The unaffected portion of the existing airway would remain as charted.

          V-410: V-410 currently extends between the Pontiac, MI, VORTAC and the London, ON, Canada VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

          V-510: V-510 currently extends between the Dickinson, ND, VORTAC and the Dells, WI, VORTAC; and between the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the Rochester, NY, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway will remain as charted in the two remaining segments.
        All radials in the route descriptions below that do not reflect True (T)/Magnetic (M) degree radial information are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
        VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
        Regulatory Notices and Analyses

        The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        Environmental Review
        This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
          Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

        The Proposed Amendment
        In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

          PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

        1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

          § 71.1
           [Amended]

        2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

            Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

          V-2 [Amended]
          From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; to INT Nodine 122°(T)/121°(M) and Waukon, IA, 053°(T)/048°(M) radials. From Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.

          V-26 [Amended]
          From Blue Mesa, CO; Montrose, CO; 13 miles, 112 MSL, 131 MSL; Grand Junction, CO; Meeker, CO; Cherokee, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; 14 miles 12 AGL, 37 miles 75 MSL, 84 miles 90 MSL, 17 miles 12 AGL; Rapid City, SD; Philip, SD; Pierre, SD; Huron, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; Farmington, MN; Eau Claire, WI; Waussau, WI; Green Bay, WI; INT Green Bay 116° and White Cloud, MI, 302° radials; to White Cloud.

          V-84 [Amended]
          From Northbrook, IL; to Pullman, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; INT Geneseo 091° and Syracuse, NY, 240° radials; to Syracuse.

          V-218 [Amended]
          From International Falls, MN; Grand Rapids, MN; Gopher, MN; to Waukon, IA.

          V-410 [Removed]

          V-510 [Amended]
          From Dickinson, ND; INT Dickinson 078° and Bismarck, ND, 290° radials, 28 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck; INT Bismarck 067° and Jamestown, ND, 279° radials, 14 miles, 65 miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown; Fargo, ND; INT Fargo 110° and Alexandria, MN, 321° radials; Alexandria; INT Alexandria 110° and Gopher, MN, 321° radials; Gopher; INT Gopher 109° and Nodine, MN, 328° radials; Nodine; to Dells, WI. From Buffalo, NY; INT Buffalo 045° and Rochester, NY, 273° radials; to Rochester.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2017.
          Scott M. Rosenbloom,
          Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.

      [FR Doc. 2017-15390 Filed 7-21-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 070802D]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue EFPs.  NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator proposes to issue EFPs that would allow two vessels to conduct fishing operations otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  EFPs would allow exemptions to gear restrictions and to the Days-at-Sea (DAS) requirements of the FMP.  The experiment proposes to compare two experimental trawl net configurations (2½-inch (6.35-cm) diamond and 3-inch (7.62-cm) diamond codend mesh sizes in a net with a finfish excluder device and a raised footrope with no sweep) to compare various dropper chain lengths and locations on the footrope and to fish this gear in a variety of bottom types and depths to selectively fish for whiting (Merluccius bilinearis), while maintaining low levels of regulated Northeast multispecies bycatch.
          Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:
          Comments on this document must be received on or before August 5, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Whiting EFP Proposal.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          E. Martin Jaffe, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Maine Division of Marine Resources (MEDMR) submitted an application for EFPs on June 14, 2002, with final revisions received on June 27, 2002.  The EFPs would facilitate the collection of data on experimental gear performance for use in addressing whiting conservation issues (juvenile whiting bycatch) and reductions in regulated Northeast multispecies bycatch in the Gulf of Maine whiting fishery (Maine whiting fishery).  MEDMR also intends to present the findings of the data from the experiment to the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) for its consideration when evaluating year-4 default measures and long-term management options for the whiting resource.

        The experiment would occur within a portion of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Regulated Mesh Area (GOM/GB RMA), well within the Northern Shrimp Small Mesh Exemption Area; specifically, from the shore at 44°18′ N. lat., 69°00′ W. long., south to 43°35.3′ N. lat., 69°00′ W. long., southwesterly to 43°00′ N. lat., 70°30′ W. long., then northerly to the shore at 43°21′ N. lat., 70°30′ W. long.  The experimental fishing area would exclude any seasonal or year-round closures overlapping it in time or area and would operate for 3 months, from mid-July through mid-October 2002.  Field testing of the proposed gear modification through the gear trials would take place for approximately 6 days a month from July through mid-October 2002 to allow for weather contingencies and to capture seasonal variability in target species distribution and abundance.
        The experiment is a continuation of, and intends to build on, previous gear studies (i.e., a gear testing component of the traditional Separator Trawl Whiting Experimental Fishery) that tested and assessed gear selectivity factors designed to address bycatch issues in the Maine whiting fishery.  The main purpose of this four-phase study is as follows:  (1) To obtain better video footage of the gear and its interactions with fish and habitat (singular and combined effects); (2) to compare 2 and one-half-inch (6.35-cm) diamond codend mesh against 3-inch (7.62-cm) diamond codend mesh, each with 2-inch (5.08-cm) grate bar spacings in combination with 42-inch (106.7-cm) dropper chains on a raised footrope trawl net configuration; (3) to test various dropper chain configurations for balance with the number of headrope floats for best net stability; and (4) to tow the best net configuration over a variety of bottom types and depths under commercial conditions to ensure that the net will continue to work well with heavier catches.
        The field work would require 276 total hours of towing; 2 and one-half-inch (6.35-cm) versus 3-inch (7.62-cm) codend gear trials would entail 36 total hours of trawling activity (6 days paired towing with 6 half-hour tows per day for each of the two vessels), followed by 240 total hours of towing during the remaining sea trials (4 days each per month for 3 months for two vessels towing an average of 10 hours per day).

        Projected whiting landings based on MEDMR sea sampling data during July and August 1999 are estimated at upper catch rates of between 18,960 lb (8,600.11 kg) and 31,680 lb (14,369.80 kg) of whiting total (based upon an average catch per unit effort of between 790 lb (358.34 kg) and 1,320 lb (598.74 kg) per trip).  Lower catch rates are estimated at 42 lb (19.05 kg)/trip or 1,008 lb 457.22 kg) total catch for the 24 gear trial trips, excluding the 12 paired tow trips where minimal catch would be retained.  These catch levels are well within the possession/landing limits for vessels using small mesh within the GOM/GB RMA.  Landed catch would not exceed current restrictions, depending on mesh size being used.  Thus, the experimental gear trials are expected to have very little incremental impact on the whiting resource.  Participants may retain whiting and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) for commercial sale up to the applicable landing limits.
        Historically, the Maine whiting fishery, through its use of the separator trawl (the control gear in this experiment), has experienced low levels of regulated multispecies bycatch.  One of the objectives of the experiment is to demonstrate that the proposed gear combinations of separator grate, mesh size and raised footrope trawl configuration can selectively fish for whiting, while avoiding impacts on regulated finfish species.  The applicant notes that the proportion of bycatch to the total catch (percent bycatch) may exceed acceptable levels when target species catch rates are low.  Nonetheless, the applicant expects that the average bycatch levels would not exceed acceptable thresholds.
        All of the paired tow trips and 25 percent of the remaining 24 trips would have an MEDMR sea sampler on board and the catch would be measured according to NMFS sea sampling methodology and recorded on NMFS logbooks.  For all trips without a sea sampler, the captain would record total catch, catch of whiting, and catch in numbers and weight of each regulated species for each tow in a logbook supplied by MEDMR.  Any sub-legal sized fish would be measured by the sea samplers and returned immediately to the water.
        The applicant plans to conduct public outreach meetings to present the gear research findings to the remainder of the fleet that did not participate in the experimental fishery.  It is intended that the results of this gear work will be the basis for a request to the Council for a Maine whiting fishery exemption within an appropriate area and under certain gear restrictions.
        EFPs would exempt two vessels from the DAS requirements and gear restrictions of the FMP found at 50 CFR part 648, subpart F.
        Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
        Based on the results of this EFP, this action may lead to future rulemaking.

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

          Dated: July 12, 2002.
          Virginia M. Fay,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-18265 Filed 7-18-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S