        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0489]
        Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; State of Idaho, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA announces that the Division of Motor Vehicles, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), has applied for an exemption from provisions of 49 CFR 383.75(a)(8)(v) that require third-party commercial driver license (CDL) testers to initiate and maintain a bond in an amount determined by the State to be sufficient to pay for re-testing drivers in the event that the third party or one or more of its examiners is involved in fraudulent activities related to conducting skills testing of CDL applicants. FMCSA requests public comment on IDT's application for exemption.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2015-0489 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

          • Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.

            Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials regarding this application for exemption. Comments should address the safety assessment provided by the applicant.
        Submitting Comments
        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2015-0489), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put the docket number, “FMCSA-2015-0489” in the “Keyword” box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. An option to upload a file is provided. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application based on your comments.
        II. Legal Basis

        FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, including the CDL regulations in 49 CFR part 383. See also 49 CFR 381.300(c)(2), FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.

        The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1) and 49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
        III. Request for Exemption
        The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) is the State of Idaho governmental organization responsible for state transportation infrastructure. The Agency is responsible for overseeing the disbursement of Federal, State, and grant funding for the transportation programs of the State. IDT's CDL program is designed to improve safety on the highways while meeting Federal requirements for the testing and licensing of commercial drivers.
        Idaho is a geographically large state with a relatively small population. To adequately serve their constituents, the ITD oversees a third-party tester program consisting of approximately 60 CDL examiners. ITD utilizes contractors as the third-party examiners, so these examiners are not considered government employees, who would not need to be bonded.
        The IDT has applied for an exemption from the regulations in 49 CFR 383.75(a)(8)(v) that require third-party testers to initiate and maintain a bond in an amount determined by the State to be sufficient to pay for re-testing drivers in the event that the third party or one or more of its examiners is involved in fraudulent activities related to conducting skills testing of CDL applicants. The ITD requests the exemption because this regulation creates a financial hardship for testing examiners who must be bonded but conduct only a few tests monthly and the State of Idaho has had no instances of fraud in their third-party testing organizations. IDT believes that the exemption, if granted, would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by complying with the regulation.

        According to IDT, most of their examiners work in small cities and towns scattered throughout the State of Idaho. Many of these examiners only conduct one or two CDL tests per month. The cost of requiring these examiners to be bonded creates a financial hardship for the examiners who earn just $60 per test. This regulation results in some badly-needed examiners potentially dropping out of the CDL testing arena. The State of Idaho is self-insured, in that Idaho state employee staff members are qualified and available to re-test any applicants who may be found to have given a CDL “tainted” by some type of fraud. This would be done at no cost to the applicants.
        In support of their request, the ITD indicates that it uses, and has used for over a year now, the Commercial Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS) to monitor CDL skills test examiners and to improve safety. This Internet-based tool provides a consistent way to track the scheduling and entry of test results for CDL skills tests by jurisdiction and third-party examiners. CSTIMS enforces jurisdiction-defined rules to manage CDL skills testing and will alert jurisdictions when circumstances are encountered that may require investigation to determine if fraud may have occurred. CSTIMS also produces reports that can be reviewed for patterns of potential fraud, and surveys are also sent to all individuals tested to help monitor Idaho's testing program and detect fraud.
        IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety
        ITD states that granting this exemption will result in a level of safety that is equal to or greater than the level of safety of the rule without the exemption. According to the application for exemption, Idaho has had no instances of fraud in its third-party testing organizations. ITD requests, therefore, that FMCSA approve this request based on the alternate measures they have put in place supporting the spirit and purpose of 49 CFR 383.75(a)(8)(v) and, in its view, provide an equivalent or greater level of safety.
        A copy of ITD's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.

          Issued on: February 26, 2016.
           Larry W. Minor,
           Associate Administrator for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2016-05243 Filed 3-8-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2005-MI-0001; FRL-8019-4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's request for a revision to its Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan which provides for exemptions for major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New Source Review (NSR) requirements for NOX. The review is for sources in eleven counties located in six of Michigan's eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas. Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act allows this exemption for areas where additional reductions in NOX will not contribute to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. We are proposing approval of the exemption for each of the six non-attainment areas.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-MI-0001, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (312) 886-5824.
          • Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
          • Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-MI-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

          I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

          II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Supporting Materials?
          III. What Are the Environmental Effects of These Actions?
          IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        A. Submitting CBI
        Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
        When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Supporting Materials?

        EPA's document, “Guidance on Limiting Nitrogen Oxides Requirements Related to 8-Hour Ozone Implementation” gives the requirements for demonstrating that further NOX reduction in an ozone non-attainment area will not contribute to ozone attainment. The guidance provides that monitoring data showing three consecutive years of ozone levels below the NAAQS in areas in which the state has not implemented NOX controls is adequate to demonstrate that additional NOX reductions will not aid in attainment. As described in the guidance document, approval of the SIP revision is granted on a contingent basis. Michigan must continue to monitor the ozone levels in the areas. If finalized, each of the six areas will receive its own exemption. If an area violates the 8-hour ozone standard, as defined at 62 FR 38855, EPA will remove the exemption for that area and publish a Federal Register notice. Upon removal of its waiver, an area will once again be subject to NOX control requirements under section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act.

        Michigan submitted the 2002-04 monitoring data for the six areas. The eight-hour ozone concentrations for these areas were all below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone for the entire period covered by the monitoring. Michigan has not implemented the NOX controls required under section 182(f) in the areas yet. So, adding NOX controls in these areas would not help the areas attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
        III. What Are the Environmental Effects of These Actions?
        Ozone decreases lung function, causing chest pain and coughing. It can aggravate asthma, reduce lung capacity, and increase risk of respiratory diseases like pneumonia and bronchitis. Children playing outside and healthy adults who work or exercise outside also may be harmed by elevated ozone levels. Ozone also reduces vegetation growth in economically important agricultural crops and wild plants.

        Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are precursors in ozone formation. The photochemical reactions that form ozone are complex. Reducing NOX (NO and NO2) emissions will not always reduce ozone levels. When the ratio of NO to VOC emissions is high, the NO will react with ozone (O3) to form NO2 and oxygen (O2). In this environment, the NO2 will react with hydroxyl (OH) radicals instead of forming ozone. Therefore, a decrease in NOX emissions would cause an increase in ozone formation when these conditions exist. This effect is usually localized.

        The section 182(f) exemptions should not interfere with attaining the ozone standard in the six Michigan ozone non-attainment areas. The six areas have three consecutive years of monitoring data showing the areas in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The section 182(f) NOX provisions have not been implemented in these areas. It is clear that Michigan has demonstrated that additional NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in the six areas.

        Ozone levels are expected to remain below the standard which will protect human health. However, if quality assured monitoring data shows that a violation of the ozone standard has occurred in one of the areas, the exemption for that area will be removed and additional control measures will be enacted. Upon receipt of quality-assured data demonstrating a violation of the ozone standard, EPA will notify the State and the public that the exemption no longer applies by publishing a rule in the Federal Register. The section 182(f) exemption will no longer apply as of the effective date of EPA's rule. Michigan will be required to submit the RACT SIP for the violating area by September 2006 or by the date specified in the withdrawal notice for violations after the SIP deadline. Major sources of NOX will then be expected to comply with the part 182(f) requirements no later than the first ozone season which occurs 30 months after the SIP due date. If EPA redesignates the area to attainment prior to the violation, the NOX sources will be required to follow the maintenance plan provisions instead of the part 182(f) requirements.
        IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

        EPA is proposing to approve a Michigan SIP revision request for exemptions from the RACT and NSR NOX requirements for major NOX sources in six of the state's eight-hour ozone non-attainment areas. Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act allows this exemption for areas where the state demonstrates that additional reductions in NOX will not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard. Monitoring data shows the ozone levels are now below the standard in the six areas without utilizing NOX controls. If made final, these exemptions from the NOX requirements in section 182(f) will be made on a contingent basis. The state used monitoring data to demonstrate it meets the requirements for the exemption. If an area's monitored level of ozone violates the standard in the future, its exemption will be removed. If quality assured monitoring data indicates that an area has violated the standard, the EPA will notify the State that the exemption no longer applies in that area and will inform the public with a Federal Register rule. The section 182(f) exemption will not apply as of the effective date of EPA's rule. Michigan will be required to submit the RACT SIP for the violating area by September 2006 or by the date specified in the withdrawal notice for violations after the SIP deadline. Major sources of NOX will then be expected to comply with the part 182(f) requirements as expeditiously as practical but no later than the first ozone season which occurs 30 months after the SIP due date. In an area designated as attainment prior to a violation, the NOX sources will follow the maintenance plan requirements.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
        Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.).
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
        Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
        Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
        Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
        National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
        Civil Justice Reform
        As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
        Governmental Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
        EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order, and has determined that the rule's requirements do not constitute a taking.
        Congressional Review Act

        The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: December 27, 2005.
          Bharat Mathur,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

       [FR Doc. E5-8316 Filed 1-4-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, and 180
        [Docket No. RSPA-98-3554 (HM-213)]
        RIN 2137-AC90
        Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Cargo Tanks; Correction and Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction and extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On December 4, 2001, RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to update and clarify the regulations on the construction and maintenance of cargo tank motor vehicles. In response to requests by members of the regulated community, the comment period for the proposed rule is extended until April 4, 2002, to provide commenters additional time. In addition, we are correcting a minor citation error in the proposed regulatory text.

          DATES:

          Submit comments by April 4, 2002. To the extent possible, we will consider comments received after this date in making our decision on a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments to the Dockets Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify Docket Number RSPA-98-3554 (HM-213), and be submitted in two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. You may also e-mail comments by accessing the Dockets Management System web site at “http://dms.dot.gov/” and following the instructions for submitting a document electronically. If you prefer, you can fax comments to 202-493-2251 for filing in the docket.

          The Dockets Management System is located on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. You can review public dockets there between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. You can also review comments on-line at the DOT Dockets Management System web site at “http://dms.dot.gov/.”
          We are experiencing some delays in mail deliveries as a result of ongoing efforts to ensure that mail is not contaminated with infectious or harmful materials. We encourage you to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the DOT Dockets Management System to submit comments electronically or by fax.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Johnsen (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On December 4, 2001, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (66 FR 63096) under Docket RSPA-98-3554 (HM-213) to update and clarify the regulations on the construction and maintenance of cargo tank motor vehicles. The proposed rule also addressed three National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and several petitions for rulemaking.
        Under 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.73(d), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is delegated authority to enforce the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) , with particular emphasis on highway transportation, including regulations for construction and maintenance of cargo tank motor vehicles. FMCSA and RSPA work closely with the regulated industry through educational assistance activities and FMCSA's compliance and enforcement program. During these activities, we identified several areas in the current regulations that need updating or clarification. In addition, we received requests for clarification of the regulations and petitions for rulemaking. NTSB has also made several safety recommendations concerning cargo tank motor vehicles. In the NPRM, we proposed revisions that would apply to all cargo tank motor vehicles, and revisions that would apply to certain specification cargo tank motor vehicles used to transport certain ladings.
        On December 27, 2001, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) requested an extension of the comment period (closing date of February 4, 2002). TTMA requested the extension because the TTMA Tank Conference Engineering Committee will be meeting February 26-27, 2002, in Los Angeles, CA to discuss a number of issues addressed in docket HM-213. TTMA asked for additional comment time to properly acknowledge all of its members' thoughts and concerns. In addition, on January 11, 2002, a representative of the National Propane Gas Association, National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association requested an extension of the comment period to allow for detailed analysis. RSPA agrees that extending the comment period on this technically complex rulemaking is in the public interest because it will assure thorough consideration of the proposals by all affected entities. Therefore, we are extending the comment period to April 4, 2002.
        In addition, we discovered an incorrect reference in the NPRM. On page 63122, under the proposed regulatory text language for § 180.405 (o)(1), the reference “§ 178.337-11(a)(2)” should read “§ 178.337-8(a)(4).”
        Accordingly, the HM-213 NPRM is corrected as follows:
        Correction

          PART 180—[CORRECTED]

            § 180.405
            [Corrected]
            In proposed rule FR Doc. 01-28117, beginning on page 63096 in the issue of December 4, 2001, make the following correction to the proposed regulatory text:
            On page 63122, in the third line of column 3, in § 180.405(o)(1), correct § 178.337-11(a)(2)” to read “§ 178.337-8(a)(4)”.

            Issued in Washington, DC on January 29, 2002 under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
            Robert A. McGuire,
            Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration.

      [FR Doc. 02-2515 Filed 1-31-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 222 and 223
        [Docket No. 0809121212-81515-01]
        RIN 0648-AX20
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Sea Turtle Conservation

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) currently requires the use of chain-mat modified dredge gear in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery south of 41°9.0′ North latitude from May 1 through November 30 each year. This gear is necessary to help reduce mortality and injury to endangered and threatened sea turtles captured in this fishery and to conserve sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposed action would make minor modifications to the current requirements by clarifying where on the dredge the chain mat should be hung; by excluding the sweep from the requirement that the side of each opening in the chain mat be less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm); and by adding definitions of the sweep and the diamonds, which are terms used to describe parts of the scallop dredge gear. Any incidental take of threatened sea turtles in Atlantic sea scallop dredge gear in compliance with the gear modification requirements and all other applicable requirements will be exempted from the ESA prohibition against takes. NMFS is requesting public comment on this action, the focus of which is the minor modifications described here. NMFS is not accepting public comment on the existing chain mat requirements through this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. EST on June 4, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this action, identified by RIN 0648-AX20, may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: 978-281-9394, ATTN: Sea Turtle Conservation Measures, Proposed Rule.
          • Mail: Mary A. Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Sea Turtle Conservation Measures, Proposed Rule.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review can be obtained from http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/com.html listed under the Electronic Access portion of this document or by writing to Pasquale Scida, NMFS, Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Pasquale Scida (ph. 978-281-9208, fax 978-281-9394, e-mail pasquale.scida@noaa.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles are listed as endangered. The loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico that are listed as endangered. Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, loggerhead, and green sea turtles are hard-shelled sea turtles.

        Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking sea turtles under NMFS's jurisdiction, even incidentally, is prohibited, with exceptions identified at 50 CFR 223.206. The incidental take, both lethal and non-lethal, of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and unidentified hard-shelled sea turtles as a result of scallop dredging has been observed in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery (Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB), Observer Database). In addition, a non-lethal take of a green sea turtle has been observed in this fishery (NEFSC FSB, Observer Database) and one unconfirmed take of a leatherback sea turtle was reported during the experimental fishery to test the chain-mat modified gear (DuPaul et al., 2004).

        Sea turtles caught in scallop dredge gear often suffer injuries. The most commonly observed injury is damage to the carapace. The exact causes of these injuries are unknown, but most likely appear to be from being struck by the dredge (during a tow or upon emptying of the dredge bag on deck), crushed by debris (e.g., large rocks) that collects in the dredge bag, or as a result of a fall during hauling of the dredge. The chain mat is a grid of horizontal and vertical chains hung over the mouth of the dredge bag to prevent sea turtles from entering the bag and to prevent injury and mortality that results from such capture (i.e., due to debris in the bag, a fall while emptying the bag, or dropping of the gear on the catch). A full description of the chain mat and the benefits to sea turtles can be found in the proposed and final rules implementing the regulations (72 FR 63537, November 9, 2007; 73 FR 18984, April 8, 2008) and the associated Environmental Assessment (NMFS 2008).
        In 2008, an image analysis that calculated the length of the sides of the openings created by the intersecting horizontal and vertical chains for an 11-ft. chain-mat equipped dredge was completed. Only a single photograph was analyzed in this analysis. The analysis showed that the lengths of the sides of the openings were both greater than and less than 14 inches and that 14 inches was within the range of openings tested in the experimental fishery. Based on this information, NMFS re-evaluated the chain mat requirements and the analysis conducted for the April 2008 rule. NMFS found that the available information continues to support an opening of 14 inches or less and that the conclusions of the analysis conducted for the April 2008 rule are still valid.
        This proposed rule would modify the existing chain mat regulations that apply to chain-mat modified dredges in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. This proposed rule, if implemented, would (1) more clearly define where on the dredge gear the chain mat must be hung; (2) exclude the sweep from the requirement that each side of the opening must be 14 inches (35.5 cm) or less; and (3) define the “sweep” and the “diamonds”, which are terms used to describe parts of the scallop dredge gear. This rule is being proposed under the ESA provisions authorizing the issuance of regulations to conserve threatened species and for enforcement purposes (sections 4(d) and 11(f), respectively).
        Configuration of the Gear
        The current regulations define a chain mat as “* * * a device designed to be installed in a scallop dredge forward of the sweep, as described in 50 CFR 223.206, for the purpose of excluding sea turtles from the dredge.” The regulations at 50 CFR 223.206 state, in part, that “During the time period of May 1 through November 30, any vessel with a sea scallop dredge and required to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, that enters waters south of 41°9.0′ N. latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone must have on each dredge a chain mat described as follows. The chain mat must be composed of horizontal (“tickler”) chains and vertical (up-and-down) chains that are configured such that the openings formed by the intersecting chains have no more than 4 sides. The length of each side of the openings formed by the intersecting chains, including the sweep, must be less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm).” NMFS has determined that “forward of the sweep” does not fully describe the configuration and that more specificity would ensure that the requirements are met consistently in the manner NMFS intends. Therefore, this proposed rule would clarify that the chain mat must cover the entire opening of the dredge bag by specifying that “The vertical and horizontal chains must be hung to cover the opening of the dredge bag such that the vertical chains extend from the back of the cutting bar to the sweep. The horizontal chains must intersect the vertical chains such that the length of each side of the openings formed by the intersecting chains is less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm) * * *” These changes simply clarify the existing requirements and would not result in any additional or different biological, physical, or socio-economic impacts.
        Exclusion of the Sweep
        Second, NMFS proposes to exclude the sweep from the requirement that each side of the openings formed by the intersecting chains be less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm). For those openings adjacent to the sweep, the sweep chain will create one side of the opening. Under the current requirements, the length of the side created by the sweep chain must be 14 inches (35.5 cm) or less. However, NMFS has re-examined this requirement and has found that except in rare cases, the size of the openings along the sweep will be smaller (even if the length of the side created by the sweep exceeds 14 inches (35.5 cm)) than the size of the openings created by a square with 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side, the maximum opening allowed throughout the chain mat. Given the configuration of the dredge gear, it is possible that one opening at the bottom of the arc created by the sweep could be greater than the opening created by a square with 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side if the vertical chains forming the two sides of this opening were at or near 14 inches (35.5 cm) in length.
        There are several reasons why this proposed change would result in inconsequential impacts on the conservation benefit of the chain mats. First, along the sweep, the openings are irregularly shaped and may be three- or four-sided (see EA for figure), generally resulting in a smaller opening than throughout the rest of the chain mat. Given the configuration of the gear and the area of the openings along the sweep, the number of openings that may be larger than the opening created by a square with 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side is limited to a single opening in the chain mat. Second, the increase in size of the one opening is only a small fraction of the size of the openings allowed throughout the chain mat due to the arc in the sweep. This increase is further limited by the fact that the sweep chain is generally a heavier chain, which would take up some of the space within the opening. Third, this slightly larger opening would only be present on a subset of the dredges used in the fishery and, where present on a dredge, would be limited to only one of the chain mat openings. In some cases, fishermen are configuring the gear such that the sides of the openings created by the intersecting chains are less than 14 inches (35.5 cm) to allow for chain stretch and wear. In these cases, the opening at the bottom of the arc created by the sweep would likely be smaller than that created by a square with 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side, and all of the openings in the chain mat would be consistent with the openings allowed under the current regulations.
        Given that the slightly larger opening is limited to one opening on a subset of the dredges used in the fishery and that the increase in the size of the opening is small due to the way the gear is configured, the conservation benefit to sea turtles under this requirement is essentially the same as the current requirements. While possible, it is highly unlikely that a sea turtle that would be excluded by a square with 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side would encounter and pass through the one slightly larger opening that may be present on some dredges.

        Chain mats are currently required in certain areas and times. This rule would not change the spatial or temporal extent of the requirements. It would make minor modifications to how the gear is configured. However, given that the modifications are minor and that the gear would continue to be required in the same areas and times, this action would not result in any additional impacts to the physical environment or to habitat. This change would also not result in any additional economic costs (see Classification section).
        Definition of the Sweep and the Diamonds
        As the modifications above specifically exclude the sweep from the requirement that the openings in the chain mat be 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side, NMFS would add a definition of the sweep to the regulations. NMFS is proposing to define the sweep as “A chain extending, usually in an arc, from one end of the dredge frame to the other to which the ring bag, including the diamonds, is attached. The sweep forms the edge of the opening of the dredge bag.” NMFS would also add a definition of the “diamonds” to the regulations. NMFS is proposing to define the diamonds as “the triangular shaped portions of the ring bag on the `dredge bottom' as defined at 50 CFR 648.2.” This definition is necessary as the term diamonds is used to define the sweep.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. No reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are proposed. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        The small entities affected by the chain mat regulations are Atlantic sea scallop fishermen entering waters south of 41° 9.0′ N. latitude from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. These regulations apply to all vessels with a sea scallop dredge(s) and required to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of the dredge size or vessel permit category.
        The final rule (73 FR 18984, April 8, 2008) and Final Environmental Assessment/Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/FRFA/RIR) (NMFS 2008) implementing the chain-mat modified dredge requirements identified 314 vessels that would be affected by the chain mat requirements. The economic impacts of the minor changes proposed here are described below.
        Under the current requirements, the length of each side of the opening created by the intersecting chains, including the side created by the sweep chain, must be 14 inches (35.5 cm) or less. NMFS has identified two alternate ways to configure the gear to comply with the regulation as currently written. Fishermen could create smaller openings (approximately 9-10 inches (27.9-25.4 cm) per side) throughout the mat to ensure that the length of the side created by the sweep was less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm). However, it was never the intention that the requirement result in openings in the chain mat of 9-10 inches (27.9-25.4 cm) per side. Alternatively, fishermen could add a small piece of chain to any opening where the length of the side created by the sweep is greater than 14 inches (35.5 cm). The number of openings that would require a piece of additional chain is expected to be limited to that area along the sweep that is curved. This short piece of chain would divide the sweep, creating two smaller openings. The pieces of chain would be no more than 14 inches (35.5 cm), and in many cases, the segments are likely to be much less than 14 inches (35.5 cm). As described in the EA (NMFS 2008) for the final rule (73 FR 18984, April 8, 2008) requiring the use of chain-mat modified dredge gear, a 15-ft (4.57-m) dredge with frame, bag, and club stick weighs approximately 4500 pounds (2041 kg). The weight of the chain mat was estimated to be between 67 pounds (30.1 kg) for a 10-ft (3.05-m) dredge and 176 pounds (79.8 kg) for a 15-ft (4.57-m) dredge (NMFS 2008). In the economic analysis for the 2008 regulations, a conservative estimate (20 percent) of the additional chain required to comply with the 14-inch (35.5-cm) requirement was used. Therefore, it is likely that the costs of these additional small segments were subsumed in that analysis. However, some additional information on the amount of chain required to divide these openings is provided here. The estimated cost for the chain was $2.00 to $3.00 per foot. Therefore, given that the additional chain required is only a short segment added to a limited number of openings, it is expected that the economic costs would be minimal. This amount of chain is also not expected to affect the weight of the gear or its efficiency.
        The proposed action would not result in any additional costs, and, under this action, the vessel would not incur the costs associated with adding small lengths of additional chain to ensure that the sweep segments do not exceed 14 inches (35.5 cm). Therefore, the differences in cost between a chain mat configured under the current requirements and one configured as proposed here are minimal. This action would not affect the profitability of the vessel. As this action is not expected to result in any additional costs or to affect the profitability of the vessel, it will not contribute to cumulative economic impacts.

        With the exception of the rare cases described in the preamble, the size of the openings along the sweep will be smaller (even if the length of the side created by the sweep exceeds 14 inches (35.5 cm)) than the size of the openings created by a square with 14 inches (35.5 cm) per side, the maximum opening allowed throughout the chain mat. Therefore, the proposed action would only result in inconsequential impacts on the conservation benefit of the chain mats (see preamble). In addition, the clarification as to the configuration of the gear and the additional definitions would not result in any socio-economic impacts.
        Literature Cited
        DuPaul, W.D., D.B. Rudders, and R.J. Smolowitz. 2004a. Industry trials of a modified sea scallop dredge to minimize the catch of sea turtles. Final Report. November 2004. VIMS Marine Resources Report, No. 2004-12. 35 pp.
        NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review/Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis of Sea Turtle Conservation Measures for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Dredge Fishery. 152 pp.

          Dated: April 29, 2009.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 222 and 223
          Endangered and threatened species.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222 and 223 are proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 222—GENERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES
          1. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

          2. In § 222.102, the definition of “Diamonds” and “Sweep” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

            § 222.102
            Definitions.

              Diamonds, with respect to dredge or dredge gear as defined in this section, means the triangular shaped portions of the ring bag on the “dredge bottom” as defined in 50 CFR 648.2.

              Sweep, with respect to dredge or dredge gear as defined in this section, means a chain extending, usually in an arc, from one end of the dredge frame to the other to which the ring bag, including the diamonds, is attached. The sweep forms the edge of the opening of the dredge bag.

          PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
          3. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:

            16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9).

          4. In § 223.206, paragraph (d)(11)(i) is revised to read as follows:

            § 223.206
            Exemptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.

            (11) Restrictions applicable to sea scallop dredges in the mid-Atlantic—(i) Gear Modification. During the time period of May 1 through November 30, any vessel with a sea scallop dredge and required to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, that enters waters south of 41°9.0′ N. latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone must have on each dredge a chain mat described as follows. The chain mat must be composed of horizontal (“tickler”) chains and vertical (“up-and-down”) chains that are configured such that the openings formed by the intersecting chains have no more than 4 sides. The vertical and horizontal chains must be hung to cover the opening of the dredge bag such that the vertical chains extend from the back of the cutting bar to the sweep. The horizontal chains must intersect the vertical chains such that the length of each side of the openings formed by the intersecting chains is less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm) with the exception of the side of any individual opening created by the sweep. The chains must be connected to each other with a shackle or link at each intersection point. The measurement must be taken along the chain, with the chain held taut, and include one shackle or link at the intersection point and all links in the chain up to, but excluding, the shackle or link at the other intersection point.

      [FR Doc. E9-10311 Filed 4-30-09; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 05-578; MB Docket No. 05-81; RM-11102]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Altheimer, AR and Little Rock, AR.

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Charles Crawford, requesting the allotment of Channel 251C3 at Altheimer, Arkansas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Petitioner's proposal also requires the reclassification of Station KURB(FM), Channel 253C, Little Rock, Arkansas 253C0 pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted by the Commission. See Second Report and Order in MM Docket 98-93 (1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules) 65 FR 79773 (2000). An Order to Show Cause was issued to Citadel Broadcasting Company, licensee of Station KURB(FM) (RM-11102). Channel 251C3 can be allotted at Altheimer, Arkansas, at Petitioner's requested site 20.4 kilometers (12.7 miles) southwest of the community at coordinates 34-09-00 NL and 91-56-00 WL

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 25, 2005, and reply comments on or before May 10, 2005. Any counterproposal filed in this proceeding need only protect Station KURB(FM), Little Rock, Arkansas as a Class C0 allotment.

          ADDRESSES:

          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, and Station KURB as follows: Charles Crawford, 553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205 (Petitioner), Citadel Broadcasting Company, City Center West, 7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 400, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 (Licensee of Station KURB).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 05-81, adopted March 2, 2005, and released March 4, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

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

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

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

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

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

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arkansas is amended by adding Altheimer, Channel 251C3, and by removing Channel 253C and adding Channel 253C0 at Little Rock.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 05-5171 Filed 3-15-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
        49 CFR Parts 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, and 1248
        [Docket No. EP 701]
        Accelerating Reporting Requirements for Class I Railroads

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, withdrawn.

          SUMMARY:
          The Board is withdrawing the proposed rules and discontinuing the EP 701 rulemaking proceeding which proposed to accelerate the filing deadlines for certain financial, employee, and traffic reports submitted by Class I railroads.

          DATES:
          The proposed rule is withdrawn and the rulemaking proceeding is discontinued on February 18, 2016.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On July 8, 2015, the Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public comment on a proposal to accelerate the filing deadlines for certain financial, employee, and traffic reports submitted by Class I railroads.1
           The Board has authority to collect financial and statistical data from railroads as necessary for the economic oversight of the industry. 49 U.S.C. 1321(b),2

           11145. To this end, the Board's regulations require Class I railroads to submit annual, quarterly, and monthly reports containing financial and operating statistics, including employment and traffic data. 49 U.S.C. 11145; 49 CFR 1241-1248. The data collected is used by the Board in various proceedings, as well as by other governmental agencies and interested parties in evaluating the railroad industry.

            1 The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 39045).

            2 The recently enacted Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, recodifies provisions of title 49, United States Code, redesignating 49 U.S.C. 721, as § 1321.

        In the NPRM, the Board proposed changing the filing deadlines for a number of these reports. Specifically, the NPRM proposed the following deadlines: Schedule 250 would be filed by March 31 each year, at the same time as the Annual Report Form R-1; Quarterly Report Form RE&I, Form CBS, Quarterly Wage Forms A & B, and Reports of Fuel Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue would be filed within 15 days after the end of each quarter; Annual Wage Forms A & B and Annual Form QCS would be filed 30 days after the end of each year; Quarterly Form QCS would be filed 30 days after the end of each quarter; Form STB-54 would be filed within 60 days after the end of each year; and Form C would be filed 10 days after the end of each month.
        The NPRM also proposed to: Update several form titles; clarify the method by which carriers arrive at the number of employees reported on Form C, pursuant to part 1246; replace references to the “Interstate Commerce Act” with “pt. A of subtitle IV of tit. 49, United States Code” between 49 CFR parts 1241 and 1248 to accurately describe the current controlling statute; and eliminate the requirement of railroads to file duplicate copies of reports, with the exception of the Annual Report Form R-1, which requires hard copies to be filed.

        On August 21, 2015, the AAR filed comments on the proposed rules. AAR expresses concern that the proposed accelerated deadlines would impose significant burdens while not conferring a public benefit. (AAR Comment 7.) AAR states that the proposed deadlines for the STB reports would be incompatible with and would create additional reporting obligations for the railroads under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. (Id. at 10-12.) AAR also states that accelerated deadlines could cause investor confusion because the information in Board filings is based on a different corporate entity than information in the SEC filings, and there are also differences in accounting between Board reports and SEC reports. (Id. at 13.)
        Based on AAR's comments, the proposed rules could impose a significant burden on the railroads and conflict with SEC reporting requirements. No other comments were submitted. Therefore, we will not adopt the proposed accelerated deadlines and will discontinue this proceeding.

        However, some of the nonsubstantive updates that the Board proposed will be adopted in Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, EP 712. These updates include changing the following form titles: “Form MRRE” to “Form C” (49 CFR 1246.1) and; “Form QRSC” and “Form ARSC” to “Quarterly Wage Forms A & B” and “Annual Wage Forms A & B” respectively (49 CFR 1245.2). In that proceeding, we will also eliminate the requirement for railroads to file duplicate copies of reports, with the exception of the Annual Report Form R-1, which requires hard copies to be filed.
        This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

          Decided: February 11, 2016.

          By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.
          Brendetta S. Jones,
          Clearance Clerk.

      [FR Doc. 2016-03332 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R3-ES-2012-N103; FX3ES11130300000D2-123-FF03E00000]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Status Reviews of Seven Listed Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of seven animal and plant species. We conduct these reviews to ensure that our classification of each species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as threatened or endangered is accurate. A 5-year review assesses the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. We are requesting the public to send us any information that has become available since the most recent status reviews on each of these species. Based on review results, we will determine whether we should change the listing status of any of these species.

          DATES:
          To ensure consideration, please send your written information by August 28, 2012. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

          ADDRESSES:

          For how and where to send comments or information, see “VIII. Contacts” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          To request information, see “VIII. Contacts” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8337 for TTY (telephone typewriter or teletypewriter) assistance.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Why do we conduct 5-year reviews?
        Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether to remove any species from the List (delist), to reclassify it from endangered to threatened, or to reclassify it from threatened to endangered. Any change in Federal classification requires a separate rulemaking process.
        In classifying, we use the following definitions, from 50 CFR 424.02:
        (A) Species includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate, that interbreeds when mature;
        (B) Endangered species means any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; and
        (C) Threatened species means any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
        We must support delisting by the best scientific and commercial data available, and only consider delisting if data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons (50 CFR 424.11(d)):
        (A) The species is considered extinct;
        (B) The species is considered to be recovered; or
        (C) The original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of data, were in error.

        Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the species we are reviewing.
        II. What species are under review?
        This notice announces our active 5-year status reviews of the species in the following table.

          Species Under 5-Year Review

            Common name
            Scientific name
            Status
            Where listed
            Final listing rule publication date and citation

              Animals

            Warbler (wood), Kirtland's

              Dendroica kirtlandii

            Endangered
            U.S.A. (principally MI), Canada, West Indies—Bahama Islands
            March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001).

            Darter, Niangua

              Etheostoma nianguae

            Threatened
            U.S.A. (MO)
            June 12, 1985 (50 FR 24649).

            Catspaw, white (pearlymussel)

              Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua

            Endangered
            U.S.A. (IN, MI, OH)
            June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064).

            Dragonfly, Hine's emerald

              Somatochlora hineana

            Endangered
            U.S.A. (AL, IL, IN, MI, MO, OH, WI)
            January 26, 1995 (60 FR 5273).

              Plants

            Dwarf lake iris

              Iris lacustris

            Threatened
            U.S.A. (MI, WI), Canada (Ont.)
            September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37972).

            Eastern prairie fringed orchid

              Platanthera leucophaea

            Threatened
            U.S.A. (AR, IA, IL, IN, ME, MI, MO, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, VA, WI), Canada (Ont., N.B.)
            September 28, 1989 (54 FR 39863).

            Houghton's goldenrod

              Solidago houghtonii

            Threatened
            U.S.A. (MI), Canada (Ont.)
            July 18, 1988 (53 FR 27134).

        III. What do we consider in our review?

        We consider all new information available at the time we conduct a 5-year review. We consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since our current listing determination, or most recent status review that is accessible from our Web site http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/recovery/5yr_rev/completed5yrs.html, such as:
        (A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
        (B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
        (C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
        (D) Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened?”); and
        (E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
        IV. How do we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened?
        Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

        Under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we must base our assessment of these factors solely on the best scientific and commercial data available.
        V. What could happen as a result of our review?
        For each species under review, if we find new information that indicates a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following:
        (A) Reclassify the species from threatened to endangered (uplist);
        (B) Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened (downlist); or
        (C) Remove the species from the List (delist).
        If we determine that a change in classification is not warranted, then the species remains on the List under its current status.
        VI. Request for New Information
        To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
        Submit your comments and materials to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office listed under “VIII. Contacts.”

        Submit all electronic information in Text or Rich Text format to FW3MidwestRegion_5YearReview@fws.gov. Please send information for each species in a separate email. Provide your name and return address in the body of your message, and include the following identifier in your email subject line: Information on 5-year review for [NAME OF SPECIES].
        VII. Public Availability of Comments
        Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.
        VIII. Contacts
        Send your comments and information on the following species, as well as requests for information, to the corresponding contacts. You may view information we receive in response to this notice, as well as other documentation in our files, at the following locations by appointment, during normal business hours.

            Species
            Contact person, phone, email
            Contact address

            Kirtlands's warbler
            Dan Elbert, (517) 351-7261, daniel_elbert@fws.gov

            East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316.

            Niangua darter
            Rick Hansen, (573) 234-2132, extension 106, rick_hansen@fws.gov

            Columbia Missouri Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203-0007.

            White catspaw
            Angela Boyer, (614) 416-8993, extension 22, angela_boyer@fws.gov

            Columbus Ohio Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230.

            Hine's emerald dragonfly
            Kris Lah, (847) 381-2253, extension 15, kristopher_lah@fws.gov

            Chicago Illinois Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010-5010.

            Dwarf lake iris
            Barbara Hosler, (517) 351-6326, barbara_hosler@fws.gov

            East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316.

            Eastern prairie fringed orchid
            Cathy Pollack, (847) 381-2253, extension 28, cathy_pollack@fws.gov

            Chicago Illinois Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010-5010.

            Houghton's goldenrod
            Tameka Dandridge, (517) 351-8315, tameka_dandridge@fws.gov

            East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316.

        IX. Authority

        We publish this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: May 21, 2012.
          Lynn M. Lewis,
          Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.

      [FR Doc. 2012-14941 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 16-422; RM-11783; DA 17-125]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Fort Walton Beach, Florida

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by Northwest Florida Media, LLC, proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotments, of the Commission's rules, by allotting Channel 295A at Fort Walton Beach, Florida, as a sixth local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 295A can be allotted to Fort Walton Beach, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules without a site restriction. The reference coordinates are 30-24-40 NL and 86-37-28 WL.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before March 27, 2017, and reply comments on or before April 11, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: David D. Burns, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 16-422, adopted February 2, 2017 and released February 3, 2017. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text is also available online at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

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

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Nazifa Sawez,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

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

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

           Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.

          § 73.202
           [Amended]

        2. Section 73.202(b), the table is amended by adding an entry under Florida for Fort Walton Beach to read as follows:

          § 73.202
           Table of Allotments.

          (b) Table of FM Allotments.

              FLORIDA

              *    *    *    *    *

              Fort Walton Beach
              295A

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. 2017-02977 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P