        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 36
        [WC Docket No. 14-130, CC Docket No. 14-130; FCC 18-22]
        Comprehensive Review of the Uniform System of Accounts; Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on its proposal to adopt recommendations from the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations and to amend the Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules accordingly. Acknowledging the implications that reforms adopted in the Part 32 Reform Order would have on the Part 36 rules, the Commission referred to the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) consideration of how and when to modify Part 36 to ensure that it is consistent with the Part 32 reforms. The Joint Board issued its Recommended Decision in October 2017. The Commission proposes to adopt each of the Joint Board's recommendations using, with minor exceptions, the amendment language the Joint Board suggested, and seeks comment on these proposals.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before April 12, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before April 27, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 17-287, 11-42, and 09-197, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's website:
            http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Edward Krachmer, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1540 or via email at edward.krachmer@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-22, released February 22, 2018. For a full text copy of this document please go to the following internet Address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-adopt-separations-joint-boards-recommendations.

        I. Introduction
        1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission takes steps to harmonize its rules regarding jurisdictional separations to reflect the Commission's actions in February 2017 to reduce and eliminate unnecessary accounting rules. Today, the Commission furthers its goal of updating and modernizing the Commission's rules to minimize outdated compliance burdens on carriers and to free up scarce resources that can accordingly be used to expand modern networks that bring economic opportunity, job creation and civic engagement to all Americans.
        2. In the Part 32 Reform Order, the Commission amended its Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) to streamline or eliminate rules that had outlived their utility. Recognizing that those amendments had implications for its Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules, the Commission referred to the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) consideration of how and when the Part 36 rules should be modified to reflect the reforms adopted in the Part 32 Reform Order. The Commission asked the Joint Board to consider how the Part 32 reforms “impact Part 36 and consequently the rule changes necessary to ensure the jurisdictional separations rules are consistent” with changes to Part 32. The Commission also asked that the Joint Board “prepare a recommended decision . . . regarding how and when the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules should be modified to reflect the issues in the referral.” The Joint Board released its Recommended Decision on October 27, 2017.
        3. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to adopt each of the Joint Board's recommendations and to amend the Part 36 rules consistent with those recommendations. The Commission invites comment on these proposals.
        II. Background
        4. Jurisdictional separations are the third step in a four-step regulatory process used to establish tariffed rates for interstate and intrastate regulated services for incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs). First, carriers record their costs into various accounts in accordance with the USOA prescribed by Part 32 of the Commission's rules. Second, carriers divide the costs in these accounts between regulated and nonregulated activities in accordance with Part 64 of the Commission's rules. This division ensures that the costs of nonregulated activities will not be recovered in regulated interstate service rates. Third, carriers separate the regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions in accordance with the Commission's Part 36 separations rules. This process begins with the carriers assigning regulated costs to various investment and expense categories. In certain instances, carriers further disaggregate costs among service categories. Finally, carriers apportion the interstate regulated costs among the interexchange services and rate elements that form the cost basis for their exchange access tariffs. Carriers subject to rate-of-return regulation perform this apportionment in accordance with Part 69 of the Commission's rules.
        5. Historically, Part 32 divided incumbent LECs into two classes for accounting purposes based on an incumbent LEC's annual regulated revenues: Class A incumbent LECs (currently those with regulated annual revenues equal to or greater than $157 million) and Class B incumbent LECs (currently those with less than $157 million in annual regulated revenues). Part 32 required Class A carriers to create and maintain substantially more accounts than it required from smaller Class B carriers. In all but one case, Class A carrier accounts could be grouped into sets that were represented by single Class B carrier accounts—that is, such Class A accounts consolidated into, or “rolled up” into Class B accounts.
        6. The reforms adopted in the Part 32 Reform Order include the elimination of Part 32's distinction between Class A and Class B incumbent LECs. Under the new rules, effective January 1, 2018, all carriers subject to Part 32 are required to keep only the less onerous Class B accounts.

        7. At the request of the Commission, the Joint Board considered the impact of the Part 32 reforms on the Part 36 rules and released a recommended decision. In the Recommended Decision, the Joint Board recommends removing all of the provisions in the Part 36 rules that deal with Class A accounts, allowing former Class A carriers (carriers with revenue equal to or greater than $157 million for calendar year 2016) to select between the former Class A and former Class B procedures for apportioning general support facilities costs, and making certain stylistic and typographical corrections to the Part 36 rules.
        III. Discussion

        8. The Commission proposes to adopt each of the Joint Board's recommendations and to amend the Part 36 rules using, with minor exceptions, the language the Joint Board suggests. The Commission invites comment on these proposals. The Commission also welcomes comment on whether it should make other changes to the Part 36 rules to harmonize them with the changes the Commission made to Part 32 in the Part 32 Reform Order.

        9. First, the Commission proposes to adopt the Joint Board's recommendation to remove from its Part 36 rules all the provisions that deal with Class A accounts, because carriers are no longer be required to keep such accounts since the revised Part 32 rules took effect on January 1, 2018. Under this approach, the Commission proposes to: (a) Delete references to Class A accounts and the phrase “Class B accounts” in Part 32 rules that contain parallel references to Class A accounts and the Class B accounts into which they roll up; (b) delete references to current-year account balances and modify references to Class A carriers in other Part 36 rules; and (c) delete references to Class A accounts in sections 36.501 and 36.505 of the rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal as well as on whether there is a different approach it should take in harmonizing the Part 36 rules with the newly amended Part 32 rules.
        10. Second, the Commission proposes to amend section 36.112, which concerns the apportionment of general support facilities costs. As the Joint Board observes, this is the only Part 36 rule that provides different separations procedures for Class A and Class B carriers. Consistent with the Joint Board's recommendation, the Commission proposes to allow former Class A carriers (carriers with revenue equal to or greater than $157 million for calendar year 2016) to select between these two procedures in apportioning their general support facilities costs. The Commission seeks comment on permitting such selections. The Commission also seeks comment on whether each carrier should be permitted to make an election only one time or be allowed to change the approach it takes over time. What are the practical consequences of permitting carriers to make such elections?
        11. Additionally, consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations, the Commission's proposed rule changes include certain stylistic and typographical corrections to the Part 36 rules. For example, the Commission proposes to correct a spelling error in section 36.126(b) and to hyphenate the adjective “twelve month” throughout Part 36. In addition to adopting these corrections, are there other ministerial corrections that the Commission should make to those rules?
        12. The Commission also seeks comment on the timing for making these changes to its Part 36 rules. The changes to its Part 32 rules took effect January 1, 2018. Should the Commission make harmonizing changes to its Part 36 rules as soon as practicable, as the Joint Board recommends? Should the Commission make changes effective January 1, 2019? The Commission asks commenters to explain the implications of different effective dates for any changes it makes to harmonize its Part 36 rules with its newly revised Part 32 rules.
        IV. Procedural Matters
        A. Comment Filing Procedures

        13. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

          People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        B. Ex Parte Presentations

        14. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        15. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 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).
        D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
        16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the first page of this document. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments and reply comments on the Notice provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        18. In the Part 32 Reform Order, the Commission amended its Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) to streamline or eliminate rules that had outlived their utility. Recognizing that those amendments had implications for its Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules, the Commission referred to the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) consideration of how and when the Part 36 rules should be modified to reflect the reforms adopted in the Part 32 Reform Order. The Commission asked the Joint Board to consider how those reforms “impact Part 36 and consequently the rule changes necessary to ensure the jurisdictional separations rules are consistent” with changes to Part 32. The Commission also asked that the Joint Board “prepare a recommended decision . . . regarding how and when the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules should be modified to reflect the issues in the referral.” The Joint Board released its Recommended Decision on October 27, 2017. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), the Commission invites comment on that Recommended Decision and, in particular, on the proposed amendments to the Part 36 rules recommended by the Joint Board. The purpose of those proposed amendments is to ensure that the Part 36 rules are consistent with the amendments to the Part 32 rules adopted in the Part 32 Reform Order.

        B. Legal Basis
        19. The legal basis for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
        C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules May Apply
        20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
        21. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,307 incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

        22. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. Because the Commission's proposals concerning the Part 36 rules will affect all incumbent LECs, some entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees may be affected by the proposals made in this Notice. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. The Commission notes, however, that proposals in the Notice are focused on incumbent LECs with regulated annual revenues equal to or above $157 million, a group that excludes many small incumbent LECs.
        D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        23. None.

        E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        24. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities.

        25. As discussed above, the purpose of the proposals in this Notice is to ensure that the Part 36 rules are consistent with the amendments to the Part 32 rules adopted in the Part 32 Reform Order. The Commission seeks comment on the effects its proposals would have on small entities, and whether any rules that it adopts should apply differently to small entities. The Commission requests commenters to consider the costs and burdens of possible rule amendments on small incumbent LECs and whether such amendments would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.

        26. The Commission believes that the proposed rules would ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for incumbent LECs, including any small incumbent LECs those rules might affect. The Part 32 Reform Order reduced the number of Part 32 accounts that incumbent LECs with regulated annual revenues equal to or above $157 million are required to keep, and the proposed amendments to Part 36 would carry forward those reductions into the jurisdictional separations process. If those amendments can be said to have any effect under the RFA, it is to reduce a regulatory compliance burden for small incumbent LECs.
        F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        27. None.
        VI. Ordering Clauses
        28. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 410, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

        29. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36
          Communications common carriers; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Telephone; Uniform system of accounts.

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

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 36 as follows:

          PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES

        1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

        2. Revise § 36.112 to read as follows:

          § 36.112
           Apportionment procedure.
          (a) The costs of the general support facilities of local exchange carriers that had annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations equal to or greater than $157 million for calendar year 2016 are apportioned among the operations on the basis of one of the following, at the election of the local exchange carrier:
          (1) The separation of the costs of the combined Big Three Expenses which include the following accounts:
          Plant Specific Expenses
          Central Office Switching Expenses—Account 6210
          Operators Systems Expenses—Account 6220
          Central Office Transmission Expenses—Account 6230
          Information Origination/Termination Expenses—Account 6310
          Cable and Wire Facilities Expenses—Account 6410
          Plant Non-Specific Expenses
          Network Operations Expenses—Account 6530
          Customer Operations Expenses
          Marketing—Account 6610
          Services—Account 6620; or

          (2) The separation of the costs of Central Office Equipment, Information Origination/Termination Equipment, and Cable and Wire Facilities, combined.
          (b) The costs of the general support facilities of local exchange carriers that had annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations less than $157 million for calendar year 2016 are apportioned among the operations on the basis of the separation of the costs of Central Office Equipment, Information Origination/Termination Equipment, and Cable and Wire Facilities, combined.

          § 36.121
           [Amended]

        3. Amend § 36.121 as follows:
        a. Revise paragraph (a); and
        b. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), remove “130 volt” and add, in its place, “130-volt”.
        The revision reads as follows:

          § 36.121
           General.
          (a) The costs of central office equipment are carried in the following accounts:

          Central Office Switching Account—2210.
          Operator Systems Account—2220.
          Central Office—Transmission Account—2230.

          §  36.124
           [Amended]

        4. Amend § 36.124 as follows:
        a. In paragraph (a), remove “Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212” and add, in its place, “Account 2210”.
        b. In paragraph (c), remove “assign the average balances of Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212” and add, in its place, “assign the average balance of Account 2210”; and remove “assignment of the average balances of Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212,” and add, in its place, “assignment of the average balance of Account 2210 (or, if Accounts 2211 and 2212 were required to be maintained at the applicable time, the average balances of Accounts 2211 and 2212)”.

          §  36.125
           [Amended]

        5. Amend § 36.125 as follows:

        a. In paragraph (a), remove “Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212” and add, in its place, “Account 2210”; remove “e.g. transmitters,” and add, in its place, “e.g., transmitters,”; remove “directors” and, add in its place, “directors,”; and remove “e.g. switching” and add, in its place, “e.g., switching”.

        b. In paragraph (h), remove “assign the average balances of Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212” and add, in its place, “assign the average balance of Account 2210”; and remove “assignment of the average balances of Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212,” and add, in its place, “assignment of the average balance of Account 2210 (or, if Accounts 2211 and 2212 were required to be maintained at the applicable time, the average balances of Accounts 2211 and 2212)”.

          §  36.126
           [Amended]

        6. Amend § 36.126 as follows:
        a. In paragraph (a), remove “Accounts 2230 through 2232 respectively” and add, in its place, “Account 2230”.
        b. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), remove “equiment” and add, in its place, “equipment”.
        c. In paragraphs (b)(5) and (6), remove “assign the average balances of Accounts 2230 through 2232” and add, in its place, “assign the average balance of Account 2230”; and remove “assignment of the average balances of Accounts 2230 through 2232” and add, in its place, “assignment of the average balance of Account 2230 (or, if Accounts 2231 and 2232 were required to be maintained at the applicable time, the average balances of Accounts 2231 and 2232)”.

          § 36.154
           [Amended]

        7. Amend §  36.154 by removing “jurisdication” and adding, in its place, “jurisdiction”.

          §  36.201
           [Amended]

        8. Amend § 36.201 as follows:
        a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as an undesignated paragraph; and
        b. In the table, remove “(Class B telephone companies); Basic area revenue—Account 5001 (Class A telephone companies)”.

          §  36.211
           [Amended]

        9. Amend § 36.211 as follows:
        a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as an undesignated paragraph; and
        b. In the table:
        i. Remove “Basic local service revenue (Class B telephone companies)” and add, in its place, “Basic Local Service Revenue”; and
        ii. Remove the entry “Basic Area Revenue (Class A telephone companies)”.
        10. Amend § 36.212 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.212
           Basic local services revenue—Account 5000.

          §  36.301
           [Amended]

        11. Amend § 36.301 as follows:
        a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as an undesignated paragraph; and
        b. In the table:
        i. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6112, 6113, 6114, 6121, 6122, 6123, and 6124 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        ii. Remove “Accounts 6210, 6220, 6230 (Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6211, 6212, 6220, 6231, and 6232 (Class A Telephone Companies)” and add, in its place, “Accounts 6210, 6220, and 6230”;
        iii. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6311, 6341, 6351, and 6362 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        iv. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6411, 6421, 6422, 6423, 6424, 6426, 6431, and 6441 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        v. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6511 and 6512 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        vi. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6531, 6532, 6533, 6534, and 6535 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        vii. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6611 and 6613 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        viii. Remove “Local Bus. Office” and add, in its place, “Local Business Office”; and
        ix. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 7210, 7220, 7230, 7240, and 7250 (Class A Telephone Companies)”.

          §  36.302
           [Amended]

        12. Amend § 36.302 in the introductory text to paragraph (c)(1) and in paragraph (c)(1)(i), by removing “SRC” and adding, in its place, “SRCs”.
        13. Amend § 36.310 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          §  36.310
           General.
          (a) Plant specific operations expenses include the following accounts:

          Network Support Expenses. Account 6110
          General Support Expenses. Account 6120
          Central Office Switching Expenses. Account 6210
          Operator System Expenses. Account 6220
          Central Office Transmission Expenses. Account 6230
          Information Origination/Termination Expenses. Account 6310
          Cable and Wire Facilities Expenses. Account 6410

        14. Amend § 36.311 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.311
           Network Support/General Support Expenses—Accounts 6110 and 6120.

        15. Amend § 36.321 as follows:
        a. Revise the section heading;
        b. Remove, from the table in paragraph (a), “(Class B telephone companies); Accounts 6211 and 6212 (Class A telephone companies)” and “(Class B telephone companies); Accounts 6231 and 6232 (Class A telephone companies)”; and
        c. Remove, from paragraph (b), “equipment. Accounts” and adding, in its place, “equipment—Accounts”.
        The revision reads as follows:

          §  36.321
           Central office expenses—Accounts 6210, 6220, and 6230.

        16. Amend § 36.331 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.331
           Information origination/termination expenses—Account 6310.

        17. Amend § 36.341 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.341
           Cable and wire facilities expenses—Account 6410.

          §  36.351
           [Amended]

        18. Amend § 36.351 as follows:
        a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as an undesignated paragraph; and
        b. In the table:
        i. Remove “(Class B telephone companies); Accounts 6511 and 6512 (Class A telephone companies)”; and
        ii. Remove “(Class B telephone companies); Accounts 6531, 6532, 6533, 6534, and 6535 (Class A telephone companies)”.
        19. Amend § 36.352 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.352
           Other property plant and equipment expenses—Account 6510.

        20. Amend § 36.353 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.353
           Network operations expenses—Account 6530.

          §  36.371
           [Amended]

        21. Amend § 36.371 in the table by removing “(Class B telephone companies); Accounts 6611 and 6613 (Class A telephone companies)”.
        22. Amend § 36.372 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

          §  36.372
           Marketing—Account 6610.

          §  36.375
           [Amended]

        23. Amend § 36.375 in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5), by removing “through (4)” and adding, in its place, “through (3)”.

          §  36.392
           [Amended]

        24. Amend § 36.392(c) as follows:
        a. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6211 and 6212 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        b. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6231 and 6232 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        c. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6311, 6341, 6351, and 6362 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        d. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6411, 6421, 6422, 6423, 6424, 6426, 6431, and 6441 (Class A Telephone Companies)”;
        e. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6531, 6532, 6533, 6534, and 6535 (Class A Telephone Companies)” and
        f. Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Accounts 6611 and 6613 (Class A Telephone Companies)”.
        25. Amend § 36.411 as follows:
        a. Revise the section heading;
        b. Redesignate paragraph (a) as an undesignated paragraph
        c. Revise the final entry in the list.
        The revisions read as follows:

          §  36.411
           Operating taxes—Account 7200.

          Provision for Deferred Operating Income Taxes

        26. Amend § 36.501 as follows:

          §  36.501
           [Amended]
          Remove “(Class B Telephone Companies); Account 3410 (Class A Telephone Companies)”.

        27. Amend § 36.505 as follows:
        a. Revise the section heading;
        b. Redesignate paragraph (a) as an undesignated paragraph.
        The revision reads as follows:

          §  36.505
           Accumulated amortization—Tangible—Account 3400.

          §§ 36.3, 36.123, 36.124(c) and (d); 36.125(h) and (i); 36.126(b)(5) and (6); 36.126(c)(4), (e)(4), and (f)(2); 36.141(c); 36.142(c); 36.152(d); 36.157(b); 36.191(d); 36.374(b); 36.375(b)(4); 36.377 introductory text and (a)(1)(ix), (2)(vii), (3)(vii), (4)(vii), (5)(vii), and (6)(vii); 36.378(b)(1); 36.379(b)(1);36.380(d) and (e); 36.381(c); and36.382(a)
          [Amended]

        28. Remove the term “twelve-month” and add in its place “twelve-month” in:
        a. §§ 36.3(a) and (b);
        b. §§ 36.123(a)(5) and (6);
        c. §§ 36.124(c) and (d);
        d. §§ 36.125(h) and (i);
        e. § 36.126(b)(5) and (6);
        f. §§ 36.126(c)(4), (e)(4), and (f)(2);
        g. § 36.141(c);
        h. § 36.142(c);
        i. § 36.152(d);
        j. § 36.157(b);
        k. § 36.191(d);
        l. § 36.374(b);
        m. § 36.375(b)(4);
        n. §§ 36.377 introductory text and (a)(1)(ix), (2)(vii), (3)(vii), (4)(vii), (5)(vii), and (6)(vii);
        o § 36.378(b)(1);
        p. § 36.379(b)(1);
        q. §§ 36.380(d) and (e);
        r. § 36.381(c); and
        s. § 36.382(a).

      [FR Doc. 2018-04563 Filed 3-12-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 21
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2014-0067; FF09M29000-156-FXMB1232090BPP0]
        RIN 1018-BA69
        Migratory Bird Permits; Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, us, or we), intend to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to authorize incidental take of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We are considering rulemaking to address various approaches to regulating incidental take of migratory birds, including issuance of general incidental take authorizations for some types of hazards to birds associated with particular industry sectors; issuance of individual permits authorizing incidental take from particular projects or activities; development of memoranda of understanding with Federal agencies authorizing incidental take from those agencies' operations and activities; and/or development of voluntary guidance for industry sectors regarding operational techniques or technologies that can avoid or minimize incidental take. The rulemaking would establish appropriate standards for any such regulatory approach to ensure that incidental take of migratory birds is appropriately mitigated, which may include requiring measures to avoid or minimize take or securing compensation. We invite input from other Federal and State agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and members of the public on the scope of the PEIS, the pertinent issues we should address, and alternatives to our proposed approaches for regulating incidental take.

          DATES:
          To ensure consideration of written comments, they must be submitted on or before July 27, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments by one of the following methods. Please do not submit comments by both methods.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2014-0067.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Submit by U.S. mail to Public Comments Processing, Attention: FWS-HQ-MB-2014-0067; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS-PPM, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          Please note in your submission that your comments are in regard to Incidental Take of Migratory Birds. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Availability of Comments section below for more information).
          We will hold public Scoping Open Houses at the following times and locations:
          • June 16, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. at Courtyard Sacramento CalExpo, 1782 Tribute Road Sacramento, CA 95815;
          • June 18, 2015 from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at Holiday Inn Denver East—Stapleton, 3333 East Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207;
          • June 30, 2015 from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at Sheraton Westport Chalet, 191 Westport Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63146; and
          • July 2, 2015 from 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. at Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203.

          In addition, we will present a public webinar on July 8, 2015. Additional information regarding these scoping sessions will be available on our Web site at http://www.birdregs.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah P. Mott at 703-358-1910, or Sarah_P_Mott@fws.gov. Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background and Need for Action
        In 1916, the United States and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada), signed a treaty to protect migratory birds. In 1918, Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-711) to implement the treaty with Canada. Among other things, the MBTA, as enacted, prohibited unauthorized killing and selling of birds covered by the treaty. The United States later signed bilateral treaties with Mexico, Japan, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to protect migratory birds. After each treaty was signed, Congress amended the MBTA to cover the species addressed in that treaty.
        The MBTA makes it unlawful to take or kill individuals of most bird species found in the United States, unless that taking or killing is authorized pursuant to regulation 16 U.S.C. 703, 704. “Take” is defined in part 10 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR 10.12). “Migratory bird” means any bird protected by any of the treaties and currently includes 1,027 bird species in the United States (50 CFR 10.13), regardless of whether the particular species actually migrates.

        Of the 1,027 currently protected species, approximately 8% are either listed (in whole or in part) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 25% are designated (in whole or in part) as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). BCC species are those birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. According to the State of the Birds reports by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), most bird guilds (groups of birds that use the same habitat) are experiencing population declines, especially those using arid lands, grasslands, and ocean environments. Based on number of species within each guild, more raptors and waterbirds are on the ESA and BCC lists, respectively, with 43 percent and 41 percent of the species on these lists.
        Many natural and anthropogenic sources (any activity, action, or component of a project, enterprise, or endeavor) cause bird mortality or otherwise contribute to declining populations. Bird habitat is lost or degraded every year due to urbanization, energy development, agriculture, and forestry practices. These rapidly accelerating impacts can be mitigated through a variety of approaches, such as voluntary incentives, habitat restoration or protection, and best management practices. In addition, millions of birds are directly killed by interaction with human structures and activities, such as collisions with manmade structures, electrocutions, chemicals, and fisheries bycatch. The cumulative effects of these sources of mortality are contributing to continental-scale population declines for many species (State of the Birds, NABCI 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014).

        Many of these sources of avian mortality are becoming more prevalent across the landscape, and their impacts on bird populations are exacerbated by the effects of a changing climate. Birds in every habitat will likely be affected by anthropogenic sources and climate change, so conserving migratory bird populations will require a multifaceted, coordinated approach by governments, conservation organizations, industry, and the general public. An incidental take authorization program alone will not address all of the conservation needs of bird populations, but it could provide a framework to reduce existing human-caused mortality of birds and help avoid future impacts by promoting practical actions or conservation measures that will help industries and agencies avoid and minimize their impacts on birds. An authorization system created through rulemaking could encourage implementation of appropriate conservation measures to avoid or reduce avian mortality, such as the technologies and best management practices identified in current Service guidance for certain industry sectors, and could create a regulatory mechanism to obtain meaningful compensatory mitigation for bird mortality that cannot be avoided or minimized through best practices or technologies. Compensatory mitigation for incidental take, especially on a watershed or landscape basis, can provide conservation benefits through funding of habitat replacement, restoration, or, in certain circumstances, acquisition.
        The Service has longstanding regulations found at 50 CFR part 21 that authorize the issuance of permits to take migratory birds. A number of migratory bird regulations authorize purposeful take for a variety of purposes, including bird banding and marking, scientific collection, bird rehabilitation, raptor propagation, and falconry. Consistent with the Service's longstanding position that the MBTA applies to take that occurs incidental to, and which is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity, we also have authorized incidental take by the Armed Forces during military-readiness activities (50 CFR 21.15) and in certain situations through special use permits described in 50 CFR 21.27.
        We are now considering establishing more general authority to permit incidental take through general authorizations, individual permits, or interagency memoranda of understanding. This regulatory process would provide greater certainty for entities that have taken efforts to reduce incidental take and significantly benefit bird conservation by promoting implementation of appropriate conservation measures to avoid or reduce avian mortality. The process would also create a regulatory mechanism to obtain meaningful compensatory mitigation for bird mortality that cannot be avoided or minimized through best practices, risk management processes, or technologies. We are considering approaches that will minimize the administrative burden of compliance with this regulatory process for industry, other Federal agencies, and the Service, and will also consider continuation of our current efforts to work with interested industry sectors to develop voluntary guidance for avoiding or minimizing incidental take of migratory birds. These approaches will not affect 50 CFR 21.15, which was issued to allow the Armed Forces to incidentally take migratory birds during military-readiness activities.
        We note that should we develop a permit system authorizing and limiting incidental take, we would not expect every person or business that may incidentally take migratory birds to obtain a permit, nor would we intend to expand our judicious use of our enforcement authority under the MBTA. The Service focuses its enforcement efforts under the MBTA on industries or activities that chronically kill birds and has historically pursued criminal prosecution under the Act only after notifying an industry of its concerns regarding avian mortality, working with the industry to find solutions, and proactively educating industry about ways to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds. Similarly, our permit program, if implemented, will focus on industries and activities that involve significant avian mortality and for which reasonable and effective measures to avoid or minimize take exist.
        Need for Agency Action
        We seek to provide legal clarity to Federal and State agencies, industry, and the public regarding compliance with the MBTA. At the same time, we have a legal responsibility under the MBTA and the treaties the Act implements to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. We are considering actions, therefore, that can provide legal authorization for incidental take of migratory birds where authorization is appropriate, will promote adoption of measures to avoid or minimize incidental take, and will provide for appropriate mitigation, including compensation, for that take.
        NEPA Analysis of Potential Incidental Take Authorization Options
        The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of environmental effects of any proposed action prior to making a final decision and implementing it. NEPA requirements apply to any Federal project, decision, or action that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issued regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Among other considerations, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.28 recommend the use of tiering from a broader environmental impact statement (such as a national program or policy statement). Subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or site-specific statements) would incorporate by reference the general discussions of the previous broad EIS and concentrate solely on the issues specific to the narrower statement.
        Consistent with this guidance, we intend to complete a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to consider a number of approaches to regulating incidental take of migratory birds. The PEIS will address the potential environmental impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives for regulating and authorizing incidental take; the effectiveness of best practices or measures to mitigate take of migratory birds under the MBTA and adverse impacts to migratory bird resources; the potential for environmental impacts to non-bird resources, such as cultural resources, from measures to protect birds; the effects on migratory bird populations of sources of mortality other than incidental take; and the effects on migratory bird populations of impacts to migratory bird habitat, including, but not limited to, climate change. We will address our compliance with other applicable authorities in our proposed NEPA review.
        Tribal Responsibilities

        The Service has unique responsibilities to tribes including under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d); the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996); Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.); Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the ESA (June 5, 1997): Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, May 29, 1996): and the Service's Native American Policy. We apply the terms “tribal” or “tribe(s)” generally to federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native tribal entities. We will refer to Native Hawaiian Organizations separately when we intend to include those entities. The Service will separately consult with tribes and with Native Hawaiians on the proposals set forth in this notice of intent. We will also ensure that those tribes and Native Hawaiians wishing to engage directly in the NEPA process will have the opportunity to do so. As part of this process, we will protect the confidential nature of any consultations and other communications we have with tribes and Native Hawaiians.
        Possible Actions

        We are considering various approaches for authorizing incidental take of migratory birds. Each of these regulatory approaches would require us to promulgate new regulations under the MBTA, in compliance with applicable statutory and Executive Branch requirements for rulemaking. We will also consider, as an alternative to these regulatory approaches, a continuation of our practice of working with interested industry sectors to develop voluntary guidance that identifies best management practices or technologies that can effectively avoid or minimize avian mortality from hazards in those sectors. These approaches may be considered separately or in any combination. Therefore, the PEIS will consider the effects from each approach, and the effects from combined approaches.
        General Conditional Authorization for Incidental Take Associated With Particular Industry Sectors
        One possible approach would be to establish a general conditional authorization for incidental take by certain hazards to birds associated with particular industry sectors, provided that those industry sectors adhere to appropriate standards for protection and mitigation of incidental take of migratory birds. The standards would include conservation measures or technologies that have been developed to address practices or structures that kill or injure birds. We are considering developing authorizations under this approach for a number of types of hazards to birds that are associated with particular industry sectors, described below. We selected these hazards and sectors because we know that they consistently take birds and we have substantial knowledge about measures these industries can take to prevent or reduce incidental bird deaths. We have a history of working with these industry sectors to address associated hazards to birds by issuing guidance and reviewing projects at the field level or by engaging in collaborative efforts to establish best management practices and standards.
        • Oil, gas, and wastewater disposal pits can entrap birds that are attracted to a perceived source of water. Birds that land on or fall into the pit become covered with oil and may ultimately die from drowning, exhaustion, exposure, or effects of ingested oil. Closed containment systems or properly maintained netting prevents birds from entering these sites.
        • Methane or other gas burner pipes at oil production sites and other locations provide a hazard to birds from burning, entrapment in pipes or vents, or direct mortality from flame flare. Removing perches, installing perch deterrents, and covering pipes and other small openings can minimize this take.
        • Communication towers can have a significant impact on birds, especially birds migrating at night. Using recommended tower-siting practices and design features such as appropriate lighting, shorter tower heights, and eliminating or reducing the use of guy wires can minimize bird take caused by collisions with these structures.
        • Electric transmission and distribution lines impact a variety of birds through electrocution and collision. To reduce electrocutions, poles can be made avian-safe through pole and equipment design or through post-construction retrofitting measures. Collisions are best minimized through appropriate siting considerations.
        We may seek to develop additional general authorizations in this rulemaking for hazards to birds associated with other industry sectors. We are considering, for example, whether a general conditional authorization can be developed for hazards to birds related to wind energy generation, building on guidance we have developed jointly with that industry to address avian mortality. We seek input from the public and interested parties regarding the issues, environmental impacts, and mitigation techniques we should assess if we try to develop a general authorization for wind energy generation, and also on whether there are additional industry sectors for which general authorization of incidental take may be appropriate.
        Individual Permits
        A second possible approach would be to establish legal authority for issuing individual incidental take permits for projects or activities not covered under the described general, conditional authorization that present complexities or siting considerations that inherently require project-specific considerations, or for which there is limited information regarding adverse effects. We are considering ways to minimize the administrative burdens of obtaining individual incidental take permits for both applicants and the Service, such as combining environmental reviews for those permits with reviews being conducted for other Federal permits or authorizations. Our intention would be only to establish the authority and standards for issuance of individual permits in this rulemaking; we do not intend to issue any actual individual permits as part of this action. FWS will conduct site-specific NEPA reviews in connection with the future issuance of any such permit.
        Memoranda of Understanding With Federal Agencies
        A third possible approach would be to establish a procedure for authorizing incidental take by Federal agencies that commit in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with us to consider impacts to migratory birds in their actions and to mitigate that take appropriately. We have negotiated MOUs with a number of Federal agencies under Executive Order 13186 (66 FR 3853, January 17, 2001), but we have not previously sought to authorize incidental take through those memoranda. Expanding existing MOUs and negotiating MOUs with additional Federal agencies could provide an efficient programmatic approach to regulating and authorizing incidental take caused by Federal agency programs and activities. We may also consider whether MOUs with Federal agencies might provide appropriate vehicles for authorizing take by third parties regulated by those agencies, even though the agencies themselves are not subject to the prohibitions of the MBTA when acting in their regulatory capacities.
        The regulation we envision promulgating would not immediately authorize incidental take via existing MOUs, but would allow us to develop MOUs with interested agencies to authorize that take in the future. We will conduct appropriate NEPA analysis in connection with the development of any such memoranda if we pursue this option.
        Development of Voluntary Guidance for Industry Sectors
        We will also evaluate an approach that builds on our experience working with particular industry sectors to develop voluntary guidance that identifies best management practices or technologies that can be applied to avoid or minimize avian mortality resulting from specific hazards in those sectors. Under this approach, we would continue to work closely with interested industry sectors to assess the extent that their operations and facilities may pose hazards to migratory birds and to evaluate operational approaches or technological measures that can avoid or reduce the risk to migratory birds associated with those hazards. We would not provide legal authorization for incidental take of migratory birds by companies or individuals that comply with any such guidance, but would, as a matter of law-enforcement discretion, consider the extent to which a company or individual had complied with that guidance as a substantial factor in assessing any potential enforcement action for violation of the Act.
        Public Comments

        We request information from other interested government agencies, Native American tribes, Native Hawaiians, the scientific community, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and other interested parties. We solicit input on the following:
        (1) The approaches we are considering for authorizing incidental take;
        (2) The specific types of hazards to birds associated with particular industry sectors that could be covered under general permits;
        (3) Potential approaches to mitigate and compensate for the take of migratory birds;
        (4) Other approaches, or combinations of approaches, we should consider with respect to the regulation and authorization of incidental take;
        (5) Specific requirements for NEPA analyses related to these actions;
        (6) Whether the actions we consider should distinguish between existing and new industry facilities and activities;
        (7) Considerations for evaluating the significance of impacts to migratory birds and to other affected resources, such as cultural resources;
        (8) Information regarding natural resources that may be affected by the proposal;
        (9) Considerations for evaluating the interactions between affected natural resources;
        (10) The benefits provided by current Federal programs to conserve migratory birds and the additional benefits that would be provided by a program to authorize incidental take;
        (11) The potential costs to comply with the actions under consideration, including those borne by the Federal government and private sectors;
        (12) The baseline for quantifying the costs and benefits of the proposal;
        (13) Bird species having religious or cultural significance for tribes, bird species having religious or cultural significance for the general public, and impacts to cultural values from the actions being considered;
        (14) Considerations for evaluating climate change effects to migratory bird resources and to other affected resources, such as cultural resources; and
        (15) How to integrate existing guidance and plans, such as Avian Protection Plans, into the proposed regulatory framework.

        You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods described above under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice of intent.
        Public Availability of Comments
        Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information that you include in your comment may become publicly available. You may ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
        Authority
        The authorities for this action are the MBTA, NEPA, and Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

          Dated: May 20, 2015.
          Michael J. Bean,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2015-12666 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No.070718362-7488-01]
        RIN 0648-AV14
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Revisions to Allowable Bycatch Reduction Devices

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the framework procedures for adjusting management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), NMFS proposes to decertify the expanded mesh bycatch reduction device (BRD), the “Gulf fisheye” BRD, and the “fisheye” BRD, as currently specified, for use in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) shrimp fishery. NMFS would also certify a new specification for the fisheye device to be used in the Gulf. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to improve bycatch reduction in the shrimp fishery and better meet the requirements of national standard 9.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, on July 3, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV14, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: 727-824-5308, Attn: Steve Branstetter.
          • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          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. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Wordperfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) completed in support of the proposed rule are available from the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-824-5305, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fishery for shrimp in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf is managed under the FMP prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). The FMP is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background
        Regulations implementing Amendment 9 to the FMP were published April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18139), and established a requirement, with limited exceptions, for the use of certified BRDs in shrimp trawls towed in the Gulf EEZ shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour west of 85°30′W. longitude (western Gulf), the approximate longitude of Cape San Blas, FL. The rule established descriptions of BRD designs and configurations allowed for use in the western Gulf shrimp fishery.
        To better address the requirements of national standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (69 FR 1538, January 9, 2004) required BRDs in shrimp trawls fished in the EEZ east of 85°30′ W. longitude (eastern Gulf).
        In accordance with the BRD framework procedures of the FMP, NMFS recently modified the existing BRD certification criterion for the western Gulf (73 FR 8219, February 13, 2008) to be consistent with the criterion for the eastern Gulf. The new criterion specifies a BRD must demonstrate a 30-percent reduction in the weight of finfish bycatch to be certified for use in the Gulf shrimp fishery.
        The “fisheye” BRD and “Gulf fisheye” BRD are the two dominant BRD designs currently used in the western Gulf. These two BRDs are actually the same device; the only difference between them is their configuration (where they are placed within the cod end of the trawl). The “fisheye” BRD must be placed along the top center of the cod end of a shrimp trawl no further forward than 11 ft (3.4 m) from the cod end tie-off rings. Subsequent tests of the fisheye device in slightly different configurations led to the certification of the “Gulf fisheye” BRD. In the “Gulf fisheye” configuration, the device may be placed 15 meshes on either side of top center, between 8.5 ft (2.6 m) and 12.5 ft (3.8 m) from the cod end tie-off rings, thus expanding the allowable placement of the device. These two configurations of the fisheye device are also certified for use in the eastern Gulf.
        Because of the fisheye-type device's simplistic design and low cost in either configuration, it became the industry standard. The most commonly used configuration for the fisheye device in the Gulf shrimp fishery has the BRD placed 10.5 ft (3.2 m) to 12.5 ft (3.8 m) forward of the cod end tie-off rings. According to NMFS' Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) estimates, the fisheye device in this configuration is achieving a 14-percent reduction in finfish bycatch by weight. Thus, it does not meet the new 30-percent finfish bycatch reduction criterion, established in separate rulemaking.

        However, placed farther back in the cod end, the fisheye device is more effective. When placed no farther forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) (102-105 meshes) from the tie-off rings, the fisheye BRD achieves a 37-percent reduction in total finfish bycatch by weight. There is a 98-percent probability the true reduction rate of the fisheye BRD, in this more rearward configuration, would meet the 30-percent finfish reduction certification criterion.
        Similarly, it appears the efficiency of the expanded mesh BRD, currently certified for use in the eastern Gulf, has decreased. During the original tests of the expanded mesh BRD in the mid-1990s, it achieved between a 30- and 35-percent reduction in total finfish bycatch. Recent tests of the expanded mesh BRD in the Gulf indicate it is only achieving about a 17-percent reduction in total finfish bycatch.
        For both of the fisheye devices (the “Gulf fisheye” BRD and the “fisheye” BRD) and the expanded mesh BRD, the potential of the BRDs has not changed, but it appears fishing behavior, or some other factor, in the fleet has changed. There have been numerous technological changes to the overall construction of shrimp trawl gear in recent years, such as new, larger turtle excluder devices (TEDs) and longer nets. In addition, there have been changes in fishing practices to help increase shrimp retention, such as faster towing speeds and modified retrieval procedures. Although the exact reasons for the BRDs' change in efficiency are not known, in practice, the fisheye device, in its most common configuration, and the expanded mesh BRD do not appear to meet the 30-percent finfish reduction certification criterion.
        This proposed rule would decertify the expanded mesh BRD, the “Gulf fisheye” BRD, and the “fisheye” BRD, as currently specified, for use in the Gulf shrimp fishery and certify a new specification of the fisheye device (revise the description and allowed placement of the “fisheye” BRD). The proposed rule would restrict placement of the fisheye device in the Gulf shrimp fishery to the top center of the cod end no farther forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) from the tie-off rings, and this new specification would simply be termed the fisheye BRD. Compared to the fisheye device in its current configurations, the fisheye BRD, in this more restricted configuration, will further reduce total finfish bycatch, including bycatch of juvenile red snapper.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule. The proposed rule would revise the list of allowable BRDs used in the Gulf shrimp fishery. Specifically, NMFS proposes to decertify the expanded mesh BRD, the “Gulf fisheye” BRD, and the “fisheye” BRD, as currently specified, for use in the Gulf shrimp fishery. The “fisheye” BRD with a new, more restrictive specification would be certified for use in the Gulf. The allowable placement of the fisheye BRD would be restricted to no further forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) from the cod end tie-off rings. The purpose of this proposed rule is to further reduce total finfish bycatch, including juvenile red snapper, in the Gulf shrimp fishery to better address the requirements of national standard 9 and aid in the rebuilding of the Gulf's overfished red snapper stock.
        No duplicative, overlapping or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        As of March 26, 2007, a Federal Gulf shrimp moratorium permit is required to fish for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and 1,928 permits have been issued. Of these permits, 16 are currently not attached to a particular vessel, which results in 1,912 vessels possessing a Federal Gulf shrimp moratorium permit at this time. Of these 1,912 vessels with moratorium permits, 1,599 vessels were active in the Gulf food shrimp fishery in either 2005 or 2006, as demonstrated by recorded landings in the Gulf shrimp fishery landings file for the years 2005 and 2006. This is the most recent period of finalized data for this fishery and will be used for this analysis. The 313 permitted vessels not active during the 2005 or 2006 seasons potentially could have fished during the 2007 season. However, because the status of their current or expected participation is unknown and information on recent performance characteristics are not available, they have not been included in the analysis of directly impacted vessels. Should these 313 vessels become active in the future, they could be directly impacted at that time. Over the past four years, participation in the fishery by permitted vessels has continually declined, particularly in 2006, and preliminary data suggests participation may have decreased further in 2007. This trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future.
        Of the 1,599 active permitted vessels, an estimated 478 vessels are presently using BRDs that would still be allowable under the proposed action. These vessels would not be required to switch to new BRDs or change the placement of their “fisheye” BRD. The other 1,121 active permitted vessels presently using BRDs that would not be allowable under the proposed action would have to change the location of their current BRDs or switch to other BRDs. Thus, it is estimated that 1,121 vessels would be directly impacted by the proposed action.
        The average annual gross revenue per active permitted vessel in 2005-2006 was approximately $196,943 (2006 dollars). The maximum average annual gross revenue reported by an active permitted vessel during this period was $965,462. However, substantial differences in average annual revenues exist by vessel size. For the large vessel group (60 ft (18.3 m) in length or greater), the average annual revenue per vessel was approximately $221,017 in 2005-2006. For small active permitted vessels (less than 60 ft (18.3 m) in length), the average annual revenue per vessel was approximately $61,267 in 2005-2006. The distribution of annual revenues for small vessels is also considerably more heterogeneous than for large vessels reflecting the fact that the vast majority of large vessels operate on a full-time basis while, for small vessels, some operate on a full-time basis and others only on a part-time basis.

        On average, small active permitted vessels are also smaller in regards to almost all of their physical and operational attributes as they use smaller crews, fewer and smaller nets, have less engine horsepower and fuel capacity, etc. Small vessels are also older on average. Almost all large vessels are steel-hulled. Steel hulls are also the most common hull-type among small vessels, though more than 50 percent of these vessels have fiberglass or wood hulls. More than two-thirds of the large vessels have freezing capabilities while few small vessels have such equipment. Small vessels still rely on ice for refrigeration and storage. A few of the small vessels are so small that they rely on live wells for storage.
        Both large and small active permitted Gulf shrimp vessels are highly dependent on Gulf food shrimp landings and revenues. In 2005-2006, the percentage of revenues arising from food shrimp landings was nearly 99 percent for large vessels and approximately 94 percent for small vessels.
        Finally, according to previous projections, on average, both small and large Gulf shrimp vessels were experiencing significant economic losses, ranging from a -27 percent rate of return (net revenues/gross revenues) in the small vessel sector to a -36 percent rate of return in the large vessel sector (-33 percent on average for the fishery as a whole). Although more current estimates are not available, preliminary results indicate that the average active permitted Gulf shrimp vessel, whether large or small, was still earning an economic loss in 2006. Therefore, any additional financial burden could hasten additional exit from the fishery.
        The Small Business Administration defines a small business in the commercial fishing industry as an entity that 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 $4.0 million annually (NAICS codes 114111 and 114112, finfish and shellfish fishing). Based on the average annual revenues for the fishery provided above, all shrimp vessels expected to be directly impacted by the proposed action are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities. This proposed rule is expected to directly affect 1,121 vessels, or 59 percent of all permitted vessels and 70 percent of active permitted vessels. Thus, NMFS determines that this action will affect a substantial number of small entities.
        Adverse direct effects expected as a result of the proposed action would only accrue to certain vessels in the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp fishery. The extent to which particular small entities' profits will be reduced by the proposed action is critically dependent on whether the 1,121 potentially impacted shrimp vessel owners decide to employ the predominantly used and produced fisheye BRD in the proposed allowable position, which would be the most expedient option and minimize immediate out-of-pocket expenses, or switch to the modified Jones-Davis BRD or the extended funnel BRD which have a significantly lower average shrimp loss. Two other BRDs would be available, specifically the Jones-Davis and composite panel BRDs. However, due to the lower average shrimp loss associated with the extended funnel and modified Jones-Davis BRDs, and the lower cost relative to the Jones-Davis BRD (but not the composite panel BRD), the extended funnel and modified Jones-Davis BRDs would be economically preferable. Therefore, this analysis assumes that these would be the BRDs of choice.
        Approximately 6,400 replacement BRDs will be required under the proposed rule. NMFS has contracted for approximately 1,000 of the economically preferable BRDs to be produced for free distribution to vessels that would be forced to change their current BRDs as a result of the proposed rule. It is expected that one free BRD will be provided to each vessel to ensure that the benefits will be widely distributed. Since the small vessels that will potentially need to switch to new BRDs will likely only need to purchase three BRDs, as compared to six BRDs for large vessels, it is expected that the free BRDs will be provided only to large vessels. This analysis assumes that the shrimp industry will have approximately six months after publication of the final rule to meet the compliance requirements of the proposed rule. This should allow net shops sufficient time to produce the remaining 5,400 BRDs which are expected to be needed in the shrimp industry.
        NMFS also anticipates that the effective date of this rule will occur during the off-season, which will allow vessel captains additional time to determine the best methods to use their new BRD according to their particular vessel's operations prior to the peak summer season. Thus, while it may take time for vessel captains to learn how to re-configure their gear so that the gear and gear modifications (BRDs and TEDs) operate in an optimal manner with respect to shrimp retention, the timing of the action should minimize the potential for any initially higher than expected shrimp losses as a result of vessel captains moving up the “learning curve.”
        Therefore, in general, the actual impacts of the proposed rule are expected to be approximated by the impacts associated with use of the extended funnel or modified Jones-Davis BRDs. This general conclusion assumes that vessel owners will make prudent use of the time they are given to test the gear and that the relatively high average shrimp loss associated with the fisheye BRD in the proposed allowable position will provide sufficient economic incentive to switch to a different BRD as soon as possible.
        Regardless of the new BRD adopted, the estimated ten large vessels and one small vessel currently using the expanded mesh BRD would be expected to experience a substantial loss as a result of this proposed action. Even if these vessels switch to the extended funnel BRD or modified Jones-Davis BRD, these vessels are projected to experience an estimated annual loss of approximately $17,000 per vessel, or approximately 8 percent of their average annual gross revenues, as a result of higher costs associated with these relatively more expensive new BRDs and reduced revenues resulting from their higher average shrimp loss relative to the expanded mesh BRD. This loss would be expected to be sufficient to cause additional operational changes, since the losses would not likely be sustainable.
        For the estimated 70 small and 626 large vessels currently using the “fisheye” BRD in the 9-(2.7-m) to 11-ft (3.4-m) position, the expected impacts of the proposed rule are considerably less burdensome, despite the increased operating costs due to the higher costs of the new BRDs, and potentially even beneficial. Specifically, for the 70 small vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD is projected to lead to slightly higher annual revenues, approximately $200, or 0.3 percent of their average annual gross revenues, because of the lower average shrimp loss from these alternative BRDs. A switch to the modified Jones-Davis BRD is projected to result in a slight annual loss of $400, or 0.6 percent of their average annual gross revenues. The effects of either switch would likely be imperceptible and, therefore, are expected to cause no change in these vessels' fishing operations.

        For the 626 large vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD is projected to result in an annual gain of approximately $2,000, or approximately 1 percent of average annual revenues, again due to the higher average shrimp retention. Under a switch to the modified Jones-Davis BRD, the higher costs associated with purchasing this more expensive BRD are approximately equivalent to the increase in revenues resulting from its relatively lower average shrimp loss, thus resulting in no net change. As with the small vessels, all impacts would be expected to be imperceptible and cause no change in these vessels' fishing operations. Additionally, any potential adverse impacts in the first year would be slightly mitigated by the provision of the one free BRD.
        The estimated 27 small and 387 large vessels currently using the “Gulf fisheye” BRD are projected to experience greater losses than the vessels currently using the “fisheye” BRD in the 9-(2.7-m) to 11-ft (3.4-m) position. Specifically, for the 27 small vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD or modified Jones-Davis BRD is projected to result in an estimated annual loss of approximately $1,400, or approximately 2 percent of the vessel's average annual gross revenues. This loss would result from both an increase in operating costs, as these BRDs are relatively more expensive, and a decrease in annual revenues, since they also have a slightly higher average shrimp loss. For the 387 large vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD or modified Jones-Davis BRD is projected to result in an estimated annual loss of approximately $4,000, or approximately 2 percent of the vessel's average annual gross revenues. Again, this loss would be due to both an increase in operating costs and higher average shrimp loss. Under current economic conditions, such losses to both the small and large vessels could cause some vessels to alter their current operations in an effort to either reduce costs or increase revenues. Such changes might include, but not be limited to, reducing effort, the number of crew, or crew revenue shares, or switching to other fisheries. The impacts on the large vessels would be slightly mitigated in the first year by the provision of the one free BRD.
        The only alternative considered to the proposed action is the status quo, or no action. Since the status quo would not change the existing list of allowable BRDs in the Gulf shrimp fishery, there would be no new impacts associated with this action. However, new information collected between 2001 and 2003 indicate that the expanded mesh BRD, the “Gulf fisheye” BRD, and the “fisheye” BRD in its standard configuration, as used in the Gulf shrimp fishery, do not meet the 30-percent finfish reduction criterion. According to NMFS' SEFSC estimates, the fisheye device in its most common configurations achieves between a 14- and 23-percent reduction in finfish bycatch by weight, and the expanded mesh BRD achieves a 17-percent reduction in finfish bycatch by weight.
        Allowing for the provisional certification of BRDs achieving a 25-percent reduction in finfish bycatch by weight, which has been established via separate rulemaking, could significantly reduce the potential adverse economic impacts of this proposed action on small entities since it would allow for the temporary certification of the extended funnel BRD in the western Gulf. Relative to the other BRDs that meet the 30-percent finfish reduction criterion, the extended funnel BRD's average shrimp loss is considerably lower and, thus, so are the economic impacts potentially resulting from this action if shrimp vessel owners switch to this particular BRD. The period of time vessel owners are expected to be given should be sufficient to allow them to switch to this BRD or the modified Jones-Davis BRD, which will mitigate any adverse economic impacts from the proposed rule. Additional mitigation in the first year will accrue due to the distribution of the 1,000 free BRDs.
        Copies of the RIR and IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

        Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: May 28, 2008.
          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 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.41, paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A),(B), and (E) are revised to read as follows:

          § 622.41
          Species specific limitations.
          (g) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) Fisheye—see Appendix D for separate specifications in the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ.
          (B) Gulf fisheye—South Atlantic EEZ only.
          (E) Expanded mesh—South Atlantic EEZ only.

        3. In Appendix D to part 622, sections C and D are revised to read as follows:

          APPENDIX D TO PART 622—SPECIFICATIONS FOR CERTIFIED BRDS
          C. Fisheye.
          1. Description. The fisheye BRD is a cone-shaped rigid frame constructed from aluminum or steel rod of at least 1/4 inch (6.35-mm) diameter, which is inserted into the cod end to form an escape opening.
          2. Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements. The fisheye has a minimum escape opening dimension of 5 inches (12.7 cm) and a minimum total escape opening area of 36 in2 (91.4 cm2). When the fisheye BRD is installed, no part of the lazy line attachment system (i.e., any mechanism, such as elephant ears or choker straps, used to attach the lazy line to the cod end) may overlap the fisheye escape opening when the fisheye is installed aft of the attachment point of the cod end retrieval system.
          (a) In the Gulf EEZ, the fisheye BRD must be installed at the top center of the cod end of the trawl to create an opening in the trawl facing in the direction of the mouth of the trawl no further forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) from the cod end drawstring (tie-off rings).
          (b) In the South Atlantic EEZ, the fisheye BRD must be installed at the top center of the cod end of the trawl to create an escape opening in the trawl facing the direction of the mouth of the trawl no further forward than 11 ft (3.4 m) from the cod end tie-off rings.
          D. Gulf fisheye.
          1. Description. The Gulf fisheye is a cone-shaped rigid frame constructed from aluminum or steel rod of at least 1/4 inch (6.35-mm) diameter, which is inserted into the top center of the cod end, and is offset not more than 15 meshes perpendicular to the top center of the cod end to form an escape opening.
          2. Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements. The Gulf fisheye has a minimum escape opening dimension of 5 inches (12.7 cm) and a minimum total escape opening area of 36 in2 (91.4 cm2). To be used in the South Atlantic EEZ, the Gulf fisheye BRD must be installed in the cod end of the trawl to create an escape opening in the trawl, facing in the direction of the mouth of the trawl, no less than 8.5 ft (2.59 m) and no further forward than 12.5 ft (3.81 m) from the cod end tie-off rings, and may be offset no more than 15 meshes perpendicular to the top center of the cod end. When the Gulf fisheye BRD is installed, no part of the lazy line attachment system (i.e., any mechanism, such as elephant ears or choker straps, used to attach the lazy line to the cod end) may overlap the fisheye escape opening when the fisheye is installed aft of the attachment point of the cod end retrieval system.
          4. In addition to the amendments above, in 50 CFR part 622, remove the word “codend,” wherever it occurs, and add in its place the words “cod end”.

      [FR Doc. E8-12324 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S