        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 90
        [WT Docket No. 12-64; WT Docket No. 11-110; FCC 12-25]
        Channel Spacing and Bandwidth Limitations for Certain Economic Area (EA)-Based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Licensees

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to modify the Commission's rules to allow Economic Area (EA)-based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees to exceed a channel spacing and bandwidth limitation, subject to two conditions. The Commission proposes to allow licensees to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in the 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz band in National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions where 800 MHz public safety licensee reconfiguration is complete. In areas where 800 MHz public safety reconfiguration is incomplete, EA-based 800 MHz licensees would only be allowed to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in the 813.5-821/858.5-866 MHz band. Further, the Commission proposes to require any EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensee that intends to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation of its rules, which govern the above-listed MHz bands, to provide 30 days written notice to public safety licensees with base stations in the NPSPAC region and within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the affected NPSPAC region. The Commission seeks comment on any additional steps that may need to be taken to protect 800 MHz public safety licensees against any possible increased interference. The proposed rule changes would allow geographic-based 800 MHz SMR licensees the flexibility to deploy new technologies and to better utilize their licensed spectrum, while also protecting 800 MHz public safety entities.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before April 13, 2012 and reply comments are due on or before April 23, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 12-64; WT Docket No. 11-110; FCC 12-25, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Brian Regan, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, brian.regan@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2849.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in WT Docket No. 12-64, WT Docket No. 11-110; FCC 12-25, adopted March 7, 2012, and released March 9, 2012. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
        This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due May 29, 2012.

        Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

          OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.

          Title: Section 90.209(b)(7)—Bandwidth limitations.

          Form No.: N/A.

          Type of Review: New collection.

          Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

          Number of Respondents and Responses: 27 respondents, 27 responses.

          Estimated Time per Response: .50 up to 9 hours.

          Frequency of Response: On occasion, third party disclosure requirement.

          Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.

          Total Annual Burden: 232 hours.

          Total Annual Costs: $52,500.00.

          Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

          Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: None.

          Needs and Uses: This information will be used to ensure that 800 MHz public safety licensees are not impacted by EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees exceeding the channel spacing and bandwidth requirement in the Commission's rules.
        Summary
        I. Introduction and Background
        1. In an effort to reduce barriers to innovation and investment in new technologies and to promote greater spectrum efficiency, we propose to eliminate a legacy channel spacing and bandwidth limitation for Economic Area market (EA)-based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees in the 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz band. Subject to certain protections to safeguard 800 MHz public safety licensees, elimination of the legacy channel spacing and bandwidth limitation should provide greater flexibility to EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to deploy competitive wireless services over contiguous channels.

        2. In 1995, the Commission established a new licensing framework for 800 MHz SMR and designated 10 megahertz of contiguous spectrum in the 800 MHz band for EA-based licensing in the 800 MHz SMR First Report and Order, at 61 FR 6138, Feb. 16, 1996. In doing so, the Commission transitioned the 800 MHz SMR service from a site-by-site licensing process that required licensees to seek prior authorization to add or modify individual frequency channels and transmitter sites to a geographic-based licensing mechanism that provides licensees with the flexibility to add transmitters or modify operations within their licensed market and licensed spectrum as market conditions dictate.
        3. In the 800 MHz SMR First Report and Order the Commission determined that wide-area licensing would “give licensees the flexibility to use technologies that can operate on either contiguous or non-contiguous spectrum” and that large spectrum blocks were necessary for “broadband technologies such as CDMA and GSM.” With wide-area licenses, the Commission believed licensees would be able to “compete effectively with other CMRS providers, such as cellular and broadband PCS systems.” Further, the Commission stated its intent in the Executive Summary of the 800 MHz SMR First Report and Order that EA-based licensees would have “full discretion over channelization of available spectrum within the block.” The Commission also adopted an out-of-band emission requirement that applies to the outer channels of the spectrum block and to spectrum adjacent to interior channels used by incumbents.
        4. While the Commission may have intended to provide EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees discretion over channelization within the channel block, it left unchanged an existing channelization scheme and bandwidth limitation in its rules for the relevant portion of the 800 MHz band. Section 90.209 of the Commission's rules establishes channel spacing and authorized bandwidths for particular frequencies, unless specified elsewhere. Under § 90.209, frequencies in 809-824/854-869 MHz are limited to 25 kHz channels with an authorized bandwidth of 20 kHz.

        5. In 2004, the Commission initiated a process to reconfigure the 800 MHz band in the 800 MHz Reconfiguration Report and Order, at 69 FR 67823, Nov. 22, 2004, to “address the [then] ongoing and growing problem of interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band.” The interference problem was caused “by a fundamentally incompatible mix of two types of communications systems: cellular-architecture multi cell systems * * * and high-site non-cellular systems.” In the short term, the Commission implemented technical standards that defined unacceptable interference in 800 MHz, while also reconfiguring the 800 MHz band to separate commercial wireless systems from public safety systems on a separate track. Under the reconfiguration plan, SMR and other cellular-system operators including Sprint Nextel Corp. (Sprint Nextel) were required to vacate the 806-817/851-862 MHz band and relocate to the 817-824/862-869 MHz band.
        6. Sprint Nextel holds the majority of the EA-based 800 MHz SMR licenses (commonly referred to as Enhanced SMR or ESMR) and reported as of June 2011 that it held or will soon hold “14 [megahertz] of geographically licensed contiguous 800 MHz channels across much of the nation.” Sprint Nextel has used its licenses at 817-824/862-869 MHz primarily for its iDEN operations, which it describes as “a 2G technology that uses non-contiguous channels to provide cellular, messaging and push-to-talk services.”
        7. In December 2010, Sprint Nextel announced that it was transitioning its existing operations off of some of its EA-based 800 MHz licenses in order to incorporate the spectrum into its CDMA network, which it claims requires contiguous spectrum and “occupies a 1.25 [megahertz] bandwidth.” However, under the channelization scheme and bandwidth limitation in § 90.209 of the Commission's rules, Sprint Nextel is unable to aggregate the channels in its EA-based 800 MHz SMR licenses to provide CDMA.

        8. In June 2011, Sprint Nextel filed a petition for declaratory ruling (WT Docket No. 11-110) asking the Commission to “clarify and declare that its rules permit larger than 25 kHz bandwidth operations in the [ESMR] portion of the 800 MHz band.” Sprint Nextel requested in the alternative that the Commission issue a notice of proposed rulemaking “to revise § 90.209 to the extent necessary to expressly authorize ESMR band EA licensees to deploy technologies using bandwidths greater than 25 kHz on their contiguous spectrum assignments.” Sprint Nextel argues that the Commission never intended for the 25 kHz channel spacing and 20 kHz bandwidth limitation to apply to geographically licensed 800 MHz SMR spectrum and that such application will frustrate the Commission's intent of providing flexibility to EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees. Sprint Nextel also contends that the bandwidth limitation in § 90.209 and the out-of-band emission requirement in § 90.691 of the Commission's rules are apparently inconsistent and in conflict. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment on Sprint Nextel's petition in June 2011.
        9. Several commenters in response to the Public Notice support Sprint Nextel's request. SouthernLINC Wireless and Southern Company urge the Commission to also eliminate the bandwidth limitation and channel spacing in § 90.209 for the “expanded” SMR band in the southeastern United States, a request that Sprint Nextel supports. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) do not object to Sprint Nextel's request on the condition that certain steps are taken to avoid interference with 800 MHz public safety licensees. While AT&T generally supports efforts to “provide flexibility to exclusive geographic area licensees of commercial mobile services,” it and Motorola Solutions Inc. urge the Commission to adopt a rulemaking to explore any possible technical issues that may arise from wider-bandwidth operations in EA-licensed 800 MHz SMR spectrum.

        II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        10. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we propose to grant EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees the flexibility to deploy CDMA or other wireless technologies that operate on greater than 25 kHz channels with greater than 20 kHz bandwidth. We do not, however, find any controversy or uncertainty regarding §§ 90.209 or 90.691 of the Commission's rules that can be resolved or clarified through a declaratory ruling. We therefore initiate this Notice and propose to allow EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in § 90.209, subject to two conditions we propose to protect against any potential for increased interference with 800 MHz public safety licensees.
        11. The Commission is authorized to issue declaratory rulings to terminate controversies or remove uncertainty. While it has broad discretion in deciding whether to exercise such authority, the Commission will generally decline to issue such a ruling when there appears to be no significant controversy or uncertainty. Here, the record does not demonstrate any such controversy or uncertainty regarding the application of § 90.209 to EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees or the relationship between §§ 90.209 and 90.691. Section 90.209 is clear on its face that the channel spacings and authorized bandwidth for the listed frequencies, which include the frequencies assigned to EA-based 800 MHz SMR licenses, apply “unless specified elsewhere.” A different bandwidth authorization for this band is not listed elsewhere in the Commission's rules, including in § 90.691. As some commenters point out, in instances when the Commission has established different bandwidth limitations for frequencies listed in § 90.209, the Commission has done so explicitly. The out-of-band emission requirement in § 90.691 is intended to protect against adjacent channel interference, which is unnecessary for sequential channels licensed as a block and has no bearing on whether a spectrum block can be channelized or have a bandwidth limitation.
        12. In lieu of a declaratory ruling, through the instant Notice, we propose to eliminate the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in § 90.209 of the Commission's rules for EA-based 800 MHz SMR licenses in the frequencies 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz, subject to two proposed conditions outlined below. The record suggests that eliminating these limitations may serve the public interest by allowing licensees to deploy more advanced wireless technologies, to consumers' benefit, while continuing to ensure such operations do not increase interference to 800 MHz public safety licensees through the conditions proposed below. As set forth below, we seek comment on this proposal and on the type and magnitude of any accompanying costs or benefits.
        13. We recognize that protection of public safety licensees in the 800 MHz band is essential and do not intend to take any actions that might negatively impact the progress made through the 800 MHz reconfiguration process. APCO and NPSTC assert that in order to protect against interference with 800 MHz public safety licensees, operations using greater than 25 kHz bandwidth should only be allowed in National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions where public safety reconfiguration is complete. Accordingly, we propose to allow EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in § 90.209 in the 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz band in NPSPAC regions where all 800 MHz public safety licensees in the region have completed band reconfiguration. Further, in NPSPAC regions where reconfiguration is incomplete, we propose to allow EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation only in the 813.5-821/858.5-866 MHz band. Public safety users are being relocated from 821-824/866-869 MHz to the new band of 806-809/851-854 MHz. Sprint Nextel asserts that it will not—and cannot—deploy CDMA in the “old” public safety band until the public safety users in the NPSPAC region have moved to the “new” band. Upon all 800 MHz public safety licensees in a region completing band reconfiguration, EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band would then be allowed to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation.
        14. Additionally, we propose to require all EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to provide at least 30 days written notice to public safety licensees with base stations in the NPSPAC region where an EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensee intends to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation and to public safety licensees with base stations within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the affected NPSPAC region border. These conditions appear to balance the need to protect 800 MHz public safety licensees from any possible increased interference, while enabling 800 MHz SMR licensees to efficiently utilize their spectrum to provide more advanced wireless services. We seek comment on these proposed conditions, including with respect to any costs that these conditions might impose.

        15. We encourage commenters to explain any interference issues they claim may arise—even with conditions—with specificity, including any relevant data supporting such claims. We also encourage commenters to describe in detail and to justify fully any modification to these or additional conditions they argue may be necessary to protect 800 MHz public safety licensees from increased interference. For example, NPSTC suggests that the Commission should impose a one megahertz guard band at 820-821/865-866 MHz between EA-based 800 MHz SMR operations that exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation and public safety operations where band reconfiguration is incomplete. Similarly, APCO suggests that EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees that exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation “maintain a minimum of 1.0 MHz separation from any public safety operation in the upper portion of the interleaved band (i.e., above 860 MHz) in the service area of the * * * cellular site.” APCO also suggests that EA-based 800 MHz SMR operations that exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation and are near a public safety system in a NPSPAC region where reconfiguration is incomplete must protect public safety operations “both on-channel and on the 12.5 kHz offset to the 5 dBu.” We seek comment on these suggested conditions, as well as any other proposals. Commenters should include technical justifications for why additional or alternative conditions may be necessary, and should identify any costs that additional or alternative conditions might impose.
        III. Procedural Matters
        A. Ex Parte Rules-Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
        16. The proceeding this Notice 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 § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f), 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.
        B. Comment Dates

        17. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 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, at 63 FR 24121 (1998).

          Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

          Paper Filers: Parties that 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 a.m. to 7 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 9300 East Hampton Drive Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
         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).
        C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

        18. This document contains a proposed new information collection requirement. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
        IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        19. 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 a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. Written 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 Notice. 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 IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        20. The proposed rule eliminates legacy channel spacing and bandwidth limitation governing Economic Area (EA)-based 800 MHz specialized mobile radio (SMR) licensees. Further, the proposed rule provides licensees the flexibility to deploy competitive wireless services, while also continuing to protect 800 MHz public safety licensees from any potential interference.
        21. The proposed rule allow EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees in the 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz band to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limits in § 90.209 of the Commission's rules, subject to two conditions. We propose to allow EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in the 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz band in National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions where 800 MHz reconfiguration is complete. In NPSPAC regions where 800 MHz reconfiguration is incomplete, we propose to allow EA-based 800 MHz licensees to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation only in the 813.5-821/858.5-866 MHz band. Upon all 800 MHz public safety licensees in a region completing band reconfiguration, EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band would also be allowed to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation. We also propose to require EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to provide 30 days written notice to 800 MHz public safety licensees with base stations in the NPSPAC region where an EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensee intends to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation, and to public safety licensees with base stations within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the affected NPSPAC region border.
        22. We believe the proposed rule will reduce barriers to innovation and investment and allow EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to deploy competitive wireless services, to consumers' benefit.
        B. Legal Basis

        23. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, and 308.

        C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        24. 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 SBA.
        25. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
        26. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had 999 or fewer employees, and 15 had 1,000 employees or more. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
        27. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards small business bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to entities that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The Commission awards very small business bidding credits to entities that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Services. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
        28. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders that won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business.
        29. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the SBA.
        D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
        30. The proposed rule provides regulatory flexibility to all EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees. The proposed rule would impose limited reporting or recordkeeping requirements to the extent an EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensee seeks to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation in § 90.209 of the Commission's rules. In such cases, the licensee must provide 30 days advanced written notice to all public safety licensees with a base station in the affected NPSPAC region and within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the border of the affected NPSPAC region. Otherwise, the proposed rule would impose only a small compliance burden.
        E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or 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 any part thereof, for small entities.
        32. The Notice is deregulatory in nature and imposes only a minor compliance requirement on all affected entities, including small entities. In recognition of the resources available to small entities, and in the interest of simplified compliance obligations, the Notice does not mandate any specific form or manner in which entities must comply with the reporting requirement. Specifically, the Notice proposes to require EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees to provide written notice to all public safety licensees with a base station in the affected NPSPAC region and within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the border of the affected NPSPAC region if the licensee intends to exceed the channel spacing and bandwidth limitation. Licensees have the flexibility to provide written notice through whatever means the licensee chooses. We believe this notice is necessary to ensure that public safety licensees are aware of the operation and can actively monitor for any interference issues that may arise. While we strive to provide flexibility to small entities, because we believe that protection of public safety licensees is essential and in the public interest, we do not propose any exemption for small entities.
        F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        33. None.
        V. Ordering Clauses

        34. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, and 308, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
        35. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303 and § 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed on June 3, 2011 by Sprint Nextel Corp. is denied.
        36. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, and § 1.407 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking in the alternative filed on June 3, 2011 by Sprint Nextel Corp. is granted.

        37. The Commission's Consumer & 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 90
          Communications equipment, Common carriers, Business and industry, Radio.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 90 as follows:

          PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICE
          1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

          2. Section 90.209 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

            § 90.209
            Bandwidth limitations.

            (b) * * *
            (7) Economic Area (EA)-based licensees in frequencies 813.5-824/858.5-869 may exceed the standard channel spacing and authorized bandwidth listed in paragraph (b)(5) of this section in any National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee Region when all 800 MHz public safety licensees in the Region have completed band reconfiguration. In any National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee Region where the band reconfiguration is incomplete, EA-based licensees in frequencies 813.5-821/858.5-866 MHz may exceed the standard channel spacing and authorized bandwidth listed in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Upon all 800 MHz public safety licensees in a region completing band reconfiguration, EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band would also be allowed to exceed the channel spacing and authorized bandwidth. Licensees authorized to exceed the standard channel spacing and authorized bandwidth under this paragraph must provide at least 30 days written notice prior to initiating service in the bands listed herein to every 800 MHz public safety licensee with a base station in the affected National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee Region, and every 800 MHz public safety licensee within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the affected Region.

      [FR Doc. 2012-7588 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 082503C]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Public Meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day public meeting on September 16, 17, and 18, 2003, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 at 9 a.m., Wednesday, September 17, 2003 at 8:30 a.m., and on Thursday, September 18, at 8:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Express, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, Massachusetts 02719; telephone (508) 997-1281. Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (781) 231-0422.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Tuesday, September 16, 2003

        Following introductions, the Council will elect its 2003-2004 slate of officers followed by reports on recent activities from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS Regional Administrator, NOAA General Counsel, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Following reports, the Council will receive a NMFS report on the status and implementation of electronic reporting for federally permitted seafood dealers. The Council is then scheduled to take action on the final Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management (FMP) Amendment 10 documents, including draft regulations, for submission to the Secretary of Commerce. The FMP will implement DAS allocations for the 2004 and 2005 fishing years, increase twine top mesh to 10-inches, increase dredge ring size to 4-inches, implement a rotation area management closure system, and allocate Hudson Canyon Area trips with a 21,000 lb. possession limit and a 9 day-at-sea tradeoff. NMFS will hold a special session to gather input from stakeholders on broad themes related to fisheries management, including information on daily operations and potential ways to evaluate solutions to problems.
        Wednesday, September 17, 2003

        The meeting will commence with a report by the Monkfish Committee requesting that the Council review and possibly approve the Monkfish FMP Amendment 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). If approved, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) will consider approval of the DSEIS in October. Following this report, the Council will discuss vessel upgrading and permit issues. The Council will discuss its intent concerning the vessel permit upgrading baseline during the development of the Monkfish FMP; develop a response to the MAFMC's request to examine the issue of small vessel length and horsepower upgrade limits in the “Consistency Amendment” now in effect for a number of the Council and MAFMC FMPs; and develop a position about the 30-day sign-in requirement for exempted fisheries programs. The day will conclude with a report from the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Committee which will review and seek approval of committee recommendations concerning a Council position on MPAs; review and approve committee comments developed in response to a Federal Register notice on proposed criteria for building an Inventory of Existing Marine Managed Areas; and review and approve a draft work plan to address MPA issues for consideration in setting 2004 Council priorities.
        Thursday, September 18, 2003
        The meeting will convene with a Herring Committee Report requesting that the Council review and approve a range of management alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. The amendment may include the following: revised estimates of maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield; changes to the process for determining area-specific total allowable catch levels (TACs); initial area-specific TACs upon implementation of Amendment 1; adjustments to the timing of the specification process; adjustments to management area boundaries; a limited access program for the Atlantic herring fishery; observer coverage requirements; measures to address fixed gear fisheries and other effort controls. Following this agenda item, the Council will provide a brief opportunity for comments from the public on issues that are not otherwise listed on the agenda, but relevant to Council business. The Red Crab Committee will review and approve recommendations concerning the annual specifications for the red crab fishery for fishing year 2004 (March 1, 2004 February 28, 2005). The Research Steering Committee will discuss approval of a policy concerning the incorporation of cooperative research results into the management process. The day will conclude with approval of the Council's Standard Operating Procedures and Practices.
        Although other issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
          ADDRESSES) at least five days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated: August 25, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-22189 Filed 8-28-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 110907562-1598-01]
        RIN 0648-BB40
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Changes to Vessel Replacement and Upgrade Provisions for Fishing Vessels Issued Limited Access Federal Fishery Permits

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS, in consultation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils), is considering changes to the current system of regulations that limit the potential size of a replacement vessel. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) provides background information and requests public comment on the administrative and financial burdens of the current system, as well as on what type of changes would be appropriate to reduce that burden and the regulatory complexity without adversely affecting the fishery. NMFS will consider all recommendations received in response to this ANPR prior to any proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, and then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail and hand delivery: Submit written comments to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Vessel Upgrade ANPR.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9341, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        Measures to limit the potential size of a replacement vessel were first implemented in the Northeast Region in 1994 in conjunction with the adoption of limited access permits in the Northeast Multispecies and Atlantic Scallop Fishery Management Plans (FMP). NMFS enacted these measures to promote conservation of the fish species by limiting the potential increase in fishing capacity of the fleet and thereby maintaining total fishing mortality within the requirements of the respective rebuilding schedule of the FMP. In the following years, NMFS adopted limited access permits for other fisheries in the Northeast, some of which included various restrictions on how a permitted vessel could be replaced. In 1999, an omnibus amendment (Consistency Amendment) to all the FMPs of the Councils was implemented (64 FR 8263, February 19, 1999) to expand and standardize the upgrade restrictions to encompass most of the limited access fisheries in the Northeast.
        The current regulations restrict the size and horsepower of any replacement vessel, or modifications to the current vessel, based on the specifications of a baseline vessel. The baseline vessel for each limited access permit is typically the first vessel issued the limited access permit in that fishery at the time that permit was issued. In the case of fisheries that adopted baseline restrictions through the Consistency Amendment, the permitted vessel as of the date of the final rule's implementation sets the baseline. In some cases, this methodology resulted in a single vessel with permits for multiple fisheries having more than one baseline. In that situation, the most restrictive combination of baseline specifications applies, unless the vessel owner chooses to relinquish permanently the permit with the more restrictive baseline(s).
        Current regulations allow vessel owners to increase (or upgrade) a specification either by moving the limited access permit to a new vessel or by modifying the current vessel, up to 10 percent above of the baseline vessel's length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage and up to 20 percent above the baseline vessel's horsepower. As a matter of NMFS policy, all calculated maximum upgrade values are rounded up to the next whole number. The baseline size and horsepower specifications associated with a permit can only be upgraded once, although the vessel size characteristics (length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage) and engine horsepower can be upgraded at different times. For example, a vessel owner looking to replace his current vessel, which has a baseline engine horsepower of 300, may, if the horsepower on that permit was not upgraded before, move it to a vessel with up to 360 horsepower (20 percent greater than the 300-horsepower baseline). If the owner opts for a new vessel with a 340-horsepower engine, that action counts as the one-time upgrade, and any future replacement vessel could not exceed that new 340-horsepower maximum limit. The baseline size characteristics can be upgraded through this same vessel replacement or used another time. However, since size characteristics are upgraded as a group, if the baseline length overall is upgraded but not the gross and net tonnages, the baseline tonnage specifications cannot be upgraded in the future.

        When a vessel owner wants to move a limited access Federal fishery permit to a replacement vessel, as part of the application he must provide documentation from a third party to demonstrate that the length, gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower are within the limits for that permit. Many vessels use the U.S. Coast Guard vessel documentation certificate for length and tonnages, although the documentation certificate should then reflect the length overall as required by NMFS regulation, rather than the typical registered length. Vessels that are not documented by the U.S. Coast Guard must provide other documentation for vessel size. Obtaining vessel specification documents may involve the time and expense of having the new vessel measured by a marine surveyor or other qualified individual. Engine horsepower documentation may require testing by a marine mechanic and documentation of the results on formal letterhead. On the other hand, all of this information might be routinely obtained for other purposes (e.g., for insurance coverage) and it could be a minimal additional cost to provide copies as part of a permit transfer application. The cost of documenting vessel specifications has been previously estimated at $375 for calculating the burden to the public under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The full cost to the industry of this process is not clear, and the public is encouraged to submit comments on how much of a financial and time burden this process has been.
        Some members of the fishing industry have reported that it can be difficult to find a suitable replacement vessel within allowed upgrades, especially for small boats. For example, a replacement for a 25-ft (7.6-m) baseline vessel could not exceed 28 ft (8.5 m), and manufacturers may not make vessels in the allowed size range that also meet other specific needs of a vessel owner. Similarly, modern marine engines are manufactured to meet more stringent emissions standards, and horsepower ratings may not be as adjustable as in the past without violating those limits. The safety of a vessel at sea, especially in adverse weather conditions, is affected by many factors, including the size of the vessel. NMFS encourages comments from the public on the availability of suitable replacement vessels, and the impact this has on safety at sea.

        The primary justification for the adoption of upgrade restrictions was to control the potential increase in catch from each permitted vessel that could occur with increases in vessel size and horsepower and, therefore, to prevent unexpected increases in fishing mortality that could hinder a rebuilding program. Since the initial implementation of vessel upgrade and replacement restrictions, many fisheries have also adopted trip limits or other measures that control the potential harvest of a vessel beyond just restricting vessel size. In addition, the recent adoption in all fisheries of annual catch limits that cap total harvest in a given year may reduce the concern over excessive fishing mortality. In light of these other measures, it is possible that vessel baseline restrictions could be relaxed without adversely affecting stock rebuilding. However, the upgrade restriction is considered one factor that is helping to preserve the small vessel character of the fishing fleet in the Northeast region. Larger and more powerful vessels could also have increased impacts on habitat or bycatch of non-target species. Further, fishery management actions adopted by the coastal states through the Commission may rely on the baseline upgrade restrictions for federally permitted vessels to control harvest potential. These considerations will have to be more fully understood before a change to current regulation can be implemented.
        A wide range of options could be considered as part of any action to change vessel baseline regulations. NMFS would like public input on the full range of potential actions, including suggestions for other changes to baseline regulations that are not specifically listed in this announcement, such as how to treat vessels that have multiple baselines and/or have already upgraded under the current system. Potential changes may include one or more of the following.
        1. Eliminate tonnages from vessel baseline regulations. The tonnages are often considered the most malleable of baseline specifications. The gross registered tonnage can vary significantly depending on whether exact measurements or the simplified calculation method is used. Similarly, net tonnage can be calculated based either on the gross tonnage or from measurements of the vessel, and may be changed by modifying internal bulkheads. Tonnage has also been a concern for owners of vessels built outside of the United States that are determined to be under 5 net tons (14.16 m3) for import purposes.
        2. Eliminate the one-time upgrade provision. This would eliminate the incentive to use as much of the available upgrade as possible to avoid “losing” some amount of future upgrade. The change could also simplify upgrade considerations by establishing the maximum specifications of any future vessel without needing to know whether any specification has already been upgraded. For example, under this option, if the permit on your vessel has a baseline horsepower specification of 300, and at some point moved to a vessel with 340 horsepower, a future replacement vessel could still be up to 360 horsepower (20 percent greater than the 300-horsepower baseline).
        3. Change from a system of fixed upgrades to a system of size classes. This option would allow a vessel owner to move a permit to any vessel that fits within the specified size class. The specifics of this type of change, including the number and size of the size classes, have not been fully developed, and NMFS seeks comment to this end. Specific size classes could be based on vessel length, horsepower, or a combination. Such a system would simplify the vessel replacement considerations by making them uniform for all vessels in a particular size class rather than the current system where potential upgrades are unique to each permit. However, determining specific size classes that are appropriate for all fisheries may be difficult, and such a system might disadvantage vessels that are already at the upper limit of a size class.
        4. Remove baseline upgrade restrictions for vessels under 30 ft (9.1 m). The Councils discussed this potential measure in 1998 during the development of the Consistency Amendment, and again in 2003, but took no formal action at either time. This approach would remove the burden on the smallest vessels as long as they stay under 30 ft (9.1 m), but would establish upgrade provisions that are not uniform for all vessels, which might be confusing or seen as unfair.
        5. Complete removal of upgrade restrictions. This would allow any vessel owner to move his/her permit to any other vessel. It would provides maximum flexibility to the industry, but would remove the baseline system's restrictions on fleet structure and would likely have the largest impacts on the fishery and the environment.

        The long comment period for this ANPR is intended to overlap with meetings of both Councils. While this topic may be discussed at the Council meetings, please submit written comments on the burden of the current vessel baseline system, the potential changes outlined here, or any suggestions for other changes that might be appropriate through one of the methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this ANPR, to ensure that they are fully considered.

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

          Dated: September 30, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-25746 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Administration for Children and Families
        45 CFR Part 1304
        RIN 0970-AC63
        CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System

          AGENCY:
          Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

          ACTION:
          Request for comments; withdrawal

          SUMMARY:

          OHS withdraws the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2017. OHS simultaneously issues the “Head Start Designation Renewal System Improvements” request for comments, located elsewhere in the same issue of the Federal Register. The “Head Start Designation Renewal System Improvements” request for comments contains information we inadvertently omitted from the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comment publication.

          DATES:
          As of February 14, 2018, the proposed rule published December 8, 2017, at 82 FR 57905, is withdrawn.

          ADDRESSES:
          Division of Planning, Oversight and Policy, Office of Head Start, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Colleen Rathgeb, Director, Division of Planning, Oversight and Policy, Office of Head Start, [colleen.rathgeb@acf.hhs.gov], (202) 358-3263 (not a toll-free call). Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        OHS published the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments on December 8, 2017, to solicit comments from the public on changes we are considering to the Designation Renewal System (DRS). We unintentionally omitted language from the document that specifically asks the public to consider what changes OHS can make to incentivize robust competition and to facilitate orderly transitions between grantees when an incumbent does not regain its grant after competition, as well as any other administrative changes that do not require regulatory action.

        We believe public feedback on the omitted language is important and can help us make better informed decisions about the DRS. For that reason, we withdraw the “CLASS Condition of the Head Start Designation Renewal System” request for comments, and we are publishing a new request for comments, titled “Head Start Designation Renewal System Improvements,” elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

          Dated: February 7, 2018.
          Ann Linehan,
          Acting Director, Office of Head Start.

      [FR Doc. 2018-02901 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4184-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 090905A]
        RIN 0648-AS66
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat Amendment

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces the availability of Generic Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) of the Gulf of Mexico (EFH Amendment 3) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). EFH Amendment 3 would amend each of the seven Council FMPs -coral and coral reef resources, coastal migratory pelagics, red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab- to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH); minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH; and encourage conservation and management of EFH. This amendment would establish additional habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), restrict fishing activities within HAPCs to protect EFH, and require a weak link in bottom trawl gear to protect EFH. The intended effect of EFH Amendment 3 is to facilitate long-term protection of EFH, and, thus, better conserve and manage fishery resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on November 14, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AS66.NOA@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-AS66-NOA.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
          • Fax: 727-824-5308, Attention: Peter Hood.

          Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and EFH Amendment 3, which includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA), may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 813-348-1630; fax: 813-348-1711; e-mail: gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Hood, 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail: peter.hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        EFH Amendment 3 addresses fisheries under the FMPs for coral and coral reef resources, coastal migratory pelagics, red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab. The FMPs were prepared by the Council, except for the FMPs for coastal migratory pelagics and spiny lobster, which were prepared jointly by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. All of these FMPs, except the spiny lobster and stone crab FMPs, are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 640. The FMP for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 654.
        EFH Amendment 3 would define EFH for each FMP and identify the following HAPCs: the Florida Middle Grounds, Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve, Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves, Pulley Ridge, and the individual reefs and banks of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico (East and West Flower Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, Sonnier Bank, MacNeil Bank, 29 Fathom, Rankin Bright Bank, Geyer Bank, McGrail Bank, Bouma Bank, Rezak Sidner Bank, Alderice Bank, and Jakkula Bank). The amendment also contains proposed alternatives to establish the following fishing restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico: (1) Prohibit bottom anchoring over coral reefs in the East and West Flower Garden Banks, McGrail Bank, Pulley Ridge, and North and South Tortugas Ecological Reserves HAPCs, and on the significant coral resources on Stetson Bank; (2) prohibit the use of trawling gear, bottom longlines, buoy gear, and all traps/pots on coral reefs in the East and West Flower Garden Banks, McGrail Bank, Pulley Ridge, and North and South Tortugas Ecological Reserves HAPCs, and on the significant coral communities on Stetson Bank; and (3) require a weak link in the tickler chain of bottom trawls on all habitats throughout the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone. A weak link is defined as a length or section of the tickler chain that has a breaking strength less than the chain itself and is easily seen as such when visually inspected.

        A proposed rule that would implement the measure outlined in EFH Amendment 3 has been received from the Council. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Comments received by November 14, 2005, whether specifically directed to the FMP or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: September 9, 2005.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-18357  Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 050112008-5008-01; I.D. 010605E]
        RIN 0648-AS23
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed 2005 specifications for the Atlantic herring fishery; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2005 Atlantic herring fishery, which would be maintained through 2006 unless stock and fishery conditions change substantially.  The regulations for the Atlantic herring fishery require NMFS to publish specifications for the upcoming year and to provide an opportunity for public comment.  The intent of the specifications is to conserve and manage the Atlantic herring resource and provide for a sustainable fishery.  NMFS also proposes one clarification to the Atlantic herring regulations, which would remove references to the dates on which the proposed and final rules for the annual specifications must be published.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on March 2, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.gov.

        Written comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark on the outside of the envelope:  “Comments-2005 Herring Specifications.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments on the specifications may be submitted by e-mail as well.  The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is Herr2005Specs@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier:  “Comments-2005 Herring Specifications.”  Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9259, e-mail at eric.dolin@noaa.gov, fax at 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Atlantic Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) to meet at least annually, no later than July each year, with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team (PRT) to develop and recommend the following specifications for consideration by the Council's Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee:   Allowable biological catch (ABC), optimum yield (OY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign processing (JVPt), joint venture processing (JVP), internal waters processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), and reserve (if any).  The PDT and PRT also recommend the total allowable catch (TAC) for each management area and subarea identified in the FMP.  As the basis for its recommendations, the PDT reviews available data pertaining to:   Commercial and recreational catch; current estimates of fishing mortality; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results and other estimates of stock size; sea sampling and trawl survey data or, if sea sampling data are unavailable, length frequency information from trawl surveys; impact of other fisheries on herring mortality; and any other relevant information.  Recommended specifications are presented to the Council for adoption and recommendation to NMFS.  NMFS reviews the Council recommendation, and may modify it if necessary to insure that it is consistent with the criteria in the FMP and other applicable laws.  After the review of the Council submission, NMFS has modified the following Council recommendations, for reasons detailed below:   The Council recommended setting OY at 180,000 mt, DAH at 180,000 mt, DAP at 176,000 mt, USAP at 0, the TAC for Area 2 at 50,000 mt, and the TAC for Area 3 at 60,000 mt.
        Proposed 2005 Specifications
        NMFS proposes the specifications and Area TACs contained in the following table.

          Specifications and Area TACs for the 2005 (and 2006) Atlantic Herring Fishery

            Specification
            Proposed Allocation (mt)

            ABC
            220,000

            OY
            150,000

            DAH
            150,000

            DAP
            146,000

            JVPt
            0

            JVP
            0

            IWP
            0

            USAP
            20,000 (Area 2 and 3 only)

            BT
            4,000

            TALFF
            0

            Reserve
            0

            TAC - Area 1A
            60,000 (January 1 - May 31, landings cannot exceed 6,000)

            TAC - Area 1B
            10,000

            TAC - Area 2
            30,000 (No Reserve)

            TAC - Area 3
            50,000

        In addition, the Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, to maintain the 2005 specifications for 2006, unless stock and fishery conditions change substantially.  The Herring PDT will update and evaluate stock and fishery information during 2005, and the Council and NMFS may determine, based on the review by the Herring PDT, that no adjustments to the specifications are necessary for the 2006 fishing year.  Maintaining the specifications for 2 years would provide the Council with an opportunity to complete the development of Amendment 1 to the FMP, which may implement a limited access program for the herring fishery in addition to other management measures, including possible adjustments to the specification process.
        NMFS also proposes one change to the Atlantic herring regulations, which would remove references to the dates on which the proposed and final rules for the annual specifications must be published, because it is not necessary to specify these dates in regulatory text.  This regulatory language change is a matter of agency procedure and is consistent with previously approved measures.
        An ABC of 220,000 mt is proposed, consistent with the MSY proxy recommended in Amendment 1 to the FMP, which is currently being developed.  The 220,000 mt proxy recommended in Amendment 1 is intended to be a temporary and precautionary placeholder for MSY until the next stock assessment for the Atlantic herring stock complex is completed.  Because of the importance of ABC as a means of determining the other values in the specifications, it is discussed in the specifications, even though it is not a value that is set by the specification process.
        The FMP specifies that OY will be less than or equal to ABC minus the expected Canadian catch (C) from the stock complex.  The estimate of the Canadian catch that is deducted from ABC will be no more than 20,000 mt for the New Brunswick weir fishery and no more than 10,000 mt for the Georges Bank fishery.  With ABC set at 220,000, OY could be less than or equal to 190,000 mt if the maximum catch is assumed for the Canadian herring fishery.  The FMP also states that the establishment of OY will include consideration of relevant economic, social, and ecological factors and that, for this reason, OY may be less than ABC   C.  In addition, the Herring PDT recommended that OY be specified at a level lower than ABC for biological and ecological reasons.
        The Council recommended that the OY and the DAH for the 2005 Atlantic herring fishery be set at 180,000 mt.  The determination of OY was based, in part, on meeting the FMP objectives of increasing economic benefits to the U.S. fishing industry through the expansion of U.S. herring into the world market.  If OY were set at a higher level, it could result in TALFF, which is that portion of the OY of a fishery that will not be harvested by vessels of the United States.  While NMFS agrees that there are legitimate and legally defensible reasons to set the OY at a level that can be harvested by the domestic fleet and that would thereby preclude the specification of a TALFF, NMFS does not find that the Council's analysis justifies the levels of OY and DAH that it recommended.
        The allocation of TALFF would allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the world market, in direct competition with the U.S. industry.  The Council expressed its concern, supported by industry testimony, that an allocation of TALFF would threaten the expansion of the domestic industry.  The economic benefits to the Nation from TALFF activity are limited to the payment of poundage fees.  However, the Council's analysis also makes it clear that, despite the loss of poundage fees resulting from zero TALFF, the expansion of the U.S. industry would generate potential long-term economic benefits for U.S. Atlantic herring harvesters and processors that would outweigh that loss.  For these reasons, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the specification of an OY at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, will assist the U.S. Atlantic herring industry to expand and will yield positive social and economic benefits to U.S. harvesters and processors.  NMFS, therefore, proposes that OY be specified at 150,000 mt.
        The Council recommended that DAH be set at 180,000 mt.  NMFS believes that this is too high for a number of reasons.  First, the Council proposal presumes a dramatic increase in landings that is not justified in the Council's submission.  From 1996-2003, herring landings averaged 102,000 mt.  The highest level of landings in recent years was in 2001, when they reached 121,332 mt.  To justify a DAH of 180,000, one would have to assume a roughly 80-percent increase in DAH as compared to average landings in recent years, and a 50-percent increase in DAH as compared to the highest year in the series.  NMFS proposes setting DAH at 150,000 mt.  This would allow a 23-percent increase in landings as compared to 2001, and would, therefore, better reflect fishery performance in recent years, while at the same time giving the fishery an opportunity to expand.  Given the trends in landings, and the industry's testimony that the fishery is poised for significant growth, NMFS concludes that it is reasonable to assume that in 2005 the commercial fishery will harvest 150,000 mt of herring.

        The Council's recommendation for TACs assumed an OY of 180,000 mt.  With the OY being set at 150,000 mt, the proposed TACs, too, have to be modified.  While the proposed Area 1A and 1B TACs would remain the same as they were in 2004, NMFS proposes reducing the Area 2 TAC from 50,000 mt to 30,000 mt, and the Area 3 TAC from 60,000 mt to 50,000 mt.  These area allocations are intended to permit the fishery to increase landings above the highest levels achieved in recent years.  The highest recent landings in Area 2 were 27,198 mt in 2000; thus, the allocation would allow the fishery to slightly exceed that level.  The highest recent landings in Area 3 were 35,079 mt in 2001; thus, the allocation would allow the fishery to exceed that level by a considerable amount because this is the area most likely to see expanded harvests.
        The regulations, at § 648.200(e), allow for inseason adjustments of the herring specifications.  Thus, if the herring fishery during the 2005 or the 2006 fishing year expands more than anticipated, the OY, the DAH, the DAP, and the area TACs could be increased to enable the fishery to perform to its fullest potential.  Such increases would be constrained by the analysis that the Council included in this year's specification recommendations.  That means that DAH and OY could be increased to a maximum of 180,000 mt, the DAP could be increased to a maximum of 176,000 mt, and the Area 2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC could be increased to 50,000 mt and 60,000 mt, respectively, which are the highest levels that the Council originally recommended and analyzed for each of these measures.  NMFS invites the public to comment on the potential use of the inseason adjustment mechanism to set new levels for DAH, DAP, OY, and area TACs during the 2005 fishing year, should such changes be warranted based on the performance of the fishery.  More specifically, NMFS invites the public to comment on the appropriateness of potentially increasing DAH and OY up to the maximum level of 180,000 mt, and the Area 2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC to 50,000 mt and 60,000 mt, respectively, through the inseason adjustment mechanism.
        The Council argued that DAP equals 176,000 mt, and NMFS found its argument that current processing capacity is capable of handling that volume of fish persuasive.  However, for the purposes of these specifications, DAP is determined not only by capability to process but also by whether domestic processors will utilize such capacity.  Since DAH is proposed to be set at 150,000 mt (of which 4,000 mt would be allocated for BT), DAP would be limited to 146,000 mt.  It is certainly possible, given the capacity of the current harvesting fleet, the potential for market expansion to occur, and the expressed intent (made clear through public testimony) of the U.S. industry to increase its participation in the Atlantic herring fishery, that processors will utilize the recommended DAP.  Because the Council's recommended DAP is sufficient to process the entire DAH (minus the BT), the Council and NMFS proposes setting JVP at zero.  Future JV operations would likely compete with U.S. processors for product, which could have a substantial negative impact on domestic facilities in a market-driven fishery.  This is consistent with the following relationship, which is specified in the FMP:   DAH = DAP + JVPt + BT.
        The Council recommended setting USAP at zero, arguing that current shoreside capacity is sufficient to process U.S. landings, therefore eliminating the need for alternative processing capacity (USAP).  The Council also argued that the FMP provides discretion to favor certain segments of the processing industry, and that to allow USAP would economically hurt shoreside processors/communities.  The Council expressed concern that, once utilized, USAP allocations would become permanent.  Finally, the Council argued that the fact that there was USAP allocated from 2000-2004 that was not used demonstrates that there is no interest in USAP.
        NMFS believes that the Council's rationale for setting USAP at zero is insufficient because it would favor one segment of the U.S. processing sector over another, without any justifiable reasons based on conservation objectives.  On average, large amounts of the TAC in Areas 2 and 3 (where USAP was authorized in previous years) have not been taken each year.  During the development of the specifications, at least one industry member expressed interest in pursuing USAP operations in 2005.  When the Council discussed the possibility of allocating 10,000 mt to USAP, this individual stated that USAP operations would not be feasible at that level.  For these reasons, NMFS proposes setting USAP at 20,000 mt in Areas 2 and 3 only.  USAP could provide an additional outlet for harvesters and, therefore, increase the benefits to the U.S. industry.  As for the Council's concern that USAPs will become permanent, there is no basis for this concern.  The specification process allows the Council to modify its recommendations in the future, provided there is justification.
        Classification
        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A copy of the IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        Statement of Objective and Need
        A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
        During the 2003 fishing year, 154 vessels landed herring, 38 of which averaged more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip.  There are no large entities, as defined in section 601 of the RFA, participating in this fishery.  Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.  It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        Impacts were assessed by the Council and NMFS by comparing the proposed measures to the Atlantic herring landings made in 2003.  The proposed specifications are not expected to produce a negative economic impact to vessels prosecuting the fishery because, while it reduces the current (2003/2004) TACs for herring in Areas 2 and 3 (while keeping Areas 1A and 1B the same), it still allows for landings levels that are significantly higher than the average landings achieved by the fishery in recent years.  The proposed 2005 specifications should allow for incremental growth in the industry, while taking into consideration biological uncertainty.

        The specification of 150,000 mt for OY and DAH is proposed for the 2005 fishery, and for the 2006 fishery if stock and/or fishery conditions do not change significantly during 2005.  At this level, there could be an increase of up to 50,000 mt in herring landings, or $7,150,000 in revenues, based on a market price of $143/mt.  This could allow individual vessels to increase their profitability under the proposed 2005 specifications, depending on whether or not new vessels enter the fishery (the herring fishery will remain an open-access fishery for the 2005 fishing year).  The magnitude of economic impacts related to the 146,000-mt specification of DAP will depend on the shoreside processing sector's ability to expand markets and increase capacity to handle larger amounts of herring during 2005 and 2006.
        The potential loss associated with eliminating the JVPt allocation (20,000 mt for 2003 and 2004) could approximate $2.9 million (based on an average price of $143/mt) if all of the 20,000-mt allocation would have been utilized (10,000 mt for JVP and 10,000 mt for IWP).  However, very little of the 10,000-mt JVP allocation was utilized in 2002 and 2003 and, as of August 2004, no JVP activity for herring had occurred during the 2004 fishing year.  The Council received no indication that demand for the JVP allocation will increase in 2005 and 2006.  As a result, no substantial economic impacts are expected from reducing the JVP allocation to 0 mt in 2005 and possibly 2006, as vessels that sold fish in the past to JV processor vessels could sell to U.S. processors.
        The Area 1A and 1B TACs of 60,000 and 10,000 mt, respectively, have been unchanged since the 2000 fishery.  In 2002 and 2003, the Area 1A TAC for the directed herring fishery was fully utilized and is expected to be fully utilized for the 2005 fishery.  Therefore, no change is expected in profitability of vessels from the 2005 Area 1A specification.  Since only 4,917 mt of herring were harvested in Area 1B in 2003, the proposed 2005 specification of 10,000 mt should allow for increased economic benefits to individual vessels prosecuting the fishery in this management area.  The potential economic gains associated with allocating 20,000 mt for USAP could approximate $2.9 million (based on an average price of $143/mt) if all of the 20,000-mt allocation were utilized in 2005.
        The Council analyzed four alternatives for OY and the distribution of TACs.  One alternative would have retained the specifications implemented during the 2003 and 2004 fishing years, which would have maintained the OY at 180,000 mt.  This OY is still roughly 80 percent greater than the average historical landings for this fishery, and therefore that level of OY would not pose a constraint on the fishery.  The three other alternatives considered by the Council would set the OY at 150,000 mt.  Although the OY of 150,000 mt is lower than that proposed by the Council, it is still roughly 50 percent greater than the average historical landings for this fishery, and therefore that level of OY would not pose a constraint on the fishery.  Each of the alternatives that would set the OY at 150,000 mt would establish varying levels for the area TACs.
        One alternative would have established the following TACs:  Area 1A, 60,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 2, 20,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt.  The only area TAC that would be lower than 2003/2004 under this option is the Area 2 TAC.  The most recent year in which the landings from this area were greater than 20,000 mt (the proposed TAC) was 2000 (27,198 mt).  The average landings from 2001   2003 were 14,300 mt with 2003 landings at 16,079 mt.  Under current market conditions, the new TAC may become constraining if the fishery in 2005 (and possibly 2006) is similar to that in 2000.  If this is the case, then the Area 2 TAC fishing season could end before the end of the year, creating a potential economic constraint on the fishery, especially if vessels are forced to travel farther (increased steaming time) to harvest in Area 3.
        Another alternative considered would have established the following TACs:   Area 1A, 45,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 2, 35,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt.  With a 15,000-mt decrease in the combined Area 1 TACs, the economic impact of this option could be relatively large on vessels in the fishery that depend on herring in Area 1A, especially if those vessels are not able to move to other areas to obtain fish.  Even if vessels could fish in other areas, their operating costs would be increased because of increased steaming time.  An Area 2 TAC of 35,000 mt proposed under this alternative should not be constraining given recent landings history.
        The final alternative considered would have established the following TACs:   Area 1A, 55,000 mt; Area 1B, 5,000 mt; Area 2, 30,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt.  With a 10,000-mt decrease in the combined Area 1 TACs, the impact of this alternative would very similar to the impact of the prior alternative, although not as severe.  An Area 2 TAC of 30,000 mt proposed under this alternative should not be constraining given recent landings history.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  January 25, 2005.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out above, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.200, paragraphs (c) and (d) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.200
          Specifications.

          (c) The Atlantic Herring Oversight Committee shall review the recommendations of the PDT and shall consult with the Commission's Herring Section.  Based on these recommendations and any public comment received, the Herring Oversight Committee shall recommend to the Council appropriate specifications.  The Council shall review these recommendations and, after considering public comment, shall recommend appropriate specifications to NMFS.  NMFS shall review the recommendations, consider any comments received from the Commission and shall publish notification in the Federal Register proposing specifications and providing a 30-day public comment period.  If the proposed specifications differ from those recommended by the Council, the reasons for any differences shall be clearly stated and the revised specifications must satisfy the criteria set forth in this section.

          (d) NMFS shall make a final determination concerning the specifications for Atlantic herring.  Notification of the final specifications and responses to public comments shall be published in the Federal Register.  If the final specification amounts differ from those recommended by the Council, the reason(s) for the difference(s) must be clearly stated and the revised specifications must be consistent with the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.  The previous year's specifications shall remain effective unless revised through the specification process.  NMFS shall issue notification in the Federal Register if the previous year's specifications will not be changed.

      [FR Doc. 05-1744 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S