        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0220; FRL-10008-78-Region 1]
        Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Negative Declaration for the Oil and Gas Industry

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The revision provides Massachusetts' determination, via a negative declaration, that there are no facilities within its borders subject to EPA's 2016 Control Technique Guideline (CTG) for the oil and gas industry. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of these items into the Massachusetts SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0220 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to garcia.ariel@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ariel Garcia, Environmental Protection Specialist, Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1660. garcia.ariel@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

        For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: April 21, 2020.
          Dennis Deziel,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

      [FR Doc. 2020-09073 Filed 5-15-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 012401D]
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEISs) for the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Components of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP

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

          ACTION:
           Notification of intent to prepare an SEIS; request for comments; notice of scoping meeting.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS announces its intent to prepare SEISs in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for the EFH components for both the Northeast Multispecies FMP and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP.  NMFS will hold a public scoping meeting and accept written comments to determine the range of management alternatives to be addressed in the SEISs to describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.

          DATES:
           NMFS will accept written comments through March 5, 2001.  A public scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
           Written comments on the intent to prepare the SEISs and requests for the scoping document or other information should be directed to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Louis A. Chiarella. Telephone (978) 281-9277.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9301.  NMFS will not accept comments by e-mail.  The public meeting will be held at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA on February 22, 2001, 3:00- 5:00 p.m.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Louis A. Chiarella, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, (Lou.Chiarella@noaa.gov), (978) 281-9277, fax (978) 281-9301.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Sixteen groundfish species are managed through the Northeast multispecies complex and one species is managed under the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP.  In response to a U.S. district court order, NMFS is re-evaluating the EFH components originally developed as part of Amendment 11 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP and Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP that were approved by the Secretary of Commerce on March 3, 1999.  The SEISs will consider EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), as well as fishing and non-fishing threats to EFH as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        -NMFS is considering the need to revise EFH designations for Northeast multispecies and Atlantic sea scallops based upon any available new scientific information, and is considering potential HAPC designations.  NMFS will consider a range of alternatives to minimize adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH.
        This analysis and subsequent management alternatives may be presented within separate NEPA documents or may be included within NEPA documents currently being developed by NMFS and the  New England Fishery Management Council (Council) for the Northeast Multispecies FMP and Atlantic Sea Scallops FMP.
        The public is invited to assist NMFS and the Council in developing the scope of alternatives to be analyzed.
        Public Information Meeting
        The public scoping meeting will be held on:  Thursday, February 22, 2001, from 3-5 p.m., NMFS Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA, Conference Room.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Louis A. Chiarella (see ADDRESSES), (978) 281-9277, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

           Dated: January 26, 2001.
          Bruce Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service

      [FR Doc. 01-2695  Filed 1-31-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 12, and 52
        [FAR Case 2013-022; Docket No. 2013-0022; Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AM69
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Extension of Limitations on Contractor Employee Personal Conflicts of Interest

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 to extend the limitations on contractor employee personal conflicts of interest to apply to the performance of all functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions and contracts for personal services.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before June 2, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2013-022 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2013-022.” Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2013-022.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2013-022” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2013-022, in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-219-0202, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2013-022.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to revise the FAR to implement section 829 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). Section 829 required the Secretary of Defense to review the guidance on personal conflicts of interest for contractor employees, issued pursuant to section 841(a) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417), in order to determine whether it would be in the best interest of DoD and the taxpayers to extend such guidance to personal conflicts of interest by contractor personnel performing any of the following:
        (1) Functions other than acquisition functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions (as that term is defined at 10 U.S.C. 2383(b)(3)).
        (2) Personal services contracts (as that term is defined in 10 U.S.C. 2330a(g)(5)).
        (3) Contracts for staff augmentation services (as that term is defined in section 808(d)(3)) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81).
        A. Section 841(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

        1. Section 841(a) (now codified at 41 U.S.C. 2303(b)) required the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to develop and issue a policy to address personal conflicts of interest for contractor employees who perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions. The final rule to implement section 841(a) in the FAR was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 68017 on November 2, 2011, effective December 2, 2011. The rule added FAR subpart 3.11, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions, and FAR clause 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest.

        2. Section 841(b) (now codified at 41 U.S.C. 2303 Note) required the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, to determine whether revisions to the FAR were necessary to address personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees with respect to functions other than those described in section 841(a).

        DoD, GSA, and NASA, in consultation with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Office of Government Ethics, published a request for information in the Federal Register on November 2, 2011, seeking public comment on whether additional guidance is necessary to address personal conflicts of interest by employees of Government contractors. Only one response was received. The respondent recommended that it was premature at that time to extend the FAR coverage on personal conflicts of interest, because the rule had only been in effect for one month, and was just beginning to be applied to new contracts and task orders.
         B. Section 829 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
        The Secretary of Defense reviewed existing FAR guidance on personal conflicts of interest for contractor employees by issuing a data call on February 28, 2013, to the military departments and defense agencies, requesting feedback on the questions posed by section 829. Responses were received from 23 military departments and defense agencies. The majority of the respondents indicated that protection or agreements covering additional functions would be helpful, as would a contractor-managed personal conflicts of interest identification and mitigation program, similar to that required by section 841(a).
        Following analysis of the responses received, DoD concluded that extension of the FAR personal conflicts of interest regulations to additional functions and contract types may be in the best interest of DoD and the taxpayers. In a memo dated June 10, 2013, the Deputy Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) (Contract Policy and International Contracting) requested the Deputy Director Defense Acquisition Regulations System, to open a case to propose regulations relating to prevention of personal conflicts of interest. The memorandum further recommended that DPAP confer with OFPP and the FAR Council to determine whether to pursue such extension of coverage as a FAR change. The FAR signatories agreed to open this FAR case on August 2, 2013.
        The FAR coverage of personal conflicts of interest has now been in effect since December 2, 2011, and section 829 did not propose any change to the FAR regulations at subpart 3.11 and section 52.203-16, other than to consider extending the coverage to additional functions and contract types.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        A. Proposed Extension of Guidance on Personal Conflicts of Interest

        This rule proposes to extend regulations on personal conflicts of interest to contractor employees performing all functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions (not just acquisition functions) and to personal services contracts (to the extent such contracts are authorized by law, e.g., legal or medical).
        Section 736 of Division D of Pub. L. 111-8 defines “functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions” as follows:
        “The term `functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions' means the functions described in section 7.503(d) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.”
        The Defense Acquisition Regulations Council and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (Councils) welcome comments with regard to the appropriateness and benefits of this proposal, particularly if there are certain functions not currently covered in FAR subpart 3.11 and section 52.203-16 that should definitely be included (or excluded) from the final rule.

        The Councils also note that FAR Case 2012-001, Performance of Inherently Governmental Functions and Critical Functions, is currently being processed as a proposed rule to implement the OFPP Policy Letter 11-01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions, issued in the Federal Register at 76 FR 56227 on September 12, 2011, which also addresses functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions.
        B. Inapplicability to Commercial Items and Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold
        The current FAR regulations on contractor employee personal conflicts of interest do not apply below the simplified acquisition threshold or to acquisitions of commercial items. Section 841(a)(3) specifically stated that the law does not apply to contracts in amounts that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The final rule under FAR Case 2008-025 added section 841(a) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 (now codified at 41 U.S.C. 2303(b)) to the list of laws inapplicable to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items (FAR 12.503). This rule does not propose to change the applicability of the regulations on contractor employee personal conflicts of interest to commercial items or acquisitions that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
        C. Further Changes
        Section 12.503(a)(9) is amended to clarify and update related citations. Further, corrections are made to the OMB Control Number in section 1.106.
        III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and the NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Nevertheless, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared and is summarized as follows:

          This proposed rule was initiated to amend the FAR to implement section 829 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), by considering extension of the contractor employees personal conflict of interest limitations at FAR subpart 3.11 (i.e., currently limited to individuals who perform an acquisition function closely associated with inherently governmental functions) to individuals who perform a function closely associated with inherently governmental functions or perform under a personal services contract and are—
          (1) An employee of the contractor; or

          (2) A subcontractor that is a self-employed individual treated as a covered employee of the contractor because there is no employer to whom such an individual could submit the required disclosures.

          By extending contractor employee personal conflict of interest limitations, the proposed rule furthers enforcement of Government policy that requires contractors and subcontractors to: (a) identify and prevent personal conflicts of interest of their covered employees; and (b) prohibit covered employees who have access to non-public information by reason of performance on a Government contract from using such information for personal gain.
          Section 829 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) required the Secretary of Defense to review the guidance on personal conflicts of interest for contractor employees, issued pursuant to section 841(a) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417), in order to determine whether it would be in the best interest of the DoD and the taxpayers to extend such guidance to personal conflicts of interest by contractor personnel performing any of the following:
          (1) Functions other than acquisition functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions (as that term is defined at 10 U.S.C. 2383(b)(3).
          (2) Personal services contracts (as that term is defined in 10 U.S.C. 2330a(g)(5).
          (3) Contracts for staff augmentation services (as that term is defined in section 808(d)(3) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81).
          The Secretary of Defense reviewed existing FAR guidance on personal conflicts of interest for contractor employees by issuing a data call on February 28, 2013, to the military departments and defense agencies, requesting feedback on the questions posed by section 829. Responses were received from 23 military departments and defense agencies. The majority of the respondents indicated that protection or agreements covering additional functions would be helpful, as would a contractor-managed personal conflicts of interest identification and mitigation program, similar to that required by section 841(a).
          Following analysis of the responses received, DoD concluded that extension of the FAR personal conflicts of interest regulations to additional functions may be in the best interest of DoD and the taxpayers. In a memo dated June 10, 2013, the Deputy Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) (Contract Policy and International Contracting) requested the Deputy Director Defense Acquisition Regulations System, to open a case to propose regulations relating to prevention of personal conflicts of interest. The memorandum further recommended that DPAP confer with OFPP and the FAR Council to determine whether to pursue such extension of coverage as a FAR change. The FAR signatories agreed to open FAR Case 2013-022, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees, on August 2, 2013.
          Under the FAR clause at 52.203-16, as revised in the proposed rule, “covered employees” means an individual who performs a function closely associated with inherently governmental functions or performs under a personal services contract and is—
          (1) An employee of the contractor; or
          (2) A subcontractor that is a self-employed individual treated as a covered employee of the contractor because there is no employer to whom such an individual could submit the required disclosures.
          The following estimates are based on data reported to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) between March 1, 2012 and March 1, 2013 (the first year during which such data was available), on contract actions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) coded as being functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions, or personal services contracts (Product Service Code (PSC) R497).
          • Between March 1, 2012, and March 1, 2013, a total of 22,716 contract actions over the simplified acquisition threshold were coded as functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions. Of that total, 10,600 actions were awarded to small businesses, and 12,116 actions were awarded to other than small businesses.
          • During the same period, a total of 5,369 contract actions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold were coded with a R497 Product Service Code (PSC), Support-Professional: Personal Services Contracts. Of that total, 2,732 actions were awarded to small businesses, and 2,637 were awarded to other than small businesses.
          DoD, GSA, and NASA estimate that the 13,332 actions (10,600 for functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions and 2,732 for personal services contracts) awarded to small business were made to 4,444 unique small business entities (one-third of 13,332).

          The clause at FAR 52.203-16 applies to contract actions over the simplified acquisition threshold, and only requires contractors to obtain information from each covered employee on an “as required basis,” i.e., (1) when initially assigned to a task that requires a disclosure of interests that might be affected by the task to which the employee has been assigned; and (2) whenever the employee's personal or financial circumstances change in such a way that a new personal conflict of interest might occur because of the task that the covered employee is performing. Other associated information collection is required only to report to the contracting officer any personal conflict of interest violation by a covered employee as soon as it is identified, and, in exceptional circumstances, for the contractor to submit a request, through the contracting officer, for the head of the contracting activity to agree to a plan to mitigate the personal conflict of interest, or waive the requirement to prevent personal conflicts of interest. These requirements apply regardless of the size of the contractor.
          The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
          There are no practical alternatives that will accomplish the objectives of the proposed rule.

        The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2013-022), in correspondence.
        V. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a request for approval of a revised information collection requirement concerning OMB clearance number 9000-0183, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees, to the Office of Management and Budget.
        A. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
        The annual reporting burden estimated as follows:

          Respondents: 188.

          Responses per respondent: 1.

          Total annual responses: 188.

          Preparation hours per response: 30 hours.

          Total response burden hours: 5,640.
        The annual recordkeeping burden is estimated as follows:

          Recordkeepers: 9,361.

          Hours per recordkeeper: 59.

          Total recordkeeping hours: 552,299.
        B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
        Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than June 2, 2014 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street, NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

        Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether the estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which the Government can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
        Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statement from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street, NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0181, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees, in all correspondence.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 12, and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: March 27, 2014.
          William Clark,
          Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 1, 3, 12, and 52 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1, 3, 12, and 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

            1.106
            [Amended]

        2. Amend section 1.106 by—
        a. Removing from FAR segment 3.11, the OMB Control Number “9000-0181” and adding “9000-0183” in its place; and
        b. Removing from FAR segment 52.203-16, the OMB Control Number “9000-0181” and adding “9000-0183” in its place.

          PART 3—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

        3. Revise Subpart 3.11 heading to read as follows:

          Subpart 3.11—Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees

        4. Revise section 3.1100 to read as follows:

          3.1100
          Scope of subpart.
          This subpart implements—

          (a) Section 841(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417) (41 U.S.C. 2303); and
          (b) Section 829 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239).

        5. Amend section 3.1101 by—
        a. Removing the definition “Acquisition function closely associated with inherently governmental functions”; and
        b. Revising the introductory text of the definition “Covered employee”.
        The revised text reads as follows:

          3.1100
          Definitions.

            Covered employee means an individual who performs a function closely associated with inherently governmental functions (see subpart 7.5) or performs under a personal services contract (see 37.104) and is—

        6. Amend section 3.1103 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          3.1103
          Procedures.
          (a) By use of the contract clause at 52.203-16, as prescribed at 3.1106, the contracting officer shall require each contractor with at least one covered employee to—

        7. Amend section 3.1106 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c) to read as follows:

          3.1106
          Contract clause.
          (a)  * * *

          (2) Include a requirement for services by contractor employee(s) that are covered employees, i.e., an individual who performs a function closely associated with inherently governmental functions or performs under a personal services contract and is—
          (i) An employee of the contractor; or
          (ii) A subcontractor that is a self-employed individual treated as a covered employee of the contractor because there is no employer to whom such an individual could submit the required disclosures.
          (b) If only a portion of a contract is for the performance of services by covered employees, then the contracting officer shall still insert the clause, but shall limit applicability of the clause to that portion of the contract that is for the performance of such services.
          (c) Do not insert the clause in solicitations or contracts with a self-employed individual if the services are to be performed entirely by the self-employed individual, rather than a covered employee of the contractor. In such cases, the contracting officer shall consider these matters as part of the Organizational Conflict of Interest analysis (see subpart 9.5).

          PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

        8. Amend section 12.503 by revising paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:

          12.503
          Applicability of certain laws to Executive agency contracts for the acquisition of commercial items.
          (a) * * *
          (9) 41 U.S.C. 2303(b), Policy on Personal Conflicts of Interest by Contractor Employees and 41 U.S.C. 2303 note (see subpart 3.11).

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        9. Amend section 52.203-16 by—
        a. Revising the date of the clause;
        b. Removing from paragraph (a) the definition “Acquisition function closely associated with inherently governmental functions”;
        c. Revising the introductory text of the definition “Covered employee”; and
        d. Removing from paragraph (d)(2) the word “acquisition”.
        The revised text read as follows:

          52.203-16
          Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest.

          Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest (Date)

            Covered employee means an individual who performs a function closely associated with inherently governmental functions (see subpart 7.5) or performs under a personal services contract (see 37.104) and is—

      [FR Doc. 2014-07371 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 90
        [WT Docket No. 96-86; FCC 00-271]
        Public Safety 700 MHz Band

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (4thNPRM), the Commission proposes rules concerning various technical and operational issues regarding the use of interoperability frequencies in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands (the 700 MHz band). Previously, the Commission charged the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) with preparing a report on the technical and operational standards for interoperability frequencies in the 700 MHz band. The NCC issued its report to the Commission on February 25, 2000. The Commission seeks comment on the rules proposed in response to recommendations contained in the NCC's report.

          DATES:
          Comments are due September 25, 2000. Reply comments are due Ocotber 10, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 4-C207, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Bertram Weintraub or Nancy Zaczek, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety & Private Wireless Division, Policy and Rules Branch, (202) 418-0680, or via E-mail to “bweintraub@fcc.gov” or “nzaczek@fcc.gov”.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        1. This document summarizes the Commission's 4thNPRM in WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC 00-271, adopted on July 25, 2000 and released on August 2, 2000. The full text of the 4thNPRM is available for inspection and duplication during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text of the 4thNPRM may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800. The full text of the 4thNPRM may also be downloaded at www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.
        Summary of the Fourth Notice

        2. The Commission directed the NCC to make a timely recommendation concerning whether the Commission should require trunking on nationwide interoperability spectrum. After considering the advantages and disadvantages of requiring the use of trunking on the interoperability channels, the NCC recommends that the Commission not mandate trunking. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to allow trunking only on ten of the interoperability channel sets on a strict secondary basis. Additionally, the Commission proposes the discontinuance of trunked operation whenever any channel sets are needed for interoperability communications or whenever a trunked system interferes with any interoperability communication, e.g., communications conducted on a unit-to-unit basis or using conventional repeaters. The Commission invites comment on these proposals.
        3. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on accommodating 25 kHz operations on the interoperability channels. Specifically, the Commission requests comment on allocating the temporary guard channels pursuant to the NCC's recommendations. The options for allocating the temporary guard channels include: (a) Moving the interoperability channels so that they are adjacent to each other, thereby eliminating the need for temporary guard channels, or (b) designating those channels immediately where trunking is permitted for interoperability use, thus permitting the aggregation of 25 kHz bandwidths on some interoperability channels, or (c) allocating all of the channels for interoperability use, thereby doubling the total number of interoperability channels.
        4. The Commission solicits comment, pursuant to the NCC's recommendation, on the states administering the interoperability channels with oversight of the interoperability infrastructure by the Regional Planning Committees (RPCs). In addition, the Commission requests comment on (a) the formation of State Interoperability Executive Committees (SIECs) to handle the administration of interoperability channels for the states; (b) Commission licensing of “subscriber equipment” (mobile and portable units) operating on interoperability channels; and (c) the adoption of standardized templates for Memoranda of Understanding between SIECs and sharing agreements between jurisdictions.
        5. The Commission also invites comment on the NCC's recommendations concerning channel designations, display labeling and access priority. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the NCC's proposed table and assignments. The proposed table assigns a particular purpose and name to each interoperability channel set. The Commission also seeks comment on the NCC's proposal that mobile units certificated for use under part 90 of the Commission's Rules must be capable of displaying interoperability channel labels alphanumerically if the radios are equipped with alphanumeric displays. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the NCC's proposed priority access scheme. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on the NCC's recommendation to designate two interoperability channels as calling channels to use as gateways to other channels.
        6. In anticipation of the development of spectrum-efficient equipment that would require only a 6.25 kHz bandwidth for one voice channel, previously, the Commission declined to adopt the Project 25 Phase I standard. However, since that time, the NCC recommended adoption of the Project 25 Phase I standard as the digital voice standard for interoperability channels. The Project 25 Phase I standard requires a 12.5 kHz bandwidth instead of the spectrum efficient 6.25 kHz bandwidth. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should adopt the NCC's recommendation of the Project 25 Phase I standard at this time and that it should develop and implement a “migration path” to 6.25 kHz technology. The Commission invites comment on the appropriate digital voice standard, and an appropriate migration path to spectrum efficient 6.25 kHz technology in the future. The Commission also declined to include a requirement for narrowband channels that transmitters for voice communications in the narrowband segment of the 700 MHz band meet a spectrum efficiency standard of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz of channel bandwidth, regardless of the data rate supplied.
        7. The NCC recommends that the Commission adopt the data interoperability standard that is incorporated in the Project 25 suite of standards and is defined by one ANSI standard and four TIA/EIA standards. This data interoperability standard requires the use of a 12.5 kHz channel. The Commission solicits comment on the appropriate standard for narrowband data transmissions on interoperability channels.
        8. The NCC recommends that the Commission adopt the latest Federal government encryption standard. The Commission requests comment on whether it should adopt the current Federal standard, and if so, the best method for updating the encryption standard in the future.
        9. With regards to interference standards, the Commission invites comment on two related issues. First, the Commission invites comment on whether the interests of public safety and commercial licensees in the 700 MHz band would be served by establishing interference standards for receivers operating on public safety frequencies. Second, the Commission solicits comment on whether it should mandate receiver standards to address interference issues raised by public safety radio operators.
        10. The Commission tentatively concludes that two recommendations by the NCC are unnecessary. First, the NCC requests sufficient flexibility to allow state and local authorities to enter contractual agreements with Federal authorities. However, the Commission tentatively concludes that an additional rule is not necessary to facilitate Federal sharing of the interoperability spectrum. Second, the NCC recommends requiring RPCs to use a regional planning “pre-coordination database,” to choose interoperability channels in order to avoid co-channel and adjacent channel interference. However, the Commission tentatively concludes that it is not necessary to require by rule the use of a pre-coordination database The Commission invites comment on its tentative conclusions.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this 4thNPRM. Written public comments are requested regarding this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the 4thNPRM provided in the item. The Commission will send a copy of the 4thNPRM including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the 4thNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        12. In the 4thNPRM, we continue our evaluation of rules applicable to the use of public safety spectrum in the frequencies at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz (the 700 MHz band). Specifically, the 4thNPRM summarizes and seeks comment on the recommendations of the NCC concerning technical and operational standards for public safety interoperability frequencies in the 700 MHz band. We seek comment on a number of issues including: Primary and secondary trunking on the interoperability channels; establishment and role of RPCs and SIECs; administration of the interoperability channels by state or local entities; licensing of end-users; standardized display labeling for interoperability units; access priority scheme for the interoperability channels; designation and use of calling channels; use of encryption on the interoperability channels; digital voice standards and efficiency standards for the interoperability channels; digital data standards and channel reservation for the interoperability channels; federal use of the interoperability spectrum; and use of a pre-coordination database to assign the interoperability channels. The proposed rules and actions should help achieve our goal of seamless interoperability on a nationwide basis, thereby improving critical public safety communications.
        II. Legal Basis
        13. Authority for issuance of this item is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303, 337.
        III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        14. 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 defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated, (2) is not dominant in its field of operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration. Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (ninety-one percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
        15. Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by 47 U.S.C. 337. Non-Federal governmental entities, as well as private businesses, are licensees for these services. As indicated above, all governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small businesses directed specifically toward public service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small business is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small business is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were public safety licensees, nearly all would be small businesses under the SBA's definition, if independently owned and operated.
        16. Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers. We anticipate that at least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding. According to the Small Business Administration's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified as small entities. We do not have information that indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers associated with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. Motorola and Ericsson, however, are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and thus, we conclude that they would not qualify as small businesses.
        IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        17. The 4thNPRM proposes a number of rules and solicits comments that will entail reporting, recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation. The Commission believes, however, that these requirements are the minimum needed. The licensing methods under consideration in the 4thNPRM include the possibility of imposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements on applicants for public safety licenses that may be required to make submissions to planning committees justifying their request for spectrum. These entities will be required to submit applications for spectrum licenses on Form 601.
        18. The 4thNPRM also seeks comment on recommendations to MOUs and model sharing agreements to govern use of interoperability channels. Entities would be responsible for gathering the information necessary to complete an MOU or sharing agreement.
        V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

        19. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 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. 5 U.S.C. 603.

        20. The NCC, comprised of representatives from government, the public safety community, and the communications equipment manufacturing industry, was chartered by the FCC as a Federal Advisory Committee, effective February 25, 1999. The NCC made recommendations concerning various issues addressed in this 4thNPRM. We note that in several instances, to benefit all entities, including small entities, we did not propose a particular recommendation. For instance, see the discussion in paragraphs 25-28 and 60-62, in the 4thNPRM.
        21. In formulating the proposals in the 4thNPRM, we have reduced economic burdens wherever possible. The regulatory burdens that we have proposed are necessary to ensure that the public receives the pubic safety benefits of innovative new services in a prompt and efficient manner. For example, we have proposed technical and operational rules that should promote competition in the equipment market. We believe that the rules we adopt must be as competitively and technologically neutral as possible, in order to allow for competing equipment designs and to avoid hindering future innovative technological developments. We note that tighter technical specifications generally allow more intense spectrum use, but may result in higher equipment costs. Conversely, although wider tolerances may allow manufacturers to use less costly component parts in transmitting equipment, they also may result in less efficient spectrum use. With these considerations in mind, we believe that the technical regulations we propose herein provide a reasonable balance of these concerns.
        22. Under the regional planning process, frequency coordination is competitive. Frequency coordination is the process by which a private organization recommends to the Commission the most appropriate frequencies for private land mobile radio service applicants. Frequency coordinators provide a valuable service to the Commission by eliminating common application errors, thereby improving the quality of the applications and resolving potential interference problems at the source. We continue to believe that the encouragement of competition among coordinators promotes cost-based pricing of coordination services and provides incentives for enhancing service quality. Therefore, we will continue to allow any of the certified public safety coordinators to provide coordination in the 700 MHz band.
        23. Recognizing the budgetary constraints that public safety entities face as a matter of course, we have proposed rules that encourage broad-based efforts, such as projects on the state and regional level, to coordinate and consolidate operations that are critical to meeting the needs of public safety with cost effective, spectrally-efficient radio systems. For example, we have proposed trunking on certain public safety channels in the 700 MHz band. Trunked systems would provide service to many governmental entities in a specific geographic area and offer a higher degree of efficiency than some smaller, non-trunked systems. A difficulty in establishing these types of shared systems is that they require individual agencies to surrender some autonomy in return for the efficiencies and better coverage of a larger system. In addition, the funding required to develop the infrastructure necessary to support some of the newer technologies is often too great to permit small public safety agencies to participate in new, sophisticated, spectrum efficient, wireless radio systems. These same agencies, however, might be able to participate in a county-wide or state-wide system. For these, and other, reasons, we encourage the use of shared systems in the public safety community.

        24. We believe that flexible licensing policies are necessary to encourage the use of the most spectrally efficient technology to meet user-defined needs. Recognizing the budgetary constraints that small public safety entities face, the 4thNPRM seeks comment on a variety of proposals regarding the interoperability spectrum in the 700 MHz public safety band. Any significant alternatives presented in comments will be considered.
        VI. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        25. None.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90
          Advisory committees, Communications equipment, Radio.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          William F. Caton,
          Deputy Secretary.

        Proposed Rule Changes
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 90 as follows:

          PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for Part 90 is revised to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Secs. 4, 251-52, 303, 309, 332 and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 251-52, 303, 309, 332 and 337, unless otherwise noted.

          2. A new § 90.524 is added to read as follows:

            § 90.524
            Administration of interoperability channels.
            (a) States are responsible for administration of the interoperability channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands. Base and control stations must be licensed individually. A public safety entity may operate mobile or portable units on the interoperability channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands without an individual license if: the entity is eligible to hold a license in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands; or the entity otherwise is licensed under part 90 of these Rules. All persons operating mobile or portable units are responsible for compliance with part 90 of these Rules and other applicable federal laws.
            (b) License applications for interoperability channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands must be approved by a state-level agency or organization responsible for administering state emergency communications. States may hold the licenses for interoperability channels or approve other qualified entities to hold such licenses. States may delegate the approval process for interoperability channels to another entity, such as regional planning committees.
            3. Section 90.531 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:

            § 90.531
            Band plan.

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Primary narrowband interoperability channels. The following channels are designated as primary narrowband interoperability channels. [Note: channels dependent upon guard band decision].
            (ii) Narrowband data interoperability channels. The following channels are dedicated for the express purpose of nationwide data transmission only. [Note: channels dependent upon guard band decision].
            (iii) Narrowband calling interoperability channels. The following channels are dedicated for the express purpose of nationwide interoperability calling only [Note: channels dependent upon guard band decision]. Trunking and encryption are prohibited on the two designated calling channel sets.
            (iv) Narrowband trunking interoperability channels. The following channels are available for nationwide interoperability trunking purposes. [Note: channels dependent upon guard band decision].

            4. Section 90.537 is revised to read as follows:

            § 90.537
            Trunking requirement.
            (a) General use channels. All systems using six or more narrowband channels in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands must be trunked systems, except for those described in paragraph (b) of this section.
            (b) Interoperability channels. Trunking is permitted on ten of the channels designated for nationwide interoperability use, as designated in § 90.531(b)(1)(iv). The following requirements apply to interoperability channels where trunking is permitted, but not required: Trunked use must be conducted on a strict secondary, non-interference basis; 6.25 kHz, 12.5 kHz, and 25 kHz trunked operations are permitted; and routine (day-to-day) communications are permitted if the channel(s) are not needed for emergency communications. Trunking is prohibited on the remainder of the interoperability channels, including any channels reserved as calling channels, because such channels are reserved for conventional operations.
            5. Section 90.547 is revised to read as follows:

            § 90.547
            Interoperability channel capability requirement.
            (a) Mobile and portable transmitters designed pursuant to standards adopted by the National Coordination Committee to operate in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands must be capable of operating on any of the designated nationwide narrowband interoperability channels, approved by the Commission. Subscriber units designed for data-only applications are not required to have voice capability. Subscriber units designed for voice-only applications are not required to have data transmission capability.

            (b) Transmitters operating on those narrowband channels in the 764-776 and 794-806 MHz band designated for interoperability (See § 90.531 shall conform to the following technical standards):
            (1) Transmitters designed for voice operation within a 12.5 kHz or 6.25 kHz bandwidth shall conform to the following standards: ANSI/TIA/EIA102.BAAA-1 (common air interface); ANSI/TIA/EIA102.BABA (vocoder).
            (2) Transmitters designed for data transmission within a 12.5 kHz or 6.25 kHz bandwidth shall conform to the following standards, as applicable: ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BAEA (data overview); ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BAEB (packet data specification); ANSI/TIA/EIA102.BAEC (circuit data description); ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BAEA (radio control protocol); and ANSI/TIA/EIA 102.BABA (vocoder).
            (c) Copies of the standards listed in this § 90.547 that are incorporated by reference can be purchased from the American National Standards Institute, Washington, DC Headquarters, 1819 L Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
            (d) Copies of the standards listed in this § 90.547 that are incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington.

      [FR Doc. 00-21579 Filed 8-24-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the Yosemite Toad as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the species may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if the petition action is warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we are asking for information and data regarding this species.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on October 5, 2000. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information should be submitted to the Service by December 11, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this petition should be submitted to the Field Supervisor; Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office; Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office; 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2065; Sacramento, California 95825. The petition finding, supporting data and comments are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jason Davis or Maria Boroja at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above), or at (916-414-6600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the Service make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If the finding is that substantial information was presented, the Service will commence a review of the status of the involved species. This finding is based on information contained in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and other information available to the Service at the time the finding was made.

        The processing of this petition conforms with the Service's final listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57114). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing emergency listing rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent risk to well-being (Priority 1). Second priority (Priority 2) is processing final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of endangered and threatened  wildlife and plants. Third priority (Priority 3) is processing new proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of administrative petition findings (petitions filed under section 4 of the Act) is the fourth priority (Priority 4). The processing of critical habitat determinations (prudency and determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of critical habitat will be funded separately from other section 4 listing actions and will no longer be subject to prioritization under the listing priority guidance. The processing of this petition finding is a Priority 4 action.

        We have made a 90-day finding on a petition to the list Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus) as an endangered species. On Monday, April 3, 2000, we received a petition, dated February 28, 2000, to list the Yosemite toad as endangered. The petition was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers Council. The letter clearly identified itself as a petition and contained the names, signatures, and addresses of the petitioners. Included in the petition was supporting information relating to the species' taxonomy and ecology, adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for the species, and the historic and present distribution, current status, and potential cause of decline. This notice constitutes the 90-day finding for the February 28, 2000, petition.
        The Yosemite toad is a high elevation species that occurs in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains of California (Stebbins 1985). The range of the Yosemite toad extends from Ebbetts Pass, Alphine County, to south of Kaiser Pass and Evolution Lake, Fresno County (Stebbins 1966, Karlstrom 1962, 1973). According to the petition, the Yosemite toad commonly occurs at elevation between 2,438 and 3.047 meters (8,000 and 10,000 feet), with an overall elevation range of 1,950 to 3,500 meters (6,400 to 11,300 feet).

        The Yosemite toad is a member of the Boreas-canorus group, the most primitive of three evolutionary lines of North American Bufo (Camp 1917, Karlstrom 1962). According to Camp (1916), the Yosemite toad has long been recognized as a distinct species. The Yosemite toad is a close relative of three toad species, the western toad (Bufo boreas), black toad (Bufo exsul), and Amargosa toad (Bufo nelsoni) (Blair 1972, Stebbins 1985). The petitioners state that Yosemite/western toad hybridization occurs in the northern portion of the Yosemite toad's range in the Blue Lake region of the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness, just southeast of Carson Pass in Alphine County (Karlstrom 1973, Stebbins 1966).
        The petition and accompanying documentation state that the species qualifies for listing pursuant to the Act due to potential habitat destruction and modification, the presence of disease in combination with natural predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or human-caused factors affecting its continued existence. The petitioners contend that natural and human-induced changes to Yosemite toad habitats, including (1) livestock grazing, (2) contaminant introductions, (3) non-native fish introductions, (4) disease (5) ultraviolet radiation, (6) climate change, (7) acid deposition, (8) drought, and (9) other factors, separately and in combination, are responsible for the range-wide decline of the species.

        There have been few if any studies to date on the direct effect of contaminant introductions on Yosemite toad populations. However, several studies show that significant levels of contaminants have been deposited in high Sierran aquatic ecosystems from pesticide drift, acid precipitation, and smog drift (Seiber et al. 1998, Aston and Seiber 1997, Cahill et al. 1996, Miller 1996, Byron 1991, Nikolaidis 1991, Laird et al. 1986). The petitioners believe that contaminant introductions can harm toad populations through lethal and sublethal effects including delayed metamorphosis, reduced breeding and feeding activity (Berrill et al. 1993, 1994, 1995,1998, Boyer and Grue 1995, Beaties and Tyler-Jones 1992, Corn and Vertucci 1992, Hall and Henry 1992). In addition, contaminant introduction may weaken the immune systems of toads rendering them more susceptible to disease such as chytrid fungus and red-legged disease (Aeromonas hydrophila) (Carey et al. 1993, 1995, 1999, Jennings 1996, Drost and Fellers 1996, Sherman and Morton 1993).

        There is ample evidence to suggest that Yosemite toads cannot coexist with introduced fish. In addition, there are strong indications that nonnative fish introductions have contributed to the decline of the toad. Not only do nonnative fish prey upon adult, juvenile and larval toads, they also alter the food chain of high Sierran aquatic ecosystems (Knapp 1996, Jennings 1996, Bradford 1989, 1993). The petitioners state that the most significant effect of nonnative fish on Yosemite toads is that they preclude the use of the deeper and more permanent water bodies that provide refuge for toads during periods of prolonged drought. The loss of higher quality, permanent breeding habitats for Yosemite toads disrupts their ability to recolonize peripheral areas after long periods of drought, and renders them more susceptible to localized extinctions (Knapp 1996, Drost and Fellers 1994, 1996, Bradford et al. 1993).

        The petitioners state that disease likely plays a significant role in the widespread decline of Yosemite toad populations. Two diseases that may affect Yosemite toads are red-legged disease, which is caused by a freshwater bacteria, and chytrid fungus. Sherman and Morton (1984, 1993) noted the mortality of adult Yosemite toads due to red-legged disease at Tioga Pass during the 1970's. Chytrid fungus, an aquatic pathogen discovered after 1993, has caused mortality in many amphibian species in the United States and worldwide. An investigation of museum specimens of Yosemite toads collected by Sherman and Morton at Tioga Pass during a die-off in 1977-1978 found those toads to be infected with chytrid fungus (Carey et al. 1999). The petitioners state that there is significant information yet to be discovered regarding aquatic pathogens and their relationship to the ecology of Yosemite toads. Should evidence indicate that Yosemite toads have evolved with aquatic pathogens, then other stressors including contaminant introductions and UV-radiation may be reducing the ability of toads to fight off infection from these pathogens (Sherman and Norton 1993, Drost and Fellers 1996, Carey et al. 1993, 1995, 1999, Jennings 1996, Taylor et al. 1999).
        The petitioners state that there are other natural and anthropogenic factors that may be negatively affecting the Yosemite toad, including (1) airborne contamination, (2) ultraviolet radiation, and (3) climate change. However, there are significant gaps in the extent of the information regarding affects of airborne contaminants on Yosemite toads. The affect of UV-radiation and global warming on Yosemite toad populations is also lacking at this time. These factors may provide additional stresses on toad populations that are already being assaulted by nonnative fish, livestock grazing, drought, and disease. Combinations of stresses may explain the significant declines of Yosemite toads recorded over the past few decades.
        Several studies and observations made within the first half of the twentieth century report that Yosemite toads were abundant throughout their range, especially within Yosemite National Park (Grinnell and Storer 1924, Karlstrom 1962, Mullally 1953, Mullally and Cunningham 1956, Yosemite National Park Office 1999). More recent studies indicated that Yosemite toads have suffered significant declines in both abundance and distribution throughout their range. Jennings and Hayes (1994) reported that, even though Yosemite toads occur in areas that are free from physical disturbance, the species has declined or disappeared from 50 percent of known historic sites.

        Within Yosemite National Park, the heart of the Yosemite toad's range, there are several documented declines in the distribution and abundance of Yosemite toad populations. Drost and Fellers (1994, 1996) resurveyed areas within the park that were originally surveyed in the first quarter of last century by the U.C. Berkeley survey team lead by Grinnell and Storer. By the 1990s, Yosemite toads only occupied 50 percent of these sites. The petitioners note that in a subsequent amphibian survey within Yosemite National Park, Fellers (1997) found 5 locations occupied by Yosemite toads out of 260 survey sites. The petitioners do not report whether these 260 survey locations were historically occupied by Yosemite toads. Additionally, several other sites that once supported abundant Yosemite toad populations including Tioga Pass, Sylvester Meadows, and several nearby sites have shown complete disappearances of toads in recent years (Karlstrom 1962, Sherman and Morton 1993). Sherman and Morton (1993) further documented significant declines in toad populations at their Tioga Pass Meadow study area. They counted an average of 257 toads annually during the period of 1974-1978 at Tioga Pass Meadow. By 1982, toad populations had declined to 28 individuals and in 1990, only one female, two males, and 4 to 6 egg masses. In 1991, these researchers noted only two egg masses and a single calling male. Other researchers have corroborated this decline (Drost and Fellers 1994). Additional population declines of Yosemite toads were observed at Saddlebag Lake, Frog Lake, Hoover Lake, and Mildred Lake (Sherman and Morton 1993).
        The trend of populations declines also holds true for sites outside of Yosemite National Park. Bradford and Gordon (1992) conducted a survey of 235 randomly selected sites in potential Yosemite toad habitat above 2,625 meters (8,000 feet) and found only 17 sites occupied. In addition, the petitioners cite a survey conducted by David Martin (1990) that found of 75 historic localities surveyed throughout the high Sierra, only 40 were occupied. During his survey, Martin (1990) found no toads at historic locations at elevations below 2,461 meters (7,500 feet). Furthermore, Martin (1990) reported that of the 40 sites with toads present, he found an average of 5.75 individuals. The petition cites a personal communication with David Martin (San Jose State University, pers. comm. 2000), indicating that historically, Yosemite toad numbers were estimated to be over 100 individuals per site at each of these 75 locations. Additional toad declines have been reported by Martin (1992) at Emigrant Meadow and Lunch Meadow in the Emigrant Wilderness, Stanislaus National Forest, and around Sonora Pass, where toad populations that had once been abundant are now small or undetectable. This trend appears to hold for toad populations on the El Dorado and Sequoia National Forests (Stebbins 1966).
        We have reviewed the petition and other information available in our files. Based upon this review, we believe that substantial evidence exists that listing of this species as endangered may be warranted. When we make a positive finding, we also are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. Based upon available and any newly obtained information, we will issue a 12-month finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for the Yosemite toad; the 12-month finding will address this issue.
        Public Information Requested
        The Service hereby announces its formal review of the species' status pursuant to this 90-day petition finding. We request any additional data, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the Yosemite toad. Of particular interest is information regarding: (1) The existence and status of additional populations, (2) the implementation of any actions that are benefitting the species, and (3) the impact of livestock grazing, contaminant introductions, non-native fish introductions, disease, ultraviolet radiation, climate change, drought, and other factors that may be responsible for the range-wide decline of the species.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        References Cited

        You may request a complete list of all references we cited, as well as others, from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

        Author: The primary author of this document is Jason Davis, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: October 5, 2000.
          Jamie Rappaport Clark,
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-26180 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid and Initiation of a 5-Year Review

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial information and are initiating a status review to determine if delisting this species is warranted. We are requesting submission of any new information (best scientific and commercial data) on the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid since its original listing as a threatened species in 1992.
          Following this status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition to delist. Because a status review is also required for the 5-year review of listed species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we are electing to prepare these reviews simultaneously. At the conclusion of these simultaneous reviews, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, and make the requisite finding under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based on the results of the 5-year review.

          DATES:
          The 90-day finding announced in this document was made on October 12, 2004. To be considered in the 12-month finding on this petition or the 5-year review, comments and information should be submitted to us by December 13, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments, material, information, or questions concerning this petition and finding should be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119. The separate petition finding, supporting data, and comments are available for public review, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, at the above address or by telephone at 801-975-3330.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on all information available to us at the time we make the finding. To the maximum extent practicable, we must make this finding within 90 days of receiving the petition and publish a notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register. Our standard for substantial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). When a substantial finding is made, we are required to promptly begin a review of the status of the species, if one has not already been initiated.
        When considering an action for listing, delisting, or reclassifying a species, we are required to determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five listing factors as described at 50 CFR 424.11. These factors are given as—(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons—(1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.
        In 1992, we listed Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) as threatened (57 FR 2053). We made this determination based upon the best scientific and commercial information available at the time. As stated and documented in the final listing rule, this action was taken, in part, because of —(1) The threats of habitat loss and modification and (2) the orchid's small population and low reproductive rate make it vulnerable to other threats. We did not designate critical habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses orchid because such action was not considered prudent at the time. On May 10, 1996, we received a petition from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to delist Ute ladies'-tresses orchid pursuant to the Act. A “Special Status Species Update” for Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, dated April 1996, accompanied the petition as supporting information.
        In response to the petitioner's request to delist Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, we sent a letter to the petitioner on June 10, 1996, explaining our inability to act upon the petitions due to the low priorities assigned to delisting petitions in our 1996 Listing Priority Guidance (61 FR 24722, May 16, 1996). Prior to 1999, the Service listing budget (including delistings, reclassifications, and designations of critical habitat) was underfunded, which meant that lower tier priority actions went unaddressed. Beginning in 1999, work on delisting (including delisting petition findings) was included in the line item for the recovery program instead of the listing program (64 FR 27596, May 20, 1999). Since 1999, higher priority work has further precluded our ability to act upon this petition.
        In making this finding we rely on information provided by the petitioners and evaluate that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The contents of this finding summarize that information included in the petition and which was available to us at the time of the petition review. Our review for the purposes of a so-called “90-day” finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, as the Act and regulations contemplate, at the 90-day finding, we accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information unless we have specific information to the contrary. Thus, in this finding, we express no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the species should be delisted. We can come to a conclusion on that issue only after a more thorough review of the species' status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 more months, we will perform a rigorous critical analysis of the best available scientific information, not just the information in the petition. We will ensure that the data used to make our determination as to the status of the species is consistent with the Act and the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). We ask the public to submit to us any pertinent information concerning the status of or threats to this species.
        Discussion
        The petition states that there is substantial new information indicating that the population size and distribution are much larger than known at the time of listing; there is more information on life history and habitat needs, allowing better management; and threats are not as great in magnitude or imminence as understood at the time of listing. The petition was accompanied by a “Special Species Status Update.” The Status Update compiled, synthesized, and described information from Service files that had been acquired about Ute ladies'-tresses orchid since it was listed. Information included taxonomy and genetics, reproductive biology and life history, pollination, and population size and distribution. The five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act) were then addressed using this new information.
        Since the date of the petition to delist, additional information has been acquired and provided to the Service. In 1995, the total estimated population size was 20,500 individuals. With discoveries since 1995, population estimates have increased. The total population size of Ute ladies'-tresses orchid is currently estimated to be 60,000 individuals.

        New occurrences have been documented in Nebraska, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado, substantially increasing the known range and estimated population size. Monitoring of species numbers, certain demographic parameters, and habitat characteristics has improved our understanding of population fluctuations, habitat preferences, and threats to habitat conditions. Research has continued on pollination biology, genetics, and root-associated fungi. Research and monitoring have been conducted on the relationship of stream flows, ground water levels, and stream channel form to surfaces on which the orchid occurs. All new information will be considered and fully analyzed as part of the species status review.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition and its supporting documentation. We have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that delisting Ute ladies'-tresses orchid may be warranted. As the petition to delist asserts, new information acquired since the orchid was listed indicates that population size is greater than originally known. While significant questions remain about the actual size of populations, requirements for seedling establishment and recruitment, and severity of impacts due to habitat modifications such as water development projects, we consider these to be issues relevant to the listing determination and warranting further investigation. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to consider this information and any other new information available about this species and the threats it may face in a status review. A status review is a component of both the 12-month finding and the five-year review; therefore, we will be conducting these reviews simultaneously.
        Five-Year Review

        Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B) and the provisions of subsection (a) and (b), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened, or from threatened to endangered. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid.
        Public Information Solicited
        We are requesting information for both the 12-month finding and the 5-year review, as we are conducting these reviews simultaneously.
        When we make a finding that substantial information exists to indicate that listing or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on Ute ladies'-tresses orchid. This includes information on taxonomy and genetics, reproductive biology and life history, pollination, population size, distribution, habitat management, and the five listing factors (including type and imminence of threats). We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry or environmental entities, or any other interested parties concerning the status of Ute ladies'-tresses orchid.
        The 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. This review will consider the best scientific and commercial data that has become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include (A) species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (B) habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability; (C) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species; (D) threat status and trends; and (E) other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

        If you wish to comment for either the 12-month finding or the 5-year review, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this finding is available, upon request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: September 29, 2004.
          Paul Henne,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-22735 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-U