        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2019-0216]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Safety Zone; Apra Outer Harbor, Naval Base Guam

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Apra Outer Harbor. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Polaris Point, Guam, during a fireworks display on July 4, 2019. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
           Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0216 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Todd Wheeler, Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-355-4866, email wwmguam@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        Navy Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) will be conducting a fireworks display between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. on July 4, 2019. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in Apra Outer Harbor, approximately 300-yards west of Polaris Point, Guam. Hazards from firework display include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 190-yard radius of the barge.
        The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 190-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on July 4, 2019. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 190 yards of a barge in Apra Outer Harbor located approximately 300 yards west of Polaris Point, Guam. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
        This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Apra Outer Harbor for 3 hours. The safety zone will impact a small section of the main channel for Navy traffic, however Navy traffic will be able to transit around the area safely. This is also the main traffic area for the Marianas Yacht Club in Sasa Bay. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves safety zone lasting no more than 3 hours that would prohibit entry within 190 yards of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

        1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. Add § 165.T14-0216 to read as follows:

          § 165.T14-0216
           Safety Zone; Apra Outer Harbor, Naval Base Guam.
          (a) Location. The following areas, within the Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters on the surface and below the surface within 190 yards of the fireworks barge for the 4th of July celebrations at Polaris Point, Naval Base Guam. The following position 13 degrees 26 minutes 44.76 seconds N Latitude, 144 degrees 39 minutes 59.16 seconds E Longitude is to be used as a guide to the location of the barge.
          (b) Effective dates. This section is effective from 6 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2019.
          (c) Enforcement. All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in § 165.23. Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Guam. Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port Guam or his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Guam and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number (671) 355-4821 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may enforce this temporary safety zone.
          (d) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this section for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
          (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 and 46 U.S.C. 70052.

          Dated: April 5, 2019.
          Christopher M. Chase,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.

      [FR Doc. 2019-07060 Filed 4-9-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 10
        [Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0028]
        RIN 2105-AE76
        Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Transportation proposes to add a system of records relating to aviation consumer protection to the list of Department of Transportation Privacy Act Systems of Records that are exempt from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. The Department is proposing to exempt this system of records, titled Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System, to protect records compiled for investigations and inquiries into alleged Federal civil rights and consumer protection misconduct by airlines and air travel companies. This exemption was initially proposed on February 28, 2005 and the Department did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. Nonetheless, given the time that has passed since the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for comment. The current system of records notice indicates that an exemption applies to this system; however, the Department is updating the system of records notice to specify the basis of the exemption. This rulemaking conforms the Department of Transportation's regulations on Maintenance and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals to the applicable System of Records Notices (SORNs) to current Department of Transportation practice.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before April 8, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2017-0028 by any of the following methods:
          ○ Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          ○ Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          ○ Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          ○  Fax: 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2017-0028 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may review DOT's system of records notice for dockets in the Federal Register notice published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316-3317).

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or privacy@dot.gov or (202) 366-8135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, requires that agencies tell the public when they maintain information about a person in a file that may be retrieved to that person's name or some other identifying particular. A group of these files is a “system of records,” and the existence of each system must be published in a “system of records notice” (SORN). An Agency wishing to exempt portions of some systems of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act must notify the public of that exemption in both the SORN and in an exemption rule. This proposed rulemaking clarifies that portions of the Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System are not subject to some access and notification provisions of the Privacy Act. Exempting the systems from these requirements is necessary to protect the public's interest in fair and accurate investigations.
        In 2005, the DOT established the Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System to monitor consumer comments regarding airlines and air travel companies and to determine the extent to which these entities are in compliance with Federal aviation civil rights and consumer protection regulations. The records contain the inquiries, opinions, and compliments of individuals, as well as complaints of discrimination based on physical handicap, race, religion, etc. Thus, records may complaints containing alleged violations of Federal law and regulations, which can lead to civil and criminal investigations by the Department of Transportation. Consequently, the records should be treated as other law enforcement systems as some information needs to remain confidential for these investigative purposes.
        This proposed rulemaking would exempt certain records maintained by the Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System from the access and notification provisions of the Privacy Act. An exemption from these requirements would be necessary to: Avoid disclosure of aviation compliance inquiry techniques; protect the confidential information of confidential informants and third parties; prevent unwarranted invasions of another individual's privacy; and support DOT's ability to obtain information relevant to resolving an aviation compliance concern. DOT may take administrative or other appropriate action within the scope of its respective legal authority in response to an aviation compliance concern. Thus, an aviation compliance inquiry is comprised of records compiled for law enforcement purposes falling under the subsection (k)(2) exemption (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)) making it applicable to this system of records.
        In appropriate circumstances, where compliance with the request would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the conduct of an aviation compliance inquiry or result in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, OST may opt to waive these exemptions. In addition, some information may be available under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA). Any request for information from this system under the FOIA would be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine what, if any, information could be released consistent with section (b)(2) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2).

        DOT identifies a system of records that is exempt from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)) both in the SORN published in the Federal Register for public comment and in an Appendix to DOT's regulations implementing the Privacy Act (49 CFR part 10, Appendix). This rule would exempt records in the Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System of records from subsection (d) (Access to Records) of the Privacy Act to the extent that records consist of investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
        Regulatory Analysis and Notices
        A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        The DOT has considered the impact of this proposed rulemaking action under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (January 18, 2011, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), and the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The DOT has determined that this action would not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. There would be no costs associated with this rule.
        B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
        This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The DOT has evaluated the effect this change would have on small entities and does not believe that this rule would impose any costs on small entities because the reporting requirements themselves would not change and because the rule applies only to information on individuals that is maintained by the Federal Government or that is already publicly available. Therefore, I hereby certify that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        C. National Environmental Policy Act

        The DOT has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined preliminarily that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.C.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference the categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal Highway
        Administration's implementing procedures, “[promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.” 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend the Appendix to DOT's Privacy Act regulations. The DOT does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
        E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient Federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not necessary.
        F. Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments)
        This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because it would not have an effect on Indian Tribal Governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
        G. Paperwork Reduction Act

        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has determined that this action would not contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the PRA.
        H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector. The UMRA requires a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules that contain Federal mandates. A “Federal mandate” is a new or additional enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local, or tribal Government; or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $143.1 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), an UMRA analysis is required. This proposed rule would not impose Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments; or the private sector.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10
          Penalties, Privacy.

        In consideration of the foregoing, DOT proposes to amend part 10 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 10—MAINTENANCE OF AND ACCESS TO RECORDS PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUALS

        1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 552a; 49 U.S.C. 322.

        2. Amend the Appendix to Part 10 by: a. In Part II, adding a new subsection H.
        APPENDIX TO PART 10—EXEMPTIONS
        Part II. Specific Exemptions

        H. The following systems of records are exempt from subsection (d) (Access to records) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to the extent that they contain investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
        I. Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System, maintained by the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings in the Office of the Secretary (DOT/OST 102).
        This exemption is justified because granting an individual access to investigative records could interfere with the overall law enforcement process by revealing a sensitive investigative technique, or confidential sources or information.

          Issued in Washington DC on December 21, 2018.
          Elaine L. Chao,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2019-01338 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-1767, MM Docket No. 01-161, RM-10181]
        Digital Television Broadcast Service; Victoria, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Surtsey Productions, Inc., licensee of station KVCT-TV, Victoria, Texas, requesting the substitution of DTV channel 11 for station KVCT-TV's assigned DTV channel 34. DTV Channel 11 can be allotted to Victoria, Texas, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (28-50-26 N. and 97-07-47 W.). As requested, we propose to allot DTV Channel 11 to Victoria with a power of 18.0 and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 311 meters. However, since the community of Victoria is located within 275 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexican border, concurrence by the Mexican government must be obtained for this allotment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before September 17, 2001, and reply comments on or before October 2, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Harry F. Cole, Bechtel & Cole, 1901 L Street, NW., Suite 250, Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for Surtsey Productions, Inc.).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-161, adopted July 24, 2001, and released July 27, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

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

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television, Digital television broadcasting.

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

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

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

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Texas is amended by removing DTV Channel 34 and adding DTV Channel 11 at Victoria.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Barbara A. Kreisman,
            Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-19143 Filed 7-31-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-M


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
        [GN Docket No. 20-32; Report No. 3165; FRS 17372]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by David A. LaFuria, on behalf of Smith Bagley, Inc., Russell D. Lukas, on behalf of Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers, Carri Bennet, on behalf of Rural Wireless Association, Inc. and Jill Canfield, on behalf of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, Matthew B. Gerst, on behalf of CTIA and Maurita Coley, on behalf of Multicultural Media, Telecom and internet Council Convenors, 5G Fund Supporters.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 8, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before February 16, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Valerie M. Barrish, Auctions Division, Office of Economics and Analytics, (202) 418-0660 or Valerie.Barrish@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3165, released January 6, 2021. The full text of the Petitions can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, FCC 20-150, published at 85 FR 75770, November 25, 2020, in GN Docket No. 20-32. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 5.

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

      [FR Doc. 2021-00464 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 216
        [Docket No. 170303228-7228-01]
        RIN 0648-BG71
        Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands; Summary of Fur Seal Harvests for 2014-2016 and Proposed Annual Subsistence Harvest Needs for 2017-2019

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          Pursuant to the regulations governing the subsistence taking of North Pacific fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) (northern fur seals), this document summarizes the annual fur seal subsistence harvests on St. George and St. Paul Islands (the Pribilof Islands) in Alaska for 2014-2016 and proposes annual estimates of northern fur seal subsistence harvest on the Pribilof Islands for 2017-2019. The proposed number of fur seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Alaska Natives residing on the Pribilof Islands (Pribilovians) during the years 2017-2019 is 300 to 500 for St. George and 1,645 to 2,000 for St. Paul. These harvest levels are unchanged from the levels established for 2014-2016. NMFS solicits public comments on the proposed subsistence harvest needs for 2017-2019.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than June 19, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0018 by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0018, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Two Final Environmental Impact Statements and one Draft EIS are available on the Internet at the following address under the NEPA Analyses tab: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska Region, 907-271-5117, michael.williams@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals (fur seals) is considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. The subsistence harvest from this stock on the Pribilof Islands is governed by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216, subpart F, published under the authority of the Fur Seal Act (FSA), 16 U.S.C. 1151, et seq. The regulations authorize Pribilovians to take fur seals on the Pribilof Islands if such taking is for subsistence uses and not accomplished in a wasteful manner. Since 1997, the allowable harvest level for St. George has been 300 to 500 fur seals and the allowable harvest level for St. Paul has been 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals. On both islands, if the harvest reaches the lower level and the Pribilovians have not met their subsistence harvest needs they must obtain the concurrence of NMFS before harvesting up to the upper level.
        NMFS has restricted the subsistence harvest of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands to sub-adult male fur seals less than 124.5 cm in length during a 47-day season (from June 23 to August 8) on the Pribilof Islands. In 2014, NMFS created a second harvest season on St. George Island (from September 16 to November 30), authorizing the harvest of up to 150 male pups (79 FR 65327; November 4, 2014). The authority to harvest 150 male pups on St. George Island did not change the lower or upper harvest level established previously (79 FR 45728; August 5, 2014). The purposes of these regulations are to (1) limit the take of fur seals to a sustainable level that provides for the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians, and (2) restrict taking by sex, age, location, and season to ensure conservation of the species.

        Pursuant to subsistence harvest regulations at 50 CFR 216.72(b), every three years NMFS must publish in the Federal Register a summary of the Pribilovians' fur seal harvest for the previous three-year period. NMFS is also required to include an estimate of the number of fur seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians in the subsequent three-year period. Since 2000, NMFS estimated the number of seals necessary to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians based on discussions with the St. Paul and St. George Tribal Governments (Tribal Governments) as established in their respective co-management agreements pursuant to Section 119 of the MMPA. NMFS works with the Tribal Governments to estimate a lower and upper number of fur seals to be harvested annually to satisfy the subsistence requirements of the Pribilovians.
        Other Actions Potentially Affecting the Fur Seal Subsistence Harvest Estimates
        In response to a petition from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, NMFS recently published a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the effects relevant to environmental concerns of potential changes to the regulations governing subsistence harvest of fur seals on St. Paul Island (82 FR 4336; January 13, 2017). Based on review of the public comments, NMFS is considering whether to undertake proposed and final rulemaking to revise fur seal subsistence harvest regulations at 50 CFR 216.72. Should NMFS undertake such rulemaking the triennial process of assessing the Pribilovians' subsistence needs and setting lower and upper levels for the maximum allowable harvest of fur seals may be modified or removed from the regulations. NMFS is not seeking comment on these potential proposals here.
        Fur Seal Status and Subsistence Needs

        Based on the most recent fur seal stock assessment report (2016), NMFS estimates that the current abundance of the eastern Pacific fur seals stock is 648,534. The potential biological removal (PBR) level (i.e., the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from the stock while allowing the stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population level) is 11,802 animals (Muto et al., 2016). Harvest of the maximum allowable level on both St. George and St. Paul Islands (2,500 sub-adult male fur seals; a level that the Pribilovians have not reached since 1985) would amount to 21.2 percent of the PBR level. However, the population-level effect of the harvest on the stock is lower than 21.2 percent of the PBR because PBR assumes random mortality across all ages and both sexes, and the subsistence harvest is regulated to select sub-adult male fur seals (including male pups on St. George). Fur seal reproduction depends disproportionately on females, so harvesting males has much less influence on the population. Limiting the harvest of fur seals to males that have not reached adulthood has been the basis of sustainable harvests on the Pribilofs for over 100 years.

        The mortality from the subsistence harvest is in addition to other sources of known human-caused mortality that are described in the annual stock assessment reports (Muto et al., 2016), including bycatch in commercial fisheries, entanglement in derelict fishing gear and marine debris as well as accidental death during research. The 5-year average (2009-2013) annual estimates of the sources of known human-caused mortality of fur seals, as identified in the 2016 stock assessment report (Muto et al., 2016), are: fisheries bycatch (average = 1.1); entanglement (average = 12); research (average <1); and subsistence harvests (average = 432). These sources of known human-caused mortality of fur seals are less than 4 percent of PBR. During the past 5 years, there have been no reports of illegal shooting by fishermen, and one seal was killed in 2015 when it was struck by a car on St. Paul. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement has been unable to identify suspects in cases where illegal harvest of fur seals is suspected.
        The 1985 and subsequent estimates of the number of fur seals required to meet subsistence needs were based on pounds of meat estimated to have been consumed by Pribilovians from the turn of the century (50 FR 27914, July 4, 1985; 51 FR 17896, May 15, 1986). The short seasons required by the regulations forced employers, employees, and fishermen to choose between wage earning jobs and volunteer participation in the subsistence harvest. Public comments on those notices of the number of fur seals required to meet their subsistence need suggested that NMFS should reduce the lower level of the subsistence need because the actual harvest seldom reached the lower level established in the early years of the subsistence regulations (51 FR 17896, May 15, 1986; 51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986; 53 FR 28886, August 1, 1998; 56 FR 25066, June 3, 1991). NMFS responded by reducing the estimates of Pribilovians' subsistence need to its lowest level in 1990 and 1991 (1,326-2,300), and in 1991 both islands made written requests to exceed the lower end of the range and ultimately harvested the highest number of fur seals allowed under the subsistence regulations (Table 1). NMFS increased the estimated subsistence need through 1997, and the harvest has not reached the lower level established for either island since 1993 (Table 1). The lower level may only be exceeded if the Assistant Administrator (1) reviews the harvest data, (2) determines that additional harvest is necessary to satisfy Pribilovians' subsistence needs, and (3) provides a revised estimate of the number of seals required to satisfy subsistence needs in accordance with 50 CFR 216.72(f). Exceedance of the upper harvest level is not authorized. The current lower harvest level of 1,945, while higher than actual harvest levels in the past decade, provides a degree of flexibility that allows for environmental changes and accommodates unanticipated community needs.
        The communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands rely on marine mammals as a major food source and a cornerstone of their culture. Several factors affect both the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals and the number of fur seals required to meet subsistence needs. Weather conditions and availability of subsistence resources and store-bought foods vary annually. The availability of wage-earning jobs affects the time available for community members to harvest fur seals and other subsistence resources. For example, the subsistence harvest season is concurrent with the Pacific halibut commercial fishing season. Individual community members may choose to participate in wage-earning jobs rather than volunteer to participate in the subsistence harvest fur seals. In addition, some seasonal employment opportunities, such as commercial crab fishing, may interfere with community members' ability to harvest Steller sea lions, increasing their reliance upon the northern fur seal as a subsistence food source.
        Summary of Harvest Operations and Monitoring From 2014 to 2016
        The harvests of sub-adult male fur seals from 2014 to 2016 were conducted in the established manner and employed the standard harvest methods required under 50 CFR 216.72. NMFS personnel, a harvest observer contracted by NMFS, and tribal government staff monitored the harvests during the period of 2014 through 2016. The NMFS personnel, harvest observer, and tribal government staff communicated during and after the harvests to further improve the efficiency of the annual harvest, encourage full utilization of the animals taken, and reduce stress to unharvested seals. NMFS received annual harvest reports from the tribal governments of both islands and the harvest observers. These reports were reviewed and verified by NMFS prior to finalization and public distribution. Through co-management, the tribal governments on both St. Paul and St. George Islands have taken responsibility for ensuring the subsistence harvest of male fur seals from the age classes authorized on the respective islands is not accomplished in a wasteful manner, minimizes the accidental take of females, and does not result in increased disturbance to the fur seals on rookeries. The Pribilovians have requested more autonomy to undertake and monitor the fur seal harvest themselves via co-management, and NMFS continues to balance that request with the need to independently observe a portion of the harvests on both islands each year (see 51 FR 17896; May 15, 1986, 53 FR 28886; August 1, 1988, 58 FR 42027; August 6, 1993, 79 FR 65327; November 4, 2014).

        The reported fur seal subsistence harvest for St. Paul was 266 animals in 2014, 314 in 2015, and 309 in 2016 (Lestenkof et al., 2015, Lestenkof et al., 2016, Melovidov et al., 2017). The reported total subsistence harvest of fur seals on St. George Island in 2014, 2015, and 2016 was 158, 118, and 83, respectively, of which the sub-adult harvest was 104 in 2014, 61 in 2015, and 37 in 2016 (Kashevarof 2015, Kashevarof 2016, Lekanof 2017) and the pup harvest was 54 in 2014, 57 in 2015, and 46 in 2016 (Testa 2016, IAG 2016, and IAG 2017). From 1986 to 2016, the reported number of sub-adult male fur seals harvested on St. Paul and St. George ranged from 266-1704 and 37-319, respectively (Table 1). The average number of male seals harvested annually during the past decade on St. Paul was 318 (range: 262 to 383), and on St. George was 119 (range: 63 to 206) including pups.

          Table 1—Harvest Levels and Actual Subsistence Harvest Levels of Sub-Adult Male Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands, 1986-2016
          [Accidental female harvests and the pup harvest from 2014-16 are not included]

            Year
            Harvest levels
            St. Paul
            St. George
            Actual harvest
            St. Paul
            St. George

            1986
            2,400-8,000
            800-1,800
            1,299
            124

            1987
            1,600-2,400
            533-1,800
            1,704
            92

            1988
            1,800-2,200
            600-740
            1,145
            113

            1989
            1,600-1,800
            533-600
            1,340
            181

            1990
            1,145-1,800
            181-500
            1,077
            164

            1991
            1,145-1,800
            181-500
            1,644
            281

            1992
            1,645-2,000
            281-500
            1,480
            194

            1993
            1,645-2,000
            281-500
            1,518
            319

            1994
            1,645-2,000
            281-500
            1,615
            161

            1995
            1,645-2,000
            281-500
            1,263
            259

            1996
            1,645-2,000
            281-500
            1,588
            232

            1997
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            1,153
            227

            1998
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            1,297
            256

            1999
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            1,000
            193

            2000
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            754
            121

            2001
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            595
            184

            2002
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            646
            202

            2003
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            522
            132

            2004
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            493
            123

            2005
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            466
            139

            2006
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            396
            212

            2007
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            269
            206

            2008
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            328
            170

            2009
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            341
            113

            2010
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            357
            78

            2011
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            322
            120

            2012
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            383
            63

            2013
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            298
            80

            2014
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            262
            103

            2015
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            312
            61

            2016
            1,645-2,000
            300-500
            308
            37

        A single accidental harvest of a sub-adult female fur seal occurred during 2014-2016 on St. George. On St. Paul harvesters accidentally killed seven sub-adult females during 2014-2016. The average annual accidental harvest of females is two on St. Paul and less than one on St. George since 1986.

        Under section 119 of the MMPA, NMFS signed agreements with St. Paul in 2000 and with St. George in 2001 for the cooperative management of subsistence uses of northern fur seals and Steller sea lions. The processes described in the cooperative agreements have facilitated a collaborative working relationship between NMFS and tribal authorities to manage efficient harvests for food and to promote full utilization for traditional arts, crafts, and other uses permitted under regulations at 50 CFR 216.73 (Melovidov et al., 2017, IAG 2016, IAG 2017).
        Estimate of Subsistence Need for 2017 Through 2019
        For the 3-year period from 2017 through 2019, NMFS proposes no change to the current allowable harvest ranges of 1,645-2,000 sub-adult male fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300-500 sub-adult male fur seals for St. George Island (including up to 150 male pups). Retaining the allowable harvest levels at the current range provides for fur seal conservation, flexibility that accommodates environmental changes, and unanticipated community needs. NMFS will continue to work with the Tribal Governments of St. Paul and St. George under section 119 of the MMPA to ensure their subsistence needs are met in a manner that is consistent with the sustainable use and conservation of fur seals. NMFS seeks public comments on these proposed estimates of the annual number of fur seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians from 2017 through 2019.
        NMFS will continue to monitor the harvest on St. Paul and St. George Islands during 2017, 2018, and 2019, and coordinate regular monitoring and reporting through the agreements signed for cooperative management of the subsistence use of fur seals.
        Classification
        National Environmental Policy Act

        NMFS prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating the impacts on the human environment of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals, which is available on the NMFS Web site (see Reviewing Documents). A draft EIS was available for public review (69 FR 53915; September 3, 2004), and NMFS incorporated the comments into the final EIS (May 2005). A draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was prepared regarding the management of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on St. George Island, made available for public review (79 FR 31110; May 30, 2014), and NMFS incorporated the public comments into the final SEIS (79 FR 49774; August 22, 2014). A draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was prepared regarding the management of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island, made available for public review (82 FR 4336; January 13, 2017), and NMFS is reviewing those public comments separate from the action considered here.

        An SEIS should be prepared if (1) the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (2) significant new circumstances or information exist relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). After reviewing the information contained in the 2005 EIS and 2014 SEIS, the Regional Administrator has determined that (1) approval of the proposed 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest notice does not constitute a change in the action; and (2) there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. Additionally, the proposed 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest levels will result in environmental impacts within the scope of those analyzed and disclosed in the previous EIS. Therefore, supplemental NEPA documentation is not necessary to implement the 2017-2019 fur seal subsistence harvest levels proposed in this document.
        Executive Order 12866 and 13563
        This proposed action is authorized under 50 CFR 216.72(b) and is not significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The harvest of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is for subsistence purposes only. This action directly regulates the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals by Pribilovians. The estimates of subsistence need are derived based on historic harvest levels and direct consultation with the Tribal Governments from each community. NMFS has identified two small entities that may be affected by this action—the communities of St. Paul and St. George, both of which have populations less than 500.
        Estimate of Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        This action would have no adverse economic impact and may provide a net economic benefit for the communities of St. Paul and St. George. The upper limit of the estimated subsistence harvest need is unlikely to restrict the number of animals taken by subsistence users. NMFS compared historic harvest levels on each island to the upper and lower harvest limits. The total annual harvests on each island have never exceeded the upper limit of the proposed subsistence need, and have only exceeded the lower limit three times; in 1991 on both islands and in 1993 on St. George. The regulated entities will not experience any change from the status quo since the proposed allowable subsistence harvest levels remain unchanged since 1997.
        The subsistence harvest of fur seals provides a local, affordable source of fresh and frozen meat for the communities' consumption. Fresh store-bought meat is not available on either St. Paul or St. George Islands. Subsistence hunting and fishing are the primary means by which the communities meet their dietary needs. No other fish and wildlife species are predictably available to replace fresh fur seal meat. Livestock meat shipped to the islands is extremely expensive, represents a dietary alternative rather than a replacement for fur seal meat, and is only available when air or barge service can deliver it. In addition, marine mammals such as fur seals are the culturally-preferred meat resource for Aleuts and other coastal Alaska Natives.
        Explanation of the Criteria Used To Evaluate Whether the Action Would Impose “Significant Economic Impacts”
        The proposed action will not place any small entities at a disadvantage relative to large entities or impose significant economic impacts on any small entities.
        The criteria recommended to determine the significance of the economic impacts of the action are profitability and disproportionality. The guidance states that “the concept of profitability may not be appropriate for a non-profit small organization or a small government jurisdiction.” Based on this guidance NMFS believes disproportionality is the appropriate standard given that the regulated entities are small government jurisdictions. No large entities are allowed to harvest northern fur seals; therefore the regulatory allowance for the small entities on St. Paul and St. George to harvest northern fur seals does not create a disproportionate impact that would disadvantage them.
        Explanation of the Criteria Used To Evaluate Whether the Action Would Impose Impacts on a “Substantial Number” of Small Entities
        The proposed action would not impose adverse economic impacts on any small entities. Because this action will not impose significant economic impacts on any small entities, it will not impose impacts on a substantial number of small entities. This action may have beneficial economic impacts on the directly regulated Alaska Native residents of St. Paul and St. George and will not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed action does not require the collection of information for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        Executive Order 13132—Federalism
        This proposed action does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132 because this action does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nonetheless, NMFS worked closely with local governments in the Pribilof Islands, and these estimates of subsistence use and need were prepared by the local governments in St. Paul and St. George, with assistance from NMFS officials.
        Executive Order 13175—Native Consultation
        Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 Note), the executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the American Indian Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30, 1995), the Department of Commerce's Tribal Consultation Policy (including the Department of Commerce Administrative Order 218-8, April 26, 2012), and the NOAA Procedures for Government-to-Government Consultation With Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (November 12, 2013) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-100 (188 Stat. 452) as amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 3267) extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native corporations. NMFS has contacted the tribal governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands and their respective local Native corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq) about setting the next three years' harvest estimates and received and considered their input.

          Dated: May 15, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-10089 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BJ49
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reclassifying Sculpin Species in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 121 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and Amendment 110 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) (collectively Amendments 121/110), to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendments 121/110 would reclassify sculpins in these fishery management plans (FMPs) under the ecosystem component (EC) category. This action is necessary to ensure sculpin species are accurately classified in the FMPs based on the best available scientific information. Amendments 121/110 are intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than May 22, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0004, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA- NMFS-2020-0004, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the draft Environmental Assessment and the Regulatory Impact Review (collectively referred to as the “Analysis”) prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council (council) submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendments 121/110 are available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

        Section 3.1.2 of the FMPs define two broad classifications for stocks or stock complexes (i.e., species or species groups). The first classification is for stocks “in the fishery” that include target stocks in need of conservation and management that fishers seek to catch, and non-target stocks in need of conservation and management that are caught incidentally during the pursuit of target stocks. The second classification is for EC species that do not require conservation and management, but may be listed in an FMP in order to achieve ecosystem management objectives. Under the groundfish FMPs, NMFS must establish an overfishing level (OFL), an acceptable biological catch (ABC), and a total allowable catch (TAC) for each stock or stock complex (i.e., species or species group) that is “in the fishery,” but not for those in the EC.
        The FMPs define the OFL as the catch level above which overfishing is occurring for a species or species group. NMFS manages fisheries in an effort to ensure that no OFLs are exceeded in any year. The FMPs define the ABC as the level of a species or species group's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty. The FMPs define the TAC as the annual catch target for a species or species group, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty.
        In 2010, Amendments 96/87 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, established the EC category and designated prohibited species (salmon, steelhead trout, crab, halibut, and herring) and forage fish species (as defined in Table 2c to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.20(i)) as EC species in the groundfish FMPs. Additional detail is provided in the final rule implementing Amendments 96/87 (75 FR 61639, October 6, 2010).
        In 2015, NMFS implemented Amendments 100/91 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, to add grenadiers to the EC category (80 FR 11897, March 5, 2015). The Council and NMFS added grenadiers to the FMPs in the EC category because grenadiers did not require conservation and management, but acknowledged their role in the ecosystem and limited the groundfish fisheries' potential impact on grenadiers. Adding grenadiers to the EC category allowed for improved data collection and catch monitoring appropriate for grenadiers given their abundance, distribution, and catch. Additional detail is provided in the final rule implementing Amendments 100/91 (80 FR 11897, March 5, 2015).
        In 2018, NMFS implemented Amendments 117/106 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, to add squids to the FMPs in the EC category because they were, similar to grenadiers, determined not to require conservation and management. Additional detail is provided in the final rule implementing Amendments 117/106 (83 FR 31460, July 6, 2018).
        Sculpins are currently classified as target species “in the fishery” in section 3.1.2 of the groundfish FMPs and directed fishing is allowed. However, sculpins are not a target species for any groundfish fishery in the BSAI or GOA. Sculpins are only caught incidentally to other target groundfish. Sculpins are incidentally caught primarily in the BSAI by trawl gear in directed fishing for yellowfin sole, rock sole, and Atka mackerel, as well as Pacific cod hook-and-line, pot, and trawl directed fishing (Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 of the Analysis). Sculpins are caught primarily in the GOA by Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish directed fishing, and IFQ halibut fisheries (Table 3-6 of the Analysis).
        For both the BSAI and GOA, sculpins are managed as a Tier 5 species, which is the least preferred method of specifying an overfishing limit when limited biological reference points are available. Only Tier 6 species, for which no biological reference points are available, are below Tier 5 in terms of limited information available. Nonetheless, specification of OFL for Tier 5 species reflects the best estimate possible for sculpins with the available data. As described in Section 3.2.3 of the Analysis, model estimates of sculpin abundance in the BSAI and GOA have been fairly stable over the years with no conservation concerns apparent.

        Stock assessments provide the scientific basis for determining whether a stock is experiencing overfishing (i.e. when a stock's recent harvest rate exceeds sustainable levels) or overfished (i.e. already depleted), and for calculating a sustainable harvest rate and forecasting catches that correspond to that rate. For stocks in Tiers 4-6, no determination can be made of overfished status or approaching an overfished condition as information is insufficient to estimate the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) stock level. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the sculpin complex is overfished or whether it is approaching an overfished condition because it is managed under Tier 5. However, in the absence of directed fishing, they are very unlikely to be overfished. Sculpins, in general, are not retained. As noted in Section 3.2.2 of the Analysis, sculpin catch has been substantially below ABC and OFL, and has been a small proportion of the biomass each year.

        Section 302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a council to prepare an FMP for each fishery under its authority that is in need of conservation and management. “Conservation and management” is defined in section 3(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The National Standard guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305(c) (revised on October 18, 2016, 81 FR 71858), provide direction for determining which stocks will require conservation and management and provide direction to regional councils and NMFS for how to consider these factors in making this determination. Specifically, the guidelines direct regional councils and NMFS to consider a non-exhaustive list of ten factors when deciding whether stocks require conservation and management.
        Section 2.2.1 in the Analysis considers each of the 10 factors' relevance to sculpins. The analysis shows that while sculpins are currently classified as a target species in the FMPs, there has been no directed fishing for sculpins since they were included in the FMPs. Sculpins are not important to commercial, recreational, or subsistence users, nor are they important to the National or regional economy. There are no developing fisheries for sculpins in the EEZ off Alaska nor in waters of the State of Alaska. Because there is no directed fishing and incidental fishing-related mortality is low, there is very little probability that sculpins will become overfished. Sculpins are not in need of rebuilding, and are not targeted as a major food product in Alaska. There are no conservation concerns for sculpins since they are not targeted, are rarely retained, and future uses of sculpins remain available. Maintaining sculpins as a target species in the BSAI and GOA FMPs is not likely to change stock condition.
        In October of 2019, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes Amendments 121/110 to reclassify sculpins as EC category species in the FMPs. Based on a review of the scientific information, and after considering the revised NS guidelines, the Council and NMFS determined that sculpins are not in need of conservation and management, and that classifying sculpins in the EC category is an appropriate action.
        While the Council determined that sculpins are not in need of conservation and management as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and after considering the revised NS guidelines, the Council and NMFS determined that there are benefits to retaining sculpins as an EC species complex in the FMPs because they are a part of the ecosystem as benthic predators.
        Amendments 121/110 would amend Section 3.1.2 of the FMPs to establish the sculpins EC species complex in the FMPs. Amendments 121/110 would allow NMFS to prohibit directed fisheries for sculpins and limit the retention and commercial exchange of sculpins. By virtue of being classified as EC species, catch specifications for sculpins (OFL, ABC, and TAC) would no longer be required.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendments 121/110 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendments 121/110, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        Respondents do not need to submit the same comments on Amendments 121/110 and the proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments or the proposed rule will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendments 121/110 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after end of the applicable comment period will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendments 121/110. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES).

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

          Dated: March 18, 2020.
          Hélène M.N. Scalliet,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-06065 Filed 3-20-20; 8:45 a.m.]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 300, 600 and 697
        [Docket No. 070717337-7338-01]
        RIN 0648-AV78
        General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Specifications for Boarding Ladders

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to require domestic fishing vessel operators to provide a U.S. Coast Guard-approved pilot ladder as a safer and more enforceable means for authorized personnel to board certain domestic fishing vessels in carrying out their duties under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, and other applicable fisheries laws and treaties. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of personnel boarding domestic fishing vessels, as current standards have proven to be inadequate. The proposed regulations would establish a safer and more enforceable national standard for ladders used by authorized officers for boarding domestic fishing vessels subject to Federal regulation.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received at the following address by January 10, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AV78,” by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: 301-713-1175, Attn: William D. Chappell.
          • Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Boarding Ladder Rule.”

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review (IRFA/RIR) may be obtained from the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William D. Chappell, 301-713-2337.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act established U.S. jurisdiction over the fishery resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS is responsible for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) prepared by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and for the FMP governing Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. While each Council prepares FMPs for those fishery resources within the Council's area of authority that require conservation, NMFS implements certain requirements common to all fisheries, such as facilitation of enforcement. Associated regulations are codified at 50 CFR parts 600 through 697.
        These general regulations to facilitate enforcement also apply to U.S. fishing vessels fishing under the requirements of other fisheries laws and treaties. For example, they apply to fishing activities subject to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act regulations at 50 CFR part 697. In addition, there are several international fisheries regimes in which U.S. fishing vessels participate, such as the Atlantic fisheries under conservation and management measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and implemented domestically by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 635. U.S. fishing vessels are regulated on the high seas and under other international fishing regimes, including the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, the North Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984, and a number of international treaties, including the 1972 Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Columbia Concerning the Status of Quita Sueno, Roncador and Serrana, and the 1981 Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges as amended in 2002.
        Current regulations at § 600.730(c)(3) require a fishing vessel to “provide a safe ladder” to be used for boarding purposes by authorized personnel including authorized officers (e.g., Coast Guard personnel, and Enforcement Agents), observers, and scientists enforcing regulations and documenting fishing effort at sea. However, a “safe boarding ladder” is not defined in regulations for domestic fishing vessels. This has led to fishing vessel operators providing a variety of ladders for boarding.
        Safety is compromised when authorized personnel use ladders that are inadequate. Within the last few years, several boarding officers fell into the water when the ladders provided for boarding failed or when they were inadequate to allow the boarding officer to maintain a grip on the ladder. This is a highly dangerous situation. Colliding with the fishing vessel, the small boat delivering the boarding party, and even the ladder itself can injure or kill a falling person or one in the water. In addition, especially in Alaskan and Northwestern Atlantic waters, cold water temperature can cause shock and the quick onset of hypothermia, which quickly becomes life threatening. Although boarding parties wear flotation gear, the threat of drowning through unconsciousness or entanglement in a ladder or other gear from the vessel are concerns.

        Some vessels have provided ladders wholly unsuited to boarding a vessel at sea, such as swimming pool ladders, aluminum step ladders, rigid wooden ladders, or metal rungs welded to the side of the vessel. While U.S. Coast Guard boarding parties can sometimes provide their own ladder, the process of rigging the ladder to the fishing vessel is slow and the ladder is bulky and hazardous to carry on board a small boat. In addition, observers transferring from one fishing vessel to another at sea cannot take a boarding ladder with them.
        NMFS proposes to require the use of a pilot ladder on all fishing vessels with a freeboard of 4 ft (1.25 m) or greater in order to provide an easily identifiable and obtainable ladder to provide safe means for personnel to embark and disembark vessels at sea.
        In addition to defining and requiring the use of a pilot ladder, this proposed rule would define the term “freeboard” with regard to this rule. This change would clarify the requirements of existing and proposed regulations. In some cases the term freeboard has been interpreted as the height of the lowest deck open to the weather (weather deck) from the water's surface. In other cases it has been considered as the height of the gunwale (railing around the weather deck bulwarks) from the water's surface. The difference between these two measurements can be from a few inches to over 6 feet (1.8 m). In order to make the regulations more useful and consistent, NMFS proposes to define freeboard as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel to the water's surface. Because some vessels have openings in the bulwarks specifically for embarking and debarking personnel, NMFS proposes that, where cut-outs are provided in the bulwarks for the sole purpose of personnel boarding, freeboard means the distance between the top of the lowest portion of the structure to the water's surface.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Small Entities Affected
        In determining the number of vessels that might be affected by this rule, NMFS and the Coast Guard first determined that vessels 65 ft (20.0 m) or greater in length have a freeboard (defined as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale to the water's surface) of 4 ft (1.25 m) or greater. While some vessels 65 ft (20.0 m) or greater in length may have a freeboard of less than 4 ft (1.25 m), NMFS assumed for purposes of this analysis that all of these vessels, as well as an unknown number of smaller vessels, would be required to carry a pilot ladder if this proposed rule were implemented. According to U.S. Coast Guard vessel documentation records, 6,050 documented fishing vessels are 65 ft (20 m) long or longer and could be affected by this requirement. Because some vessels already have ladders that would meet the new requirements, it is unlikely that all of the identified fishing vessels would need to purchase a ladder. Except for some large catcher-processor vessels, mostly engaged in the Alaska fisheries, these vessels are all considered small entities for the purpose of this rule.
        Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
        This rule has no reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
        Duplicating, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules
        This rule refers to 46 CFR subpart 163.003, which provides standards and approval and production tests for pilot ladders that would be required by this proposed rule. There are no conflicting rules.
        Alternatives Considered
        This action considered 5 alternatives including the preferred alternative and the status quo. The proposed alternative (proposed action) is to require the operators of all fishing vessels with a freeboard of over 4 feet (1.25 m) to provide a U.S. Coast Guard-approved pilot ladder for boarding parties, observers and other officials required to board the vessel. The term “pilot ladder” would replace the currently required “safe boarding ladder.” That term has been undefined and, as a result, fishing vessel operators have provided ladders that have been both inadequate and unsafe. Approved boarding ladders come in several approved versions and vary in cost. Typically, vessels would need a 10- or 12-foot (3.0 or 3.7 m) ladder that costs approximately $517-$620 for a wooden rung ladder, and $1,160-$1,392 for a synthetic rung ladder. The largest vessels may have to buy a longer ladder at a proportionate increase (approximately $50-$60 per foot) in cost. NMFS estimates the total cost to fishing vessel owners of this rule to be from $3,127,850 ($517 x 6,050 vessels) to $8,421,600 ($1,392 x 6,050 vessels).
        The second alternative is the status quo, or no change to the regulations. The status quo does not meet the objectives of the action. This alternative would not increase costs to fishermen; however, neither would it provide any increased safety to persons attempting to board fishing vessels at sea. The regulations would continue to be ambiguous and vessel operators may continue to provide unsafe ladders, resulting in delayed boardings and accidents, some of which could be serious or fatal.
        A third alternative considered would limit this requirement to Alaskan and Northwestern Atlantic waters where cold water and rough seas are common. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the action. The limitation would reduce the cost to fishermen, but would not reduce the hazard to boarding parties in the areas that are not subject to the requirements, since boardings are conducted in rough seas off all coasts and during all periods of the year. Therefore, limiting the extent of this requirement would compromise the safety of boarding parties in any areas of the EEZ that are not subject to the requirements.
        A fourth alternative would require vessels with a freeboard of 3 feet (0.9 m) or more to provide a ladder. Some reports from U.S. Coast Guard boarding parties indicate that ladders would facilitate boarding operations in those cases. NMFS rejected this alternative because of the marginal benefit in safety and the relative difficulty in determining the number of vessels that would have to obtain ladders.

        A fifth alternative would allow fishing vessel owners or operators to make their own ladders according to specifications found at 46 CFR subpart 163.003, without going through the procedures for CG approval. While fishermen could potentially make such ladders cheaper than buying them, the ladders would not be approved and there would be no assurance that they would actually perform as required. Therefore, this alternative was not adopted.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects

        50 CFR Part 300
        Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
        50 CFR Part 600
        Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
        50 CFR Part 697
        Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: December 4, 2007.
          John Oliver
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300, 600, and 697 are proposed to be amended as follows.

          CHAPTER III

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 973-973r, 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, 16 U.S.C. 3636(b), 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 300.2, add definitions for “freeboard” and “pilot ladder” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 300.2
          Definitions.

            Freeboard means the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel and the water's surface. Where cut-outs are provided in the bulwarks for the purpose of personnel boarding, freeboard means the distance between the top of the lowest portion of the cut-out and the water's surface.

            Pilot ladder means a flexible ladder constructed and approved to meet the U.S. Coast Guard standards for pilot ladders at 46 CFR subpart 163.003 entitled Pilot Ladder.

        3. In § 300.5, paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) are revised to read as follows:

          § 300.5
          Facilitation of enforcement.
          (c) * * *
          (3) Except for fishing vessels with a freeboard of 4 feet (1.25 m) or less, provide, when requested by an authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector, a pilot ladder capable of being used for the purpose of enabling the authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector to embark and disembark the vessel safely. The pilot ladder must be maintained in good condition and kept clean.
          (4) When necessary to facilitate the boarding or when requested by an authorized officer or CCAMLR inspector, provide a manrope or safety line, and illumination for the pilot ladder.

          CHAPTER VI

          PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

        4. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

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

        5. In § 600.10, add definitions for “freeboard” and “pilot ladder” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 600.10
          Definitions.

            Freeboard means the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel and the water's surface. Where cut-outs are provided in the bulwarks for the purpose of personnel boarding, freeboard means the distance between the top of the lowest portion of the cut-out and the water's surface.

            Pilot ladder means a flexible ladder constructed and approved to meet the U.S. Coast Guard standards for pilot ladders at 46 CFR subpart 163.003 entitled Pilot Ladder.

        6. In § 600.730, paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) are revised to read as follows:

          § 600.730
          Facilitation of enforcement.
          (c) * * *
          (3) Except for fishing vessels with a freeboard of 4 feet (1.25 m) or less, provide, when requested by authorized officer or observer personnel, a pilot ladder capable of being used for the purpose of enabling personnel to embark and disembark the vessel safely. The pilot ladder must be maintained in good condition and kept clean.
          (4) When necessary to facilitate the boarding or when requested by an authorized officer or observer, provide a manrope or safety line, and illumination for the pilot ladder.

          PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

        7. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

        8. In § 697.9, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 697.9
          Facilitation of enforcement.
          (a) General. See § 600.730 of this chapter.

      [FR Doc. E7-24008 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S