        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 080130104-8105-01]
        RIN 0648-AW46
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Renewal of Atlantic Tunas Longline Limited Access Permits; and, Atlantic Shark Dealer Workshop Attendance Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline limited access permits (LAPs) and amend the workshop attendance requirements for businesses issued Atlantic shark dealer permits. Specifically, the proposed regulatory changes would allow for the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs that have been expired for more than one year, if the most recent permit holder of record originally qualified for the Atlantic tunas LAP, or if the most recent permit holder of record subsequently obtained a permit by transfer, and has maintained the associated swordfish and shark LAPs through timely renewal. Also, this rule proposes to amend the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop requirements by: specifying that a workshop certificate be submitted and displayed for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, rather than from each location listed on their dealer permit; and requiring that a copy of a valid workshop certificate be possessed in a truck or other conveyance serving as an extension of a dealer's business.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 12, 2008. Public hearings will be held in May of 2008. See the preamble of this notice for specific dates, times, and locations.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Richard A. Pearson, Fishery Management Specialist, Highly Migratory Species Management Division. Please submit comments using any of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: “RIN 0648-AW46.”
          • Mail: NMFS HMS Management Division, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL, 33701. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed Tuna Permits/Workshops Rule.”
          • Fax: (727)824-5398.

          All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., 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.

          Related documents, including a 2007 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Final Rule (72 FR 31688, June 7, 2007) implementing revised vessel upgrading regulations for vessels concurrently issued Atlantic tunas longline, swordfish, and shark LAPs; and the 2006 Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP) and its Final Rule (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) implementing Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are available from the HMS Management Division website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms, or by contacting Richard A. Pearson (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
          The public hearings will be held in Gloucester, MA; Saint Petersburg, FL; and Silver Spring, MD. See the preamble of this notice for specific dates, times, and locations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Richard A. Pearson, by phone: 727-824-5399; by fax: 727-824-5398.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Atlantic tuna and swordfish fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Atlantic sharks are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
        Renewal of Atlantic Tunas Longline LAPs

        LAPs were first implemented in HMS fisheries in 1999, primarily to rationalize fleet harvesting capacity in Atlantic swordfish and shark fisheries with the available quota allocation for these species, and to facilitate other fishery management measures implemented at the time. The Atlantic tunas longline LAP was established because of the likelihood of encountering swordfish and sharks when fishing with pelagic longline (PLL) gear for Atlantic tunas, and vice-versa. In recognition of the interrelationship between these longline fisheries, the Atlantic tunas longline LAP complemented management measures in the swordfish and shark fisheries.
        Since 1999, vessel owners have been required to simultaneously possess three permits (Atlantic tunas longline; swordfish directed or incidental; and, shark directed or incidental) in order to retain Atlantic tunas caught with longline gear, or to retain swordfish caught with any gear other than handgear. An Atlantic tunas longline LAP is only considered valid, or useable, if the vessel has also been issued both a shark LAP and a swordfish LAP (other than handgear). Similarly, a swordfish LAP (other than handgear) is only considered valid, or useable, when a vessel has also been issued both a shark LAP and an Atlantic tunas longline LAP. The current regulations for each of these permits specify that only persons holding non-expired LAPs in the preceding year are eligible to renew those permits.
        During the recent implementation of revised vessel upgrading restrictions for PLL vessels (72 FR 31688, June 7, 2007), NMFS found that a number of vessel owners had inadvertently allowed their Atlantic tunas longline LAPs to lapse for more than one year, although their accompanying swordfish and shark LAPs had been maintained through timely renewal. This may have been because of differences in the operational aspects and renewal procedures between swordfish and shark LAPs, and Atlantic tunas longline LAPs. The Atlantic tunas longline permit renewal system was originally developed as a self-service, web-based electronic system that was administered by an off-site contractor for the primary purpose of issuing other open access permits. It was modified for the issuance of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs by requiring the applicant to either call a contracted customer service office (if there are no changes to the permit), or to call NMFS' Northeast Regional HMS office (if there are changes to the permit). The information is then entered online by the contractor or by NMFS, and the permit is issued using the on-line website. In contrast, swordfish and shark LAPs are administered and renewed by submitting paper applications to NMFS' Southeast Regional permit office. A significant difference between the two systems is that the Atlantic tunas longline LAP cannot be held in “no vessel” status. “No vessel” status allows a permit holder to retain a permit even if they no longer own a vessel. This is not the case with Atlantic tunas longline LAPs which cannot be renewed without specifying a vessel. An Atlantic tunas longline permit holder must either move the Atlantic tunas longline LAP to a replacement vessel or forfeit the permit. Many vessel owners were not aware of these options, or were confused by them, and let their Atlantic tunas longline LAP permit expire because they no longer owned a vessel even though they thought they remained eligible to renew the Atlantic tunas longline LAP.
        Another difference between the Atlantic tunas longline LAP and swordfish and shark LAPs is that the tunas longline LAP does not have a unique permit number associated with it that stays unchanged through time, whereas swordfish and shark LAPs do. Atlantic tunas permit numbers remain directly associated with a vessel's Coast Guard documentation or state registration number. Because of this, “ownership” of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP has been more difficult to track over time because the permit number changes with each transfer of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP to another vessel.
        The operational constraints, or differences, associated with the Atlantic tunas longline LAP permit system described above were not fully recognized until revised vessel upgrading regulations were implemented through a recent rulemaking. Specifically, the historical practices that had been used to adapt the electronic web-based Atlantic tunas permit system to the HMS limited access permit regulations were found to be deficient when NMFS was determining, in September 2007, which permit holders were issued, or were eligible to renew, an Atlantic tunas longline LAP. Due to these systematic operational constraints, the regulations governing the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs were administered differently than for swordfish and shark LAPs prior to September 2007. Furthermore, based upon public comment and statements received at HMS Advisory Panel (AP) meetings and other hearings, NMFS became aware of continuing uncertainty in the fishing industry regarding the renewal, issuance, and eligibility for the Atlantic tunas longline LAP and the applicability of the one-year renewal requirement. This proposed rule would amend the current regulations to better reflect the operational capabilities of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP permit renewal system and reduce the potential for future confusion.
        NMFS has identified approximately 40 vessels/permit holders that originally qualified for the Atlantic tunas longline LAP, or were subsequently transferred the permit, but are no longer eligible to renew the permit because it has been expired for more than one year. Most of these vessel/permit holders have concurrently been issued, or are eligible to renew, both their Atlantic swordfish LAP (other than handgear) and their shark LAP. However, because these permit holders are not eligible to renew their Atlantic tunas longline LAP, they are not allowed to retain any Atlantic swordfish, or any Atlantic tunas captured on longline gear. This exacerbates a situation where the number of available Atlantic tunas longline LAPs is insufficient to match the number of available swordfish and shark incidental or directed permits, thus rendering many swordfish permits essentially unusable because all three permits are required to retain swordfish (with any gear other than handgear).

        This proposed rule would amend the HMS regulations to remove the one-year renewal timeframe for Atlantic tunas longline LAPs. It would allow NMFS to issue Atlantic tunas longline LAPs to the most recent permit holder of record, even if they have failed to renew it within one year of expiration, provided that their associated swordfish and shark LAPs have been maintained through timely renewal and all other current requirements for permit renewal are met. The proposed rule would continue to specify that only persons holding non-expired swordfish and shark LAPs in the preceding year would be eligible to renew those permits. Also, the requirement to possess swordfish and shark LAPs in order to obtain an Atlantic tunas longline LAP would remain in effect. Finally, the current requirement to possess all three valid permits (incidental or directed swordfish and shark permits, and Atlantic tunas longline permit) to fish for tunas with PLL gear and to retain commercially-caught swordfish (other than with a commercial swordfish handgear permit) would remain unchanged. The proposed measures would not increase the number of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs beyond the number of permit holders that currently possess, or are eligible to renew, both their swordfish and shark LAPs.
        This proposed action is necessary to help ensure that an adequate number of complementary Atlantic tunas longline LAPs are available for swordfish and shark commercial permit holders to fish legally for Atlantic swordfish and tunas with PLL gear. The proposed measures would reinforce recent efforts by NMFS to “revitalize” the swordfish and tunas PLL fishery. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, this proposed rule would also help to provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S. vessels to more fully harvest the domestic swordfish quota, which is derived from the recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), in recognition that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is almost fully rebuilt (B = 0.99Bmsy). In doing so, the proposed action could help the United States retain its historic swordfish quota allocation at ICCAT, as domestic landings have been well below that quota in recent years.
        Atlantic Shark Dealer Workshop Requirements
        Current HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.8 require that permitted Atlantic shark dealers attend an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop and receive workshop certification. The purpose of this requirement is to improve the identification and reporting of shark species by dealers for accurate quota monitoring and stock assessments. If a dealer attends and successfully completes a workshop, the dealer will receive workshop certificates for each location listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. If the dealer sends a proxy, they must send a proxy for each location listed on the Atlantic shark dealer permit. Atlantic shark dealers may not renew their Atlantic shark dealer permit without submitting either a dealer or proxy certificate for each location listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Additionally, Atlantic shark dealers may not “first-receive” shark products at a location unless a valid workshop certificate is on the premises of each place of business listed under the shark dealer permit. As initially discussed in the proposed rule for Amendment 2 for the Management of Atlantic Shark Fisheries (July 27, 2007; 72 FR 41392), and anticipated to be contained in the final rule, “first-receive” means to take immediate possession of fish, or any part of a fish, as they are offloaded from the owner or operator of a vessel for commercial purposes.
        Since implementation of these requirements, NMFS has observed that some dealers may not be first receiving shark products at all of the locations listed on their permit, thus making it unnecessary to require shark workshop certification for those locations. These dealers have multiple locations listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit, including those where they may not first receive shark products. For example, a dealer may purchase red snapper at one location, and shark at another location. However, the dealer's shark permit lists both of these locations as owned by the dealer, including the snapper-only site, making it necessary for workshop certification at both the shark site and the snapper site. It is not currently feasible, for both technical and administrative reasons, to modify the NMFS permits database to accommodate dealers who have different locations where they first receive different species.
        To remedy this situation, NMFS is proposing a minor amendment to the HMS regulations which would specify that, when applying for or renewing an Atlantic shark dealer permit, an applicant must submit an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate (dealer or proxy) for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, rather than for each location listed on their dealer permit. This proposed action would eliminate the need for a dealer to send a proxy to a workshop to obtain a certificate for a business location that does not first receive Atlantic shark products for the sole purpose of renewing their Atlantic shark dealer permit. The requirement to display an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate would similarly only be required at locations listed on the dealer permit where sharks are first received. Additionally, NMFS proposes to require extensions of a dealer's business, such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit. This requirement would allow trucks and other conveyances to be immediately identified as extensions of a NMFS certified place of business which is eligible to first receive Atlantic sharks. With these minor amendments, the objective of improved identification and reporting of shark species is expected to continue, while the impact on dealers may be lessened.
        Clarification of Buoy Gear Usage
        NMFS proposes to make a technical clarification to refine the regulatory language describing buoy gear usage. It would reinforce existing language in the “prohibitions” section of the HMS regulations regarding which permit holders are authorized to utilize buoy gear. This clarification would not result in any substantive change to the buoy gear usage requirements. NMFS is proposing this minor change to address questions and comments received from constituents and to ensure consistency within the HMS regulations.
        Request for Comments

        Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted at public hearings, or via the federal e-Rulemaking portal, mail, or fax (see ADDRESSES). Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 12, 2008.
        Public Hearings

        NMFS will hold three public hearings to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding this proposed rule. These hearings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Richard A. Pearson at (727) 824-5399 at least five days prior to the hearing date. At the beginning of each meeting, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they register to speak; and the attendees should not interrupt one another, etc.). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose. Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the meeting. For individuals unable to attend a hearing, NMFS also solicits written comments on the proposed rule (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        The hearing dates and locations are:
        1. May 1, 2008, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m., NMFS Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
        2. May 6, 2008, 6 - 8 p.m., NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701.
        3. May 7, 2008, 3 - 5 p.m., NOAA Auditorium, 1301 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        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).
        In compliance with Section 603(b)(1) and (2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, to synchronize the number of available limited access swordfish, shark, and tunas longline permits to help provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S. vessels to harvest quota allocations recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), in recognition of the improved stock status of North Atlantic swordfish (B = 0.99Bmsy). The proposed action regarding the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs that have been expired for more than one year is necessary to help ensure that an adequate number of complementary Atlantic tunas longline LAPs are available for swordfish and shark LAP holders to fish legally for Atlantic swordfish and tunas with PLL gear.
        The proposed amendment regarding attendance requirements at Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops would specify that, for permit renewal, a dealer must submit an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate (dealer or proxy) for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, rather than from each location listed on their dealer permit. This would eliminate the need for a dealer to send a proxy to a workshop to obtain a certificate for a business location that does not first receive Atlantic shark products for the sole purpose of renewing their Atlantic shark dealer permit. The requirement to display an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate would similarly only be required at locations listed on the dealer permit where sharks are first received. The proposed measure is the preferred method to address this issue because it is not feasible, for both technical and administrative reasons, to modify the NMFS permits database to accommodate dealers having different locations where they first receive different species. Additionally, the proposed action would require extensions of a dealer's business, such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit. This requirement would allow trucks and other conveyances to be immediately identified as extensions of a NMFS- certified place of business which is eligible to first receive Atlantic sharks. The identification and reporting of shark species would not be compromised, but impacts on dealers would be lessened.
        Section 603(b)(3) requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The proposed action to modify permit renewal requirements for Atlantic tunas LAPs would most immediately impact approximately 40 vessel owners that are the most recent permit holders of record, but are currently not eligible to renew that permit because it has been expired for more than one year. Potentially, 245 vessel owners that are currently issued Atlantic tunas LAPs, as well as swordfish and shark LAPs, could be affected by this action if, in the future, they fail to renew their Atlantic tunas longline LAP within one year of expiration.
        Prior to the effective date of the shark workshop certificate requirement (December 2007), there were 186 individual Atlantic shark dealer permits issued by NMFS. Fifty-six of these individual dealers had multiple locations listed on their permit (ranging from two to 11 locations). As of February 6, 2008, 67 shark dealers had been issued workshop certificates for all of their locations. NMFS has identified 108 shark dealers that have not been issued any certificates for any locations. Finally, 12 of the 56 dealers with multiple locations listed on their permit have been issued at least one certificate, but not certificates for all of the locations listed on their permit. Thus, under the current regulations, they are not eligible to renew their shark dealer permit. These 12 Atlantic shark dealers who have not been issued proxy certificates for all of their locations would be most immediately affected by the proposed action regarding attendance requirements at Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops. Potentially, any of the 56 shark dealers with multiple locations listed on their permit could be impacted by the proposed action. All of the aforementioned businesses are considered small business entities according to the Small Business Administration's standard for defining a small entity.
        This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule does not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5).
        One of the requirements of an IRFA, under Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and that minimize any significant economic impacts (5 U.S.C. 603(c)). Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four categories for alternatives that must be considered. These categories are: (1) establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage for small entities.
        In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. In addition, none of the alternatives considered would result in additional reporting or compliance requirements (category two above). NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        NMFS considered two different alternatives to modify the renewal procedures for the Atlantic tunas longline LAP. The impacts and justification for the selection of the preferred alternative are described below.

        Alternative 1 for the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs (alternative 2.1.1 in the IRFA) is the No Action, or status quo alternative. Current HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.4(m)(2) specify that only persons holding a non-expired Atlantic tunas longline LAP in the preceding year are eligible to renew that permit. Under alternative 1, there would be no change in the existing regulations and, as such, no change in the current baseline economic impacts. However, the situation regarding the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs is unique. As discussed in the preamble, until September 2007, the regulations governing the renewal of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP were administered differently than for swordfish and shark LAPs. Since September 2007, the permit renewal regulations have been administered similarly. Thus, the No Action alternative would continue any existing economic impacts, but those impacts have only been in existence since September 2007.
        The No Action alternative is not preferred because it has the largest associated adverse economic impacts. Without an Atlantic tunas longline LAP, a permit holder is prohibited from fishing for tunas with longline gear and from retaining swordfish, even if the vessel has been issued a directed or incidental swordfish permit. As many as 40 commercial fishing vessels that have historically participated in the PLL fishery would continue to be prohibited from participating in the fishery, harvesting the U.S. swordfish quota, and creating jobs. Resultant lossess to the overall economy of as much as $7,842,280 in annual gross revenues would continue to occur under this alternative. Also, between $200,000 and $721,839 in fleet-wide lost net revenues would continue to occur, distributed among the 40 vessels that are impacted by this alternative. Each individual vessel owner would continue to lose from $0 to potentially over $100,000 in net revenues annually, depending upon the profitability of their business.
        Under Proposed Alternative 2 (preferred alternative 2.1.2 in the IRFA), NMFS would remove the one-year renewal timeframe for Atlantic tunas LAPs. This would allow the Agency to issue Atlantic tunas LAPs to the most recent permit holder of record, even if the permit had not been renewed within one year of expiration, provided that the associated swordfish and shark LAPs had been maintained through timely renewal and all other current requirements for permit renewal were met. The requirement to possess swordfish and shark LAPs in order to obtain an Atlantic tunas LAP would remain in effect. Also, current regulations which specify that only persons holding non-expired swordfish and shark LAPs in the preceding year are eligible to renew those permits would remain in effect.
        Relative to the No Action alternative, removing the one-year renewal timeframe for Atlantic tunas LAPs is projected to potentially increase net and gross revenues for approximately 40 vessel owners who are otherwise qualified to fish for swordfish and tunas with longline gear, except that they are currently ineligible to renew their Atlantic tunas longline LAP. Overall gross economic benefits could potentially increase as much as $7,842,280 under this alternative, relative to the baseline. Also, an overall fleet-wide increase in net revenues (profits) of approximately $200,000 to $721,839 could occur, distributed among the 40 vessels potentially impacted by this alternative. Under this alternative, each individual vessel owner could see an increase in annual net revenues ranging from $0 to potentially over $100,000, depending upon the profitability of their business.
        Another important economic benefit associated with the proposed action is that it could help to maintain the domestic swordfish and tuna PLL fishery at historical levels. All of the potentially affected vessels/permit holders originally qualified for the longline fishery in 1999, or received the necessary permits through transfer. If adopted, the proposed action could help the United States retain its historic swordfish quota allocation at ICCAT and sustain employment opportunities by maintaining the PLL fleet at historical levels. Maintaining a viable domestic PLL fishery is important, because it helps to demonstrate to other nations that a well-managed, environmentally-sound fishery can also be profitable. This could eventually provide an incentive for other nations to adopt similar management measures that are currently required of the U.S. PLL fleet such as circle hooks, careful release gears, and others.
        A related potential impact associated with both alternatives is that changes to the value of an Atlantic tunas longline LAP could occur by changing the supply of available permits. The no action alternative would likely reduce the supply of available permits over time, thereby increasing the value. The proposed action could initially increase the supply, and thereby reduce the value. These impacts would be either positive or negative for small business entities, depending upon whether the Atlantic tunas longline LAP was being bought or sold.
        There are no other significant alternatives for the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline permit, except for the two aforementioned alternatives. The proposed action achieves the objectives of this rulemaking, provides benefits to small entities, and has few associated impacts because the proposed regulatory changes are more representative of the actual operational capabilities of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP renewal system.
        Alternative 1 for attendance requirements at Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops (alternative 2.2.1 in the IRFA) is the no action alternative. All dealers intending to renew their Atlantic shark dealer permit would continue to be required to become certified at an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, or to have their proxies certified. Dealers with multiple locations would receive certificates for each location listed on their permit. Dealers opting not to become certified and to send a proxy would continue to be required to send a proxy for each location listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Atlantic shark dealers would not be allowed to renew their permit without submitting either a dealer or proxy certificate for each location listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Additionally, Atlantic shark dealers could not first receive shark products at a location that does not have a valid workshop certificate for that address on the premises.
        There are approximately 56 Atlantic shark dealers with more than one location listed on their permit. These dealers have the choice of becoming certified themselves, or sending a proxy to the workshops for each location listed on a permit. As described in the Consolidated HMS FMP and its final rule (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), on an individual basis the costs incurred by dealers and/or proxies are those related to travel and the time required to attend the workshops, which result in out of pocket expenses and lost opportunity costs. Travel costs to attend these workshops vary, depending upon the distance that must be traveled. Daily opportunity costs for dealers are not currently known. Therefore, it is not possible to precisely quantify the costs associated with the no action alternative. At a minimum, the costs for a dealer attending a workshop include travel expenses and at least one day of lost opportunity costs. At a maximum, for dealers opting to send proxies for each location listed on their permit, the costs could include travel expenses for several proxies and several days of lost opportunity costs.

        Alternative 2 for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop attendance requirements (preferred alternative 2.2.2 in the IRFA) would specify that, upon permit renewal, a dealer must submit an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate (dealer or proxy) for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, rather than from each location listed on their dealer permit. The requirement to display an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate would similarly only be required at locations listed on the dealer permit where sharks are first received. This would eliminate the need for a dealer to send a proxy to a workshop to obtain a certificate for a business location that does not first receive Atlantic shark products for the sole purpose of renewing their Atlantic shark dealer permit.
        As mentioned above, there are currently 56 shark dealers with multiple locations listed on their permit which could be impacted by the proposed action. Of these, 12 Atlantic shark dealers have not currently been issued Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificates for all of the locations listed on their permit.
        NMFS anticipates that the total costs (travel costs and opportunity costs) associated with proposed alternative 2 for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop attendance requirements would be lower than those associated with the no action alternative, but only for those Atlantic shark dealers that: (1) opt to send a proxy (or proxies) to the workshop; (2) have multiple locations listed on their permit; and, (3) only first receive shark products at some of the locations listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Costs would remain unchanged for shark dealers that do not meet these three criteria. For dealers that meet these criteria, the costs would be reduced by an amount equivalent to sending proxies for each location listed on the permit that do not first receive shark products. For example, if a dealer chooses to send proxies and has four locations listed on the permit, but only two of those locations first receive shark products, the costs would be reduced by the amount equivalent to sending two proxies to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop.
        Alternative 2 would also require extensions of a dealer's business, such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit. This requirement would allow trucks and other conveyances to be immediately identified as extensions of a NMFS certified place of business which is eligible to first receive Atlantic sharks. NMFS anticipates that this requirement would have minimal costs but could improve the enforceability of existing Atlantic shark regulations.
        There are no other significant alternatives for workshop attendance requirements except for these two alternatives. Administratively it is not currently feasible, for both technical and programmatic reasons, to modify the NMFS permits database to accommodate dealers having different locations where they first receive different species. The requirement to display an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate at all locations where sharks are first received would remain in effect. Therefore, the proposed alternative achieves the objective of improving the identification and reporting of shark species, while simultaneously lessening impacts on dealers. The proposed alternative will also improve the enforceability of existing Atlantic shark regulations by requiring extensions of a dealer's business, such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Management, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 7, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

        1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 635.4, paragraph (m)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 635.4
          Permits and fees.
          (m) * * *
          (2) Shark and swordfish LAPs. The owner of a vessel of the U.S. that fishes for, possesses, lands or sells shark or swordfish from the management unit, or that takes or possesses such shark or swordfish as incidental catch, must have the applicable limited access permit(s) issued pursuant to the requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. Only persons holding non-expired shark and swordfish limited access permit(s) in the preceding year are eligible to renew those limited access permit(s). Transferors may not renew limited access permits that have been transferred according to the procedures of paragraph (l) of this section.

        3. In § 635.8, paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c)(4) are revised to read as follows:

          § 635.8
          Workshops.
          (b) * * *
          (4) Dealers may send a proxy to the Atlantic shark identification workshops. If a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate at least one proxy, including at least one proxy from each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic shark by way of purchase, barter, or trade pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2). The proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports as required under § 635.5. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. If a proxy is no longer employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit, the dealer or another proxy must be certified as having completed a workshop pursuant to this section. At least one individual from each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade must possess a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate.

          (5) A Federal Atlantic shark dealer issued or required to be issued a shark dealer permit pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2) must possess and make available for inspection a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate at each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade. For the purposes of this part, trucks and other conveyances are considered to be extensions of a dealer's place of business and must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit. A copy of this certificate issued to the dealer or proxy must be included in the dealer's application package to obtain or renew a shark dealer permit. If multiple businesses are authorized to receive Atlantic sharks under the dealer's permit, a copy of the workshop certificate for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade must be included in the shark dealer permit renewal application package.

          (c) * * *
          (4) An Atlantic shark dealer may not first receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark without a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate. A valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate must be maintained on the premises of each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade. An Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal dealer permit issued pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2) unless a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate has been submitted with permit renewal application. If the dealer is not certified, the dealer must submit a copy of a proxy certificate for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade.

        4. In § 635.21, paragraph (e)(4)(iii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 635.21
          Gear operation and deployment restrictions.
          (e) * * *
          (4) * * *
          (iii) A person aboard a vessel issued or required to be issued a valid directed handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish may not fish for swordfish with any gear other than handgear. A swordfish will be deemed to have been harvested by longline when the fish is on board or offloaded from a vessel using or having on board longline gear. Only vessels that have been issued, or that are required to have been issued, a valid directed or handgear swordfish LAP under this part may utilize or possess buoy gear. Vessels utilizing buoy gear may not possess or deploy more than 35 floatation devices, and may not deploy more than 35 individual buoy gears per vessel. Buoy gear must be constructed and deployed so that the hooks and/or gangions are attached to the vertical portion of the mainline. Floatation devices may be attached to one but not both ends of the mainline, and no hooks or gangions may be attached to any floatation device or horizontal portion of the mainline. If more than one floatation device is attached to a buoy gear, no hook or gangion may be attached to the mainline between them. Individual buoy gears may not be linked, clipped, or connected together in any way. Buoy gears must be released and retrieved by hand. All deployed buoy gear must have some type of monitoring equipment affixed to it including, but not limited to, radar reflectors, beeper devices, lights, or reflective tape. If only reflective tape is affixed, the vessel deploying the buoy gear must possess on board an operable spotlight capable of illuminating deployed floatation devices. If a gear monitoring device is positively buoyant, and rigged to be attached to a fishing gear, it is included in the 35 floatation device vessel limit and must be marked appropriately.

        5. In § 635.71, paragraph (d)(14) is revised to read as follows:

          § 635.71
          Prohibitions.
          (d) * * *
          (14) Receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark without making available for inspection, at each of the dealer's places of business listed on the dealer permit which first receive Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate issued by NMFS in violation of § 635.8(b), except that trucks or other conveyances of the business must possess a copy of such certificate.

      [FR Doc. E8-7820 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FF09E21000 FXES11110900000212]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on three petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate status reviews of the Aztec gilia (Aliciella formosa), Clover's cactus (Sclerocactus cloverae), and Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi) to determine whether the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the species and factors that may affect their status. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month petition findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on May 11, 2021. As we commence our status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species or their habitats. Any information we receive during the course of our status reviews will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting information is available by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we are initiating status reviews, please provide those data or information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the “Search” button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species common
                name

              Contact person

              Aztec gilia

              Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 505-761-4781; shawn_sartorius@fws.gov.

              Clover's cactus

              Shawn Sartorius, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 505-761-4781; shawn_sartorius@fws.gov.

              Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee

              Sarah Conn, Project Leader, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 907-456-0499; sarah_conn@fws.gov.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., “list” a species), remove a species from the List (i.e., “delist” a species), or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (i.e., “reclassify” a species) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
        A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
        These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
        We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect individuals of a species negatively. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.

        If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act. If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the table below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting information, is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table—Status Reviews

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Aztec gilia
            FWS-R2-ES-2020-0095

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R2-ES-2020-0095.

            Clover's cactus
            FWS-R2-ES-2020-0096

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R2-ES-2020-0096.

            Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee
            FWS-R7-ES-2020-0097

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R7-ES-2020-0097.

        Evaluation of a Petition To List Aztec Gilia
        Species and Range
        Aztec gilia (Aliciella formosa); New Mexico.
        Previous Federal Actions
        On June 11, 2020, we received a petition dated May 29, 2020, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Aztec gilia be listed as an endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the Aztec gilia due to potential threats associated with the following: Oil and gas development, off-road vehicle use, and livestock grazing (Factor A); predation (Factor C); and climate change (Factor E). The petition also presented substantial information that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0095 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List Clover's Cactus
        Species and Range
        Clover's cactus (Sclerocactus cloverae); New Mexico, Colorado.
        Previous Federal Actions
        On June 11, 2020, we received a petition dated May 29, 2020, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Clover's cactus be listed as an endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the Clover's cactus due to potential threats associated with the following: Oil and gas development, off-road vehicle use, and livestock grazing (Factor A); illegal collection (Factor B); predation (Factor C); and climate change (Factor E). The petition also presented substantial information that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D). We will fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best available scientific information when making that finding.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0096 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee
        Species and Range
        Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi); Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New York; Canada: British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
        Previous Federal Actions
        On April 23, 2020, we received a petition dated April 23, 2020, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee be listed as an endangered species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee due to potential threats associated with the following: Livestock grazing and habitat loss from fire management (Factor A); disease or loss of hosts and potential host transmission (Factor C); pesticide use for bark beetle management, agricultural intensification, effects of climate change, loss of genetic diversity, and synergistic effects (Factor E). The petition also presented substantial information that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D). We will fully evaluate these potential threats during our 12-month status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best available scientific information when making that finding.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2020-0097 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for Aztec gilia, Clover's cactus, and Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating status reviews of these species to determine whether the actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue findings, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Martha Williams,
          Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-09707 Filed 5-10-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 09-606; MB Docket No. 09-34; RM-11522]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Bryan, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a channel substitution proposed by Comcorp of Bryan License Corp. (“Comcorp”), the licensee of station KYLE-DT, post-transition DTV channel 29, Bryan, Texas. On June 20, 2008, Comcorp filed a petition for rulemaking in which it requested permission to substitute DTV channel 29 for its originally assigned DTV channel 28 at Bryan, as well to move its transmitter location and make associated technical changes. The staff granted the request on November 5, 2008.1
             By this petition, Comcorp seeks permission to return to its previously allotted DTV channel 28 at its original technical specifications.2

              1 Bryan, Texas, 23 FCC Rcd 16440 (Vid. Div. 2008).

              2 Comcorp is filing a new petition for rulemaking because the time period for filing a petition for reconsideration of the original amendment to the Post-Transition DTV Table of Allotments has expired.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 10, 2009, and reply comments on or before April 20, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Scott S. Patrick, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-6802.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David J. Brown, david.brown@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 09-34, adopted March 16, 2009, and released March 17, 2009. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via e-mail http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

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

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

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

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

            § 73.622(i)
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding DTV channel 28 and removing DTV channel 29 at Bryan.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Clay C. Pendarvis,
            Associate Chief, Video Division,  Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E9-6638 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 083002C]
        Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Public hearing meetings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is currently developing Amendment 13 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP), pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended.   The Council will hold a series of public hearings to solicit comments on proposals to be included in Amendment 13. The intended effect of this action is to alert interested public of the commencement of this hearing process and to provide for public participation.

          DATES:

          Written comments will be accepted through 5 p.m. October 15, 2002.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific location and dates of the public hearings.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send  comments to Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904.  When submitting comments, identify correspondence as “Comments on Draft Amendment 13.”  Copies of the public hearing document and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 13 may be obtained from the Council. Hearings will be held in Maine, New Jersey, and Delaware.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific locations.  Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 302-674-2331, ext. 19.>:

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council proposes to take action to implement  Amendment 13 to the FMP.  Amendment 13 addresses five major issues:  (1) a new surfclam overfishing definition; (2) fishing gear impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH); (3) multi-year quotas; (4) suspension of the surfclam minimum size limit; and (5) a vessel monitoring-type system.

        In conjunction with the development of Amendment 13, the Council prepared a DEIS under the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the potential effects of the proposed action, and the alternatives to those actions, on the human environment.  A Notice of Availability for the DEIS for Amendment 13 was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2002 (67 FR 55838).  The 45-day comment period for the DEIS ends on October 15, 2002.  Copies of the DEIS can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        Once it has considered public comments, the Council will approve final management measures and prepare a submission package for NMFS.  There will be an additional opportunity for public comment when the Notice of Availability and the proposed rule for Amendment 13 are published in the Federal Register.
        Public Hearings
        The dates, times, and locations of the hearings are scheduled as follows:
        1.  Tuesday, September 24, 2002,  beginning at 7 p.m.—University of Maine, Science Building, Room 102, Machias, ME;  telephone:  207-255-1289.
        2.  Monday, September 30, 2002, beginning at 7 p.m.—Clarion Hotel and Convention Center, 6821 Black Horse Pike, Atlantic City, NJ;   telephone: 609-272-0200.
        3.  Wednesday, October 2, 2002, beginning at 7 p.m.—Holiday Inn Select, 630 Naamans Road, Claymont, DE; telephone: 302-791-4603. This hearing will be in conjunction with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's October meeting at the same location.
        Special Accommodations
        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Mid-Atlantic Council's office at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.

          Dated: August 30, 2002.
          Virginia M. Fay,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-22836 Filed 9-6-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S