        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA No. 01-565, MM Docket No. 01-64, RM-10074]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Monticello, Maine

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition filed by Allan H. Wiener proposing the allotment of Channel 234A at Monticello, Maine, as that community's first local FM service. The coordinates for Channel 234A at Monticello are 46-24-20 and 67-50-45. There is a site restriction 10.8 kilometers (6.7 miles) north of the community. Canadian concurrence will be requested for the allotment of Channel 234A at Monticello as a specially negotiated short-spaced allotment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 23, 2001, and reply comments on or before May 8, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Allan H. Wiener, East Road, Monticello, Maine 04760.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-64, adopted February 21, 2001, and released March 2, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 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 contact.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio 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 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Maine, is amended by adding Monticello, Channel 234A.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-6243 Filed 3-13-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-U


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 071203794-8828-01]
        RIN 0648-AW36
        Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence Fishing

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations that amend the subsistence fishery rules for members of an Alaska Native tribe eligible to harvest Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska for customary and traditional use. The proposed change would correct the location listed in the regulations for the Village of Kanatak tribe and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) halibut regulatory area (Area) in which members may subsistence fish. These regulations correctly define the headquarters and Area for the Village of Kanatak tribe. The action would change the tribe's headquarters from Egegik to Wasilla and the corresponding Area from 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the correction is to remove restrictions on participation of tribal members in traditional subsistence fisheries for Pacific halibut by aligning the tribe's headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than September 3, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AW36” by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          All comments received are a part of the public record and will 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 (enter “N/A” in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments must be in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats to be accepted.

          Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; and via the Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.noaa.fakr.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background and Need for Action

        The United States and Canada participate in the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and promulgate regulations governing the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) fishery under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. convention waters that are in agreement with the Halibut Act may be developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). Regulations recommended by the Council must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce before being implemented through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Council prepared an environmental assessment/regulatory impact review (EA/RIR) for subsistence halibut fisheries, in January 2003, and NMFS published the final rule to implement subsistence halibut regulations in April 2003 (68 FR 18145). The Alaska Native tribe, Village of Kanatak is recognized in the regulations as an organized tribal entity with its tribal headquarters located in Egegik, Alaska within halibut regulatory area 3A. However, the tribe's headquarters are actually located in Wasilla, Alaska in halibut regulatory area 4E. The initial assignment of the tribal headquarters location to Egegik was incorrect.

        The lists of rural communities and native tribes recommended by the Council and approved by the Secretary for subsistence fishing eligibility were derived from positive customary and traditional findings for halibut and bottomfish made by the Alaska State Board of Fisheries (BOF) prior to the Alaska Supreme Court decision, McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989). The Council retains exclusive authority to recommend changes to the list of communities § 300.65(g)(1) and Alaska Native tribes § 300.65(g)(2) with customary and traditional uses of Pacific halibut. Residents and tribal members who believe that their rural or tribal place was incorrectly left out of the subsistence eligibility listing for communities or Alaska Native tribes, or who are seeking eligibility for the first time, are encouraged to seek a customary and traditional finding from the BOF before petitioning the Council.
        The Proposed Action
        In June 2007, the Council received a request from the Kanatak Tribal Council to have its fishing area corrected from Area 4E to Area 3A, because the current, erroneous, listing has prevented the same tribal members from participating in traditional subsistence fisheries. The Council recognized this difference and responded by recommending an amendment to § 300.65(g)(2) to change the listing for the Village of Kanatak's headquarters from Egegik to Wasilla and update the corresponding halibut regulatory area from Area 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the correction is to remove restrictions on individual participation by aligning the tribe's headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla.
        Individual persons are eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if they are rural residents of a community or a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Communities and tribes are listed in tables by Halibut Regulatory Areas at § 300.65(g)(1) and (2), respectively. A person subsistence fishing for halibut also must hold a valid Subsistence Halibut Area Registration Certificate (SHARC) in that person's name issued by NMFS. An individual holding a SHARC that resides in a rural area may harvest subsistence halibut in all waters in and off Alaska except for areas designated as non-subsistence areas. The four non-subsistence areas specified in regulation at § 300.65(h)(3) are the Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage/-Matsu/-Kenai, and Valdez non-subsistence areas (see Figures 2 through 5 to subpart E of part 300). Under this action, there would be no change to rural eligibility criteria to subsistence fish for halibut in any halibut regulatory area in waters in and off the State of Alaska.
        A non-rural Alaska resident or a resident of another state who is a member of a tribe that is located in a rural area is limited to subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or her area of tribal membership (§ 300.65(h)(4)(i) and (ii)). The “area of tribal membership” is defined at § 300.65(h)(4)(iii) as “rural areas of the [IPHC] regulatory area or of the Bering Sea closed area in which the Alaska Native tribal headquarters is located.” The area of tribal membership for the Kanatak tribe is currently Area 4E. The action would align the Village of Kanatak's tribal headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla in Area 3A and effectively changes area restrictions on some members of the tribe to conduct subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed action is expected to redistribute some tribal members' harvesting effort from Area 4E to fishing areas in Area 3A. Waters in Area 3A include two non-subsistence areas that are closed to subsistence fishing: the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area and the Valdez non-rural area.
        Moving the place of the Kanatak tribal headquarters to Wasilla is expected to increase customary and traditional uses of halibut by individual members of the tribe in Area 3A. Wasilla is a community in the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area within Area 3A where a majority of Kanatak tribal members reside. Non-rural and non-resident members of the Kanatak tribe may increase subsistence halibut use in Area 3A because they would have greater access to subsistence fishing areas through Anchorage, central Alaska's main transportation hub that is connected to road systems throughout much of Area 3A.
        The action would improve accuracy of current regulations, and the quality of subsistence halibut information for non-rural tribal members, by correctly recognizing the location of the tribe's headquarters in Wasilla. This correction improves area specific data collected by the State of Alaska subsistence halibut survey and analyzed for reporting subsistence harvest and effort in Alaska.
        Classification
        Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. The proposed action is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off Alaska.
        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), and the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law (P.L.) 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of P.L. 109-447 (118 Stat. 3267), extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native corporations. NMFS has special obligations to consult and coordinate with tribal governments and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations on a government-to-government basis. This rule affects individual members of the Village of Kanatak tribe, but not the tribe itself, and the village of Kanatak is not recognized as an ANCSA corporation. NMFS recognizes the importance of communication and during the process of developing the proposed action, NMFS consulted with the Alaska Native Subsistence Halibut Working Group in December 2007 and the Kanatak Tribal Administrator in January 2008.
        The proposed rule was determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          Basis and purpose of rule

          The United States and Canada participate in the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and promulgate regulations governing the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) fishery under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. convention waters that are in agreement with the Halibut Act may be developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). The Secretary of Commerce must approve regulations recommended by the Council before implementation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Council prepared an environmental assessment/regulatory impact review (EA/RIR) for subsistence halibut fisheries, in January 2003, and NMFS published the final rule to implement subsistence halibut regulations in April 2003 (68 FR 18145). The Alaska Native tribe, Village of Kanatak is recognized in the regulations as an organized tribal entity with its tribal headquarters located in Egegik, Alaska within halibut regulatory area 3A. However, the tribe's headquarters are actually located in Wasilla, Alaska in halibut regulatory area 4E. The initial assignment of the tribal headquarters location to Egegik was incorrect.

          In June 2007, the Council received a request from the Kanatak Tribal Council to have its fishing area corrected from Area 4E to Area 3A, because the current, erroneous, listing has prevented the same tribal members from participating in traditional subsistence fisheries. The Council recognized this difference and responded by recommending an amendment to § 300.65(g)(2) to change the listing for the Village of Kanatak's headquarters from Egegik to Wasilla and update the corresponding halibut regulatory area from Area 4E to Area 3A. The intent of the correction is to remove restrictions on individual participation by aligning the tribe's headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla.
          Individual persons are eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if they are rural residents of a community or a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Communities and tribes are listed in tables by Halibut Regulatory Areas at § 300.65(g)(1) and (2), respectively. A person subsistence fishing for halibut also must hold a valid Subsistence Halibut Area Registration Certificate (SHARC) in that person's name issued by NMFS. An individual holding a SHARC that resides in a rural area may harvest subsistence halibut in all waters in and off Alaska except for areas designated as non-subsistence areas. The four non-subsistence areas specified in regulation at § 300.65(h)(3) are the Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage/-Matsu/-Kenai, and Valdez non-subsistence areas (see Figures 2 through 5 to subpart E of part 300). Under this action, there would be no change to rural eligibility criteria to subsistence fish for halibut in any halibut regulatory area in waters in and off the State of Alaska.
          A non-rural Alaska resident or a resident of another state who is a member of a tribe that is located in a rural area is limited to subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or her area of tribal membership (§ 300.65(h)(4)(i) and (ii)). The “area of tribal membership” is defined at § 300.65(h)(4)(iii) as “rural areas of the [IPHC] regulatory area or of the Bering Sea closed area in which the Alaska Native tribal headquarters is located.” The area of tribal membership for the Kanatak tribe is currently Area 4E. The action would align the Village of Kanatak's tribal headquarters with its actual location in Wasilla in Area 3A and effectively changes area restrictions on some members of the tribe to conduct subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed action is expected to redistribute some tribal members' harvesting effort from Area 4E to fishing areas in Area 3A. Waters in Area 3A include two non-subsistence areas that are closed to subsistence fishing: the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area and the Valdez non-rural area.
          Moving the place of the Kanatak tribal headquarters to Wasilla is expected to increase customary and traditional uses of halibut by individual members of the tribe in Area 3A. Wasilla is a community in the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural area within Area 3A where a majority of Kanatak tribal members reside. Non-rural and non-resident members of the Kanatak tribe may increase subsistence halibut use in Area 3A because they would have greater access to subsistence fishing areas through Anchorage, central Alaska's main transportation hub that is connected to road systems throughout much of Area 3A.
          Factual Basis for the Certification
          Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule applies
          The action would not directly regulate any small entities. Small entities have the same definition as small business, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions in Section 601(3)-(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. Instead, the action would directly regulate individual persons who are not considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA.
          An individual member of the Village of Kanatak tribe would be directly regulated by the action if he or she is: (a) a non-rural resident of Alaska or a resident of a state other than Alaska; and (b) subsistence fishing for halibut (§ 300.65(h)(4)(i)-(iii)). Even though there are typically a number of individuals in a tribe they are regulated as individual persons and not collectively as evidenced by the distinction of residency. The Village of Kanatak would be the only Alaska Native tribe whose non-rural and non-resident members would be directly regulated by the proposed rule.
          All of the persons that would be directly regulated by the action are natural persons. The subsistence halibut regulation at § 300.65(g)(2) specifies that “A person is eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if he or she is a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and traditional uses of halibut listed [in the table in this paragraph].” The Village of Kanatak is listed in the table and individual members of the tribe are recognized as natural persons eligible to harvest subsistence halibut. Moreover, all of the members of the Kanatak Tribe are natural persons as direct descendents of individuals counted in a census carried out in Kanatak in 1924 (Olivier, pers. comm.). The regulations further specify at § 300.61 that halibut caught for subsistence purposes are defined as halibut caught by a rural resident or a member of an Alaska Native tribe for direct personal or family consumption as food, sharing for personal or family consumption as food, or customary trade. While there is no clear requirement in the regulations that a “rural resident” or a “member of an Alaska Native tribe” be a natural person, the regulations clearly anticipate that they will be.
          The definition of small entity, distinction of individual tribal members, and declaration of natural persons combined provide the factual basis for asserting no small entities are directly regulated by the action.
          Description and estimate of economic impact on small entities by entity size and industry
          No small entities are directly regulated by the proposed rule. Therefore, there are no economic impacts on directly regulated small entities.
          Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule would impose impacts on “a substantial number of small entities”
          The criteria used to determine whether or not small entities are directly regulated by this action are the definitions of a small business, small organization, small governmental jurisdiction, and small entity in 601(3), (4), (5), and (6) of the RFA, and the definition of a business concern at 13 CFR 121.105.
          Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule would impose “significant economic impacts”
          Because this action will not directly regulate any small entities, no criteria were necessary to make a determination of whether or not the action would have significant economic impacts on directly regulated entities.
          Description of and basis for assumptions used
          The finding that no small entities would be directly regulated by this action is based on the definition of small entities in the RFA and implementing regulations, a determination that only individual members of the Kanatak Tribe would be directly regulated, and a determination that all individual tribal members are natural persons, and not entities, as contemplated by the statute and regulations. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

        Because there will not be a substantial impact on a significant number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects for 50 CFR Part 300
          Alaska, Alaska Natives, Fisheries, Fishing, Pacific halibut fisheries, Tribes.

          Dated: July 29, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 300 as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
          2. In § 300.65, in paragraph (g)(2):
          A. In the table for Halibut Regulatory Area 3A, add in alphabetical order an entry for “Wasilla”.
          B. In the table for Halibut Regulatory Area 4E, revise the entry for “Egegik”.
          The addition and revision read as follows.

          § 300.65
          Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in waters in and off Alaska.
          (g) * * *
          (2) * * *

          Halibut Regulatory Area 3A

              Place with Tribal Headquarters
              Organized Tribal Entity

              * * * * * * *

              Wasilla
              Village of Kanatak

              * * * * * * *

          Halibut Regulatory Area 4E

              Place with Tribal Headquarters
              Organized Tribal Entity

              * * * * * * *

              Egegik
              Egegik Village

              * * * * * * *

      [FR Doc. E8-17814 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [FRL-7922-7]
        Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The of State Louisiana has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Louisiana. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Send your written comments by July 11, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the State of Louisiana during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-6444 ; or Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number (225) 219-3559. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alima Patterson (214) 665-8533.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations'section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: May 13, 2005.
          Lawrence E. Starfield,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 05-11468 Filed 6-9-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [AZ 078-0035; FRL-6954-7]
        Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is reopening the comment period for action proposed on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79037) regarding revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 16, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On December 18, 2000, EPA proposed the following revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Proposed action

            Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
            R18-2-702
            Disapproval.

        The proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. In response to a request from Gallagher & Kennedy, PA, submitted by letter on January 16, 2001, EPA is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days.

          Dated: March 5, 2001.
          Michael Schulz,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 01-6568 Filed 3-15-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 205, 212, 225, and 252
        RIN 0750-AI51
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Acquisition of the American Flag (DFARS Case 2015-D005)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and FY 2015 that prohibit use of funds made available under the acts for the purchase or manufacture of a flag of the United States, unless such flag is manufactured in the United States.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 27, 2015, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2015-D005, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2015-D005” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2015-D005.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2015-D005” on your attached document.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2015-D005 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to implement sections 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division C, Title VIII of Pub. L. 113-76) and section 8119 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (Division C, Title VIII of Pub. L. 113-235). These sections prohibit the use of funds appropriated under those acts for the purchase or manufacture of a flag of the United States unless such flag is treated as a covered item under 10 U.S.C. 2533a(b) (commonly known as the Berry Amendment). With some exceptions, the Berry Amendment restricts the purchase of certain items of food, clothing, fabrics, and hand or measuring tools (whether as end products or components), unless the items have been grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        The Berry Amendment is implemented in DFARS 225.7002 and associated clauses DFARS 252.225-7012 and 252.225-7015.
        This rule proposes to amend DFARS 225-7002-1, 225-7002-2, and 225.7002-3, and add a new clause at 252.225-70XX, Acquisition of the American Flag. Conforming changes are also required in DFARS 212.301(f) to apply the new clause to the acquisition of commercial items. Since most, if not all, flags are commercial items, this statute would be without affect if not applied to commercial items. Furthermore, this is an appropriations act restriction, which specifically prohibits the expenditure of any funds appropriated under these acts, unless the flags to be acquired are manufactured in the United States (regardless of whether the flags are commercial items.)
        III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. based on a review of historical purchasing data. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:
        This rule is necessary to implement sections 8123 and 8119 of the DoD Appropriations Acts for FYs 2014 and 2015, respectively, and the same provision in subsequent DoD appropriations acts.
        The objective of the rule is to prohibit acquisition of a flag of the United States (Product or Service Code 8345), unless such flag, including the materials and components thereof, is manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2533a. The legal basis for the rule is sections 8123 and 8119 of the DoD Appropriations Acts for FYs 2014 and 2015 (Division C of Pub. Laws 113-76 and 113-235, respectively.
        Based on FY 2013 Federal Procurement Data System data, there was only one acquisition of flags from a small business that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold. There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The rule only requires that if a contractor is to provide flags of the United States to DoD under a contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the flags must be manufactured in the United States.
        The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no significant alternatives that meet the requirement of the statute.
        DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015-D005), in correspondence.
        V. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 205, 212, 225, and 252
          Government procurement.

          Manuel Quinones,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, 48 CFR parts 205, 212, 225, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for parts 205, 212, 225, and 252 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

          PART 205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

            205.301
             [Amended]

        2. Amend section 205.301, in paragraph (a)(S-70)(i) introductory text by removing “225.7002-1(a)(2) through (10)” and adding “225.7002-1(a)(1)(ii) through (x)” in its place.

          PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

        3. Amend section 212.301, by adding paragraph (f)(ix)(CC) to read as follows:

          212.301
          Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.
          (f) * * *
          (ix) * * *
          (CC) Use the clause at 252.225-70XX, Acquisition of the American Flag, as prescribed in 225.7002-3(c), to comply with section 8123 of the DoD Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, Division C, Title VIII), and the same provision in subsequent DoD appropriations acts.

          PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

        4. Revise the section 225.7002 heading to read as follows:

          225.7002
           Restrictions on food, clothing, fabrics, hand or measuring tools, and flags.

        5. Amend section 225.7002-1 by—
        a. Redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as (1) and (2), respectively;
        b. Redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a);
        c. In the newly redesignated paragraph (1), further redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as (1)(i) through (x), respectively;
        d. In the newly redesignated paragraph (1)(iii), further redesignating paragraphs (i) through (iii) as paragraphs (1)(iii)(A) through (C), respectively;
        e. In the newly redesignated paragraph (1)(x), removing “(Federal Supply Class 8465)” and adding “(Product or Service Code (PSC) 8465)” in its place, and removing “paragraph (a)” and adding “paragraph (a)(1)” in its place;
        f. In the newly redesignated paragraph (2), removing “see PGI 225.7002-1(b)” and adding “see PGI 225.7002-1(a)(2)” in its place; and
        g. Adding a new paragraph (b).
        The addition reads as follows:

          225.7002-1
           Restrictions.

          (b) In accordance with section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, Division C, Title VIII), and the same provision in subsequent Defense appropriations acts, except as provided in 225.7002-2, do not acquire a flag of the United States (PSC 8345), unless such flag, including the materials and components thereof, is manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2533a.

          225.7002-2
           [Amended]

        6. Amend section 225.7002-2 by—
        a. In paragraph (l), removing “Section 8118” and adding “section 8118” in its place;
        b. In paragraph (m)(1)(i), removing “Federal Supply Group” and adding “Product or Service Group (PSG)” in its place;
        c. In paragraph (m)(1)(ii), removing “Federal Supply Group” and adding “PSG” in its place in two places; and
        d. In paragraph (m)(1)(iv), removing “Federal Supply Class” and adding “PSC” in its place.
        7. Amend section 225.7002-3 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

          225.7002-3
           Contract clauses.

          (c) Use the clause at 252.225-70XX, Acquisition of the American Flag, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that are for the acquisition of the American flag, with an estimated value that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        8. Add section 252.225-70XX to read as follows:

          252.225-70XX
           Acquisition of the American Flag.
          As prescribed in 225.7002-3(c), use the following clause:

            ACQUISITION OF THE AMERICAN FLAG (DATE)
            (a) Definition. United States, as used in this clause, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas.
            (b) If the Contractor is required to deliver under this contract one or more American flags (Product or Service Code 8345), such flag(s), including the materials and components thereof, shall be manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2533a (commonly known as the “Berry Amendment”).

            (c) This clause does not apply to the acquisition of any end items or components related to flying or displaying the flag (e.g., flagpoles and accessories).

          (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. 2015-03857 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 102006A]
        New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Rescheduling of a public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          NOAA Fisheries Service and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) have rescheduled a public hearing on a draft amendment that would establish standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) for every fishery management plan (FMP). The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) previously announced public hearings and requested comment on the draft amendment (October 31, 2006). The New England Fishery Management Council's (NEFMC) hearing date is unchanged.

          DATES:

          The MAFMC's public hearing will be on December 13, 2006, in New York City, NY. The NEFMC's public hearing will be on November 14, 2006, in Gloucester, MA. Written comments must be received at the appropriate address, e-mail address, or fax number (see ADDRESSES) by 5 p.m., local time, on December 29, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          NMFS and the Councils will accept comments at two public hearings. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. You may submit comments on the draft amendment by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: SBRMcomment@noaa.gov

          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on SBRM Amendment.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attention: Patricia A. Kurkul.

          Copies of the draft SBRM amendment and the public hearing document may be obtained by contacting the NMFS Northeast Regional Office at the above address. The documents are also available via the internet at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/com.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-6283.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The initial notice of the public hearings by both Councils was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006, (71 FR 63749). The New York City hearing has been moved one day to relieve a scheduling conflict.
        Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations
        The public hearings have been scheduled to coincide with the date and location of New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meetings.
        Tuesday, November 14, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. - Tavern on the Harbor, 30 Western Ave., Gloucester, MA 01930, telephone: (978) 283-4200.
        Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 7 p.m. - Skyline Hotel, 725 10th Ave, New York, NY 10019, telephone: (212) 586-3400.
        Special Accommodations
        These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids at the Gloucester, MA, meeting should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Requests for such services at the New York, NY, meeting should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 674 2331 extension 18. Requests for accessibility accommodations must be received at least at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

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

          Dated: November 09, 2006.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-19398 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 18
        RIN 1018-AT48
        Marine Mammals; Native Exemptions

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to amend regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended. This action would revise our existing definition of “authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing” to reflect a December 28, 1992, Court ruling, which found that our regulation defining “authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing” is inconsistent with the MMPA.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments on the proposed rule if received by August 3, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

          • By mail or hand-delivery to: Diane Bowen, Division of Federal Program Activities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Native Handicrafts, Room 400, ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

          • By fax to: (703) 358-1869, Attention: Diane Bowen.
          • By Internet, electronic mail by sending to: FW9MMM@fws.gov. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AT48” and your name and return address in your Internet message subject header. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Resource Management Support, (703) 358-2161.
          Background information and any comments that we receive on this action are available for inspection during normal business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Program Activities, Room 400, Arlington Square, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. To be sure someone is available to help you, please call (703) 358-2161 before visiting.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Diane Bowen, Division of Federal Program Activities, in Arlington, Virginia, at 703/358-2161.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        After passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, we promulgated regulations at 50 CFR part 18 to implement this authority. We included in our proposed regulations a definition similar to that in section 101(b)(2) of the MMPA for “authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing” (37 FR 25524; December 1, 1972), part of which read:

          . . . items composed wholly or in some significant respect of natural materials, and which are produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional native handicrafts. Traditional native handicrafts include, but are not limited to weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, and painting, so long as the use of pantographs, multiple carvers, or similar mass copying devises, or other improved methods of production utilizing modern implements, such as sewing machines, are not utilized. . .

        The final rule (37 FR 28173; December 21, 1972) added the requirement that these items must be “commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972” and read:

          . . . items which (a) were commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972, and (b) are composed wholly or in some significant respect of natural materials, and (c) which are produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional native handicrafts without the use of pantographs, multiple carvers, or similar mass copying devises, or other improved methods of production utilizing modern implements, such as sewing machines. Traditional native handicrafts include, but are not limited to weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, and painting.

        Although our MMPA implementing regulations were published on December 21, 1972, as a final rule, we invited the public to provide comments, suggestions, and objections for a 60-day period. Based on comments received, we issued a proposed rule to amend our implementing regulations (38 FR 22143; August 16, 1973), followed by a final rule (38 FR 7262; February 25, 1974). The definition for “authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing” at 50 CFR 18.3 was amended by the following additions: (1) The articles must have been made by an Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo; (2) the articles must be significantly altered from their natural form; (3) modern techniques at a tannery registered pursuant to § 18.23(c) may be used so long as no large scale mass production industry results; and (4) the formation of traditional native groups, such as cooperatives, is permitted as long as no large scale mass production results.
        The regulations were enforced and subsequently challenged in court. While initially upheld in court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska called for a thorough administrative review of the section of the regulations (50 CFR 18.23) that addresses the taking of northern sea otters under the native exemptions. Following the review, the Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking on November 14, 1988, to clarify the regulations as they apply to the sea otter (53 FR 45788). Those proposed regulations would prohibit all takings of sea otters by Alaska Natives for the purpose of creating and selling handicrafts or clothing. An interim rule was subsequently published on April 20, 1990 (55 FR 14973). This 1990 rule was identical to the 1974 rule, but included an additional restriction that stated “[P]rovided that it has been determined that no items created in whole or in part from sea otter meet part (a) [that is, “were commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972”] of this definition and therefore no such items may be sold” (55 FR 14973). We further stated in the rule that, following the completion of a management plan for northern sea otter, we would replace the interim rule with a final rule, if appropriate. The interim rule became effective on May 21, 1990. Although we developed and issued a “Conservation Plan for the Sea Otter in Alaska” in June 1994, we did not revisit the regulatory definition put into place by our interim rule, and the language still exists in 50 CFR 18.3.

        In 1990, a number of parties challenged our definition as violating the MMPA. On July 17, 1991, in Didrickson v. U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court wrote that we had defined “authentic,” as used in the phrase, “authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing * * *” (in the Native exemption section of the Act), “in such a way as to broaden [the Service's] own regulatory authority over [Native] activities that the plain language of the statute would not otherwise permit.” The Court further ruled that the MMPA did not mandate restriction of its Alaska native handicraft exemption to apply only to artifacts commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972. In its conclusion, the Court stated that, while its “opinion should not be construed as authorizing a “free-for-all” killing of hundreds of sea otters,” the Service “does not have the authority to regulate the harvesting of sea otters for purposes of creating native handicrafts absent a finding of depletion.” The Court also stated that the Service has the authority to take enforcement action against any takings that are wasteful. This decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, on December 28, 1992, affirmed the District Court's ruling.

        Our present proposed rulemaking revises our regulations in 50 CFR part 18 to make them consistent with the court rulings described above. Specifically, this action would eliminate the requirement in 50 CFR 18.3 for “Authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing” to have been commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972, and would delete the language at the end of the definition that states:

        “Provided that, it has been determined that no items created in whole or in part from sea otter meet part (a) of this definition and therefore no such items may be sold.”
        Public Comments Solicited
        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule.

        Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold also from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Clarity of the Rule
        Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain unnecessary technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the proposed rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to the following address: Execsec@ios.doi.gov.

        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review
        In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.

        a. This proposed rule will not have an annual economic impact of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. There are no compliance costs to any sector of the economy. A cost-benefit analysis is not required. We do not expect that any significant economic impacts would result from the revision of this definition. The only expenses related to this will be to the Federal government to write the rule and required Record of Compliance, and to publish the final rule in the Federal Register; these costs should not exceed $25,000.
        b. This proposed rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
        c. This proposed rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        d. This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial/final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:
        a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
        c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.):
        a. This proposed rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        b. This proposed rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. As such, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. We have determined that the rule has no potential takings of private property implications as defined by this Executive Order because it will remove a regulatory definition determined by a Federal Court to exceed the statutory provisions of the MMPA. A takings implication assessment is not required.
        Federalism
        In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects. A federalism assessment is not required. This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the State, in the relationship between the Federal government and the State, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed regulation does not contain collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The proposed regulation will not impose new record keeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, and businesses, or organizations.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have considered this action with respect to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and have determined that the action is categorically excluded, pursuant to U.S. Department of the Interior criteria, from the NEPA process; the preparation of an Environmental Assessment is not required as defined by USDI categorical exclusion 1.10 (516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 1, Departmental Categorical Exclusions). This categorical exclusion exempts “[p]olicies, directives, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” Given that this proposed rule seeks to amend a regulation to make the regulation consistent with a court ruling, the exclusion applies to this action.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. Because this rule would amend our regulations to lift regulatory restrictions consistent with a court order, we have determined that there are no negative effects.
        Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211)
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and it is not expected to have any effect on energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
          Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 18, subpart A of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS
          1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

          2. In § 18.3, revise the definition for Authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing as follows:

            § 18.3
            Definitions.

              Authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing means items made by an Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo that (a) are composed wholly or in some significant respect of natural materials and (b) are significantly altered from their natural form and are produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional native handicrafts without the use of pantographs, multiple carvers, or similar mass-copying devices. Improved methods of production utilizing modern implements such as sewing machines or modern techniques at a tannery registered pursuant to § 18.23(c) may be used so long as no large-scale mass-production industry results. Traditional native handicrafts include, but are not limited to, weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, and painting. The formation of traditional native groups, such as cooperatives, is permitted so long as no large-scale mass production results.

            Dated: May 20, 2004.
            Paul Hoffman,
            Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-12139 Filed 6-3-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P