        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Maritime Administration
        46 CFR Part 205
        [Docket No. MARAD-2000-8284]
        RIN 2133-AB42
        Audit Appeals; Policy and Procedure

          AGENCY:
          Maritime Administration, Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          The Maritime Administration (MARAD, we, our, or us) is proposing to update Part 205—Audit Appeals; Policy and Procedure. Part 205 establishes appeal procedures for parties who contract with the Maritime Subsidy Board or MARAD. We propose to: Update these audit procedures to reflect current MARAD practices; and rewrite the regulations in plain language. The intended effect of this rulemaking is to improve our audit appeals process by updating and clarifying part 205.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than January 16, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          Your comments should refer to docket number [MARAD 2000-8284]. You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20590. You may also submit them electronically via the internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. You may call Docket Management at (202) 366-9324 and visit the Docket Room from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Fred A. Slaugh, Office of Financial Approvals and Rates, (202) 366-5866. You may send mail to Mr. Slaugh at Maritime Administration, Office of Financial and Rate Approvals, Room 8117, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Comments
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. We encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        How Can I be Sure That my Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You should mark “CONFIDENTIAL” on each page of the original document that you would like to keep confidential. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send comments containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim.
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket Room are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps: Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/). On that page, click on “search.” On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. The docket number for this document is [xxxx]. After typing the docket number, click on “search.” On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
        Background
        Part 205—Audit Appeals; Policy and Procedure establishes the policy and procedure for parties to use when seeking redress and appeals of decisions involving contracts with the Maritime Subsidy Board or MARAD. Part 205 applies to all MARAD contracts including the Operating-Differential Subsidy, Construction-Differential Subsidy, Capital Construction Fund, Construction Reserve Fund, and Maritime Security Program.
        According to the policy in part 205, any contractor who disagrees with audit findings or decisions of MARAD and who does not reach a negotiation with the appropriate Coast Director's office may appeal. Any contractor who appeals must do so in writing to the Maritime Administrator within six (6) months following the date of the document notifying the contractor of the audit findings. MARAD will then notify the appellant in writing if a hearing or additional facts are necessary. After the Maritime Administrator renders a decision, MARAD will notify the appellant in writing. When a contract contains a disputes article, the disputes article will govern the bases for dispute and any appeals.
        We are proposing revisions to part 205 that reflect our current practices of making audit appeals decisions. Appellants no longer appeal to the appropriate Coast Director's office. In the past, auditors were assigned to regional offices. However, we no longer have these auditors. MARAD headquarters is responsible for overseeing audits as deemed appropriate. Such audits may be performed by the Office of Inspector General.
        Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President’s memorandum on plain language in government writing of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The Department of Transportation and MARAD are committed to plain language in government writing; therefore, we propose to revise part 205 using plain language to provide easier understanding. Our goal is to improve the clarity of the regulation. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand.
        Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        We have reviewed this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) under Executive Order 12866 and have determined that this is not a significant regulatory action. Additionally, this NPRM is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The purpose of this NPRM is to propose updates to MARAD’s audit procedures to reflect current MARAD practices and to rewrite the regulations in plain language.
        This NPRM is also not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking are considered to be so minimal that no further analysis is necessary. Because the economic impact, if any, should be minimal, further regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        This NPRM will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This NPRM only updates procedures for appealing audit findings and decisions to the Maritime Administrator. Although the number of small entities who appeal audit findings may be substantial, the cost of filing an audit appeal with MARAD is minimal, if any. Therefore, I certify that this NPRM will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Federalism
        We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) and have determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. These regulations have no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials was not necessary.
        Environmental Impact Statement

        We have analyzed this NPRM for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have concluded that under the categorical exclusions provision in section 4.05 of Maritime Administrative Order (“MAO”) 600-1, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,” 50 FR 11606 (March 22, 1985), the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, and an Environmental Impact Statement, or a Finding of No Significant Impact for this NPRM is not required. This NPRM involves administrative and procedural regulations that have no environmental impact.
        Executive Order 13084

        MARAD does not believe that this NPRM will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this Executive Order would not apply.

        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        This NPRM does not impose an unfunded mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector. This NPRM is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This NPRM does not contain information collection requirements covered by 5 CFR Part 1320 (specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(c)) in that appellants choose the information to be provided in their appeal and may choose to interpret the collection of information differently.
        Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number is contained in the heading of this document to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

          List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 205
          Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts.

        Accordingly, 46 CFR part 205 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:

          PART 205—AUDIT APPEALS; POLICY AND PROCEDURE

            Sec.
            205.1
            Purpose.
            205.2
            Policy.
            205.3
            Procedure.
            205.4
            Finality of decisions.
            205.5
            Contracts containing disputes article.

            Authority:
            Sec. 204, 49 Stat. 1987, 1998, 2004, 2011; 46 U.S.C. 1114, 1155, 1176, 1212.

            § 205.1
            Purpose.
            This part establishes the policy and procedure for parties to use when seeking redress and appeals of decisions involving contracts with the Maritime Subsidy Board or The Maritime Administration (MARAD, we, our, or us). A party to a contract (you or your) may appeal MARAD's findings, interpretations, or decisions of annual or special audits.

            § 205.2
            Policy.
            If you disagree with audit findings and fail to settle any differences with the appropriate Office Director, you may ask the appropriate office Associate Administrator to review the audit findings. If you disagree with the Associate Administrator, you may appeal to the Maritime Administrator (Administrator).

            § 205.3
            Procedure.
            (a) You must submit your appeal in writing to the Administrator within 6 months following the date of the document notifying you of the audit findings, interpretations, or decisions. However, the Administrator may, at his discretion, extend this time limitation in the case of extenuating circumstances.
            (b) We will notify you, in writing, if you must submit additional facts for our consideration of the appeal. We will notify you, in writing, once the Maritime Administrator has made a decision regarding your appeal.

            § 205.4
            Finality of decisions.
            The Administrator's decision will be final on all questions of fact involved in the appeal, unless:
            (a) Otherwise determined by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR 1.43(a); or
            (b) A court of competent jurisdiction determines the findings to have been fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence.

            § 205.5
            Contracts containing disputes article.
            When a contract contains a disputes article, the disputes article will govern the bases for negotiating disputes regarding audit findings, interpretations, or decisions made by MARAD and any appeals.

            By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
            Dated: November 13, 2000.
            Joel C. Richard,
            Secretary, Maritime Administration.

      [FR Doc. 00-29386 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
        RIN 2126-AB20
        Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:

          FMCSA announces its intent to move forward with the Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents rulemaking (EOBR 2) by preparing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). To augment the Agency's efforts to obtain comprehensive data to support this SNPRM, FMCSA plans to do the following: hold listening sessions on the issue of driver harassment; task the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to assist in developing material to support this rulemaking, including technical specifications for EOBRs and their potential to be used to harass drivers; and conduct research by surveying drivers, carriers, and vendors regarding harassment issues.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments and material received from the public as well as documents mentioned in this notice are available for inspection or copying in the docket, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167, and at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at (202) 366-5370.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulatory Background
        The following discussion summarizes the recent regulatory history of the agency's EOBR initiatives.1

            1 For a more detailed history of the program containing the initial regulatory actions by the agency see EOBR 1, discussed below in this section (75 FR 17208).

        EOBR 1
        On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued a final rule (75 FR 17208) that provided new technical requirements for EOBRs. The EOBR final rule also required the limited, remedial use of EOBRs by any motor carrier found, during a single compliance review, to have a 10 percent violation rate for any hours-of-service (HOS) regulation listed in a new Appendix C of 49 CFR part 385. The final rule required EOBRs on all of the motor carrier's commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) for a period of 2 years. The compliance date for the final rule was June 4, 2012.

        The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) challenged the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. OOIDA raised several concerns relating to EOBRs and their potential use for driver harassment. On August 26, 2011, the Court vacated the entire final rule. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n et al. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d. 580 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court held that, contrary to statutory requirements, the Agency failed to address the issue of driver harassment, including how EOBRs could potentially be used to harass drivers and ways to ensure that EOBRs were not used to harass drivers. The basis for the decision was FMCSA's failure to directly address a requirement in 49 U.S.C. 31137(a) which reads as follows:

          USE OF MONITORING DEVICES. If the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation about the use of monitoring devices on commercial motor vehicles to increase compliance by operators of the vehicles with hours of service regulations of the Secretary, the regulation shall ensure that the devices are not used to harass vehicle operators. However, the devices may be used to monitor productivity of the operators. (Emphasis added.)).

        The court's expectation about how the Agency should address harassment and productivity under the statutory directive included the following:

          “In addition, an adequate explanation that addresses the distinction between productivity and harassment must also describe what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring. The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist, how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment. A study of these problems with EOBRs already in use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices, might be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs might have on driver harassment” (Id. at 588-89).

        The Court also noted that the Agency had not estimated the safety benefits of EOBRs currently in use and how much EOBRs increased compliance.
        As a result of the vacatur, carriers relying on electronic devices to monitor HOS compliance are currently governed by the Agency's previous rules regarding the use of automatic on-board recording devices (49 CFR 395.15). The requirements set forth in 49 CFR 395.15, were not affected by the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding the technical specifications set out in 49 CFR 395.16 in the EOBR 1 Final Rule.
        EOBR 2
        On February 1, 2011, the Agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to expand the scope of EOBR use to a broader population of motor carriers (EOBR 2) (76 FR 5537). The EOBR 2 NPRM proposed that, within 3 years of the effective date of the final rule, all motor carriers currently required to maintain records of duty status (RODS) for HOS recordkeeping would be required to use EOBRs.
        Due to the pending EOBR 1 litigation, the Agency extended the EOBR 2 public comment period and, in recognition of issues raised in oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, expressly invited comment on the issue of driver harassment. A notice published on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13121) extended the public comment period for the EOBR 2 NPRM to May 23, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the Agency published a notice specifically inviting comments on the EOBR2 rulemaking to address harassment (76 FR 20611). In light of the litigation challenging the Agency's treatment of driver harassment in EOBR 1, FMCSA wished to ensure that interested parties had a full opportunity to consider the harassment issue in the active EOBR 2 rulemaking.
        Planned Activities
        EOBR 2 SNPRM
        Because the EOBR 2 rule relied on the technical specifications provided in EOBR 1, where this final rule was vacated, the Agency must again proposed and seek comment on new technical standards into the CFR before any final rule concerning use of an EOBR device is issued. These proposed technical standards would take into account the official MCSAC recommendations, as well as public comments.
        FMCSA takes this opportunity to declare its intention to proceed with the EOBR 2 rulemaking. The Agency is preparing an SNPRM to propose technical standards for an EOBR, address driver harassment issues, propose requirements for retaining HOS supporting documents, and provide clarification and request further comments on several of the proposals. Additionally, the Agency will hold public listening sessions; work with its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC); and use driver, carrier, and vendor surveys to obtain all the stakeholder information needed to discuss issues involving driver harassment.
        Public Listening Sessions

        FMCSA will hold public listening sessions to discuss issues involving the driver harassment issue. The public will have an opportunity to speak about this issue and provide the Agency with information on how to address harassment. All public comments will be placed in the docket of this rulemaking. Details concerning the schedule and locations for the listening sessions, as well as procedural information for participants, will follow in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

        Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Task
        MCSAC is an advisory committee to FMCSA.
        In June 2011, a MCSAC subcommittee began work on Task 11-04 (Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) Communications Protocols, Security, Interfaces, and Display of Hours-of-Service Data During Driver/Vehicle Inspections and Safety Investigations). The subcommittee examined technical issues relating to the electronic transfer of HOS information from CMVs to law enforcement personnel at the roadside raised by the EOBR 1 final rule. The subcommittee met several times and made its final report to the full committee on December 5 and 6, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the full committee made an official recommendation to FMCSA.

        FMCSA will task MCSAC to make recommendations related to the EOBR2 rulemaking. Details will follow in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

        More information about these MCSAC meetings, recommendations, and task orders can be found at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/meeting.htm.
        Research

        Subject to Office of Management and Budget approval, FMCSA will initiate OMB-approved survey of drivers regarding harassment experiences and concerns and OMB-approved surveys for carriers and vendors regarding harassment. Details will follow in subsequent Federal Register notices.
        EOBR 1 Final Rule Withdrawal

        Based on the Seventh Circuit's decision, the Agency plans to publish a final rule in the Federal Register announcing the removal of the regulatory text in 49 CFR parts 350, 385, 395, 396 adopted in EOBR 1 and subsequently vacated by the Seventh Circuit decision. This will complete the actions required by the Court.

          Issued on: February 7, 2012.
          Anne S. Ferro,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2012-3265 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038; FF09M21200-123-FXMB1231099BPP0L2]
        RIN 1018-AY66
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Fluoropolymeric Shot Coatings as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of application for nontoxic shot approval.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce that Spectra Shot, LLC, of Lafayette, Louisiana, has applied for approval of steel shot with fluoropolymeric coatings as nontoxic for waterfowl hunting in the United States. Steel shot has long been approved for waterfowl hunting. The coatings will add less than 2 mg to the mass of a shot pellet. We have initiated review of the shot coatings under the criteria we have set out in our nontoxic shot approval procedures in our regulations.

          DATES:
          This notice announces the initiation of our review of a Tier 1 application submitted in accordance with 50 CFR 20.134. We will complete the review of the application by September 4, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          If we conclude that the application warrants a regulations change, you will be able to view the application and supporting materials by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038.
          • Request a copy by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          George Allen, at 703-358-1825.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect most migratory bird species from take, except as permitted under the Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. We prohibit the use of shot types other than those listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up aggregate bag limits.
        Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We have approved nontoxic shot types and added them to the migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR 20.21(j). We will continue to review all shot types submitted for approval as nontoxic.
        Current Application
        Spectra Shot, LLC, has submitted its application to us with the counsel that it contains all of the specified information required by 50 CFR 20.134 for a complete Tier 1 submittal, and has requested unconditional approval pursuant to the Tier 1 timeframe. Having determined that the application is complete, we have initiated a comprehensive review of the Tier 1 information under 50 CFR 20.134. After review, we will either publish a notice of review to inform the public that the Tier 1 test results are inconclusive, or we will publish a proposed rule to approve the candidate shot coating.
        If the Tier 1 tests are inconclusive, the notice of review will indicate what other tests we will require before we will again consider approval of the shot coating as nontoxic. If the Tier 1 data review results in a preliminary determination that the coating does not pose a significant toxicity hazard to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats, the Service will commence with a rulemaking proposing to approve the coating and add it to our list at 50 CFR 20.21(j).

          Authority:
           We publish this notice under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) and in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 20.134(b)(2)(i)(D)(3).

          Dated: June 27, 2012.
          Michael J. Bean,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-16543 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 700
        RIN 0648-AV53
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Proposed Environmental Review Process for Fishery Management Actions; Meeting Announcements

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces three public meetings to solicit comments on the proposed rule that would revise and update the NMFS procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the context of fishery management actions developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          The meetings will be held on June 25 in Washington, D.C. from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time; on July 15 in St. Petersburg, FL from 6 pm to 8 p.m. Eastern time; and on July 24 in Seattle, WA from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Pacific time.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meetings will be held at the following locations:
          Council on Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202 395 5750.
          National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone: 727-824-5301.
          Hilton Seattle Airport & Conference Center, 17620 International Boulevard, Seattle, WA 98188; telephone: 206-244-4800.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Leathery at (301) 713-2239 or via email at steve.leathery@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On May 14, 2008, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (73 FR 27998) that would revise and update the NMFS procedures for complying with the NEPA in the context of fishery management actions developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These regulations are modeled on the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, with specific revisions to the existing NMFS procedures made pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA). The procedures are designed to conform to the timelines for review and approval of fishery management plans and plan amendments developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Further, these procedures are intended to integrate applicable environmental analytical procedures, including the timeframes for public input, with the procedure for the preparation and dissemination of fishery management plans, plan amendments, and other actions taken or approved pursuant to the MSA in order to provide for timely, clear, and concise analysis that is useful to decisionmakers and the public, reduce extraneous paperwork, and effectively involve the public. NMFS is holding these public meeting to solicit public comments on the proposed rule.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other aids, and requests for special accommodations or needs should be directed to Steve Leathery at (301) 713-2239 at least 5 business days in advance of the meeting date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1854(i)

          Dated: May 30, 2008.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-12505 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 031107275-3275-01; I.D. 102803A]
        RIN 0648-AP03
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 13A

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 13A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP).  This rule would extend the current prohibitions on fishing for South Atlantic snapper-grouper in the experimental closed area and on retaining such species in or from the area.  The experimental closed area constitutes a portion of the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), which is in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic Ocean off Ft. Pierce, FL.  The intended effect is to continue the benefits of the closed area, namely, enhanced stock stability and increased recruitment of South Atlantic snapper-grouper by providing an area where deepwater snapper-grouper species can grow and reproduce without being subjected to fishing mortality.

          DATES:
           Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on January 9, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of Amendment 13A may be obtained from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC  29407-4699; phone:   843-571-4366 or toll free at 1-866-SAFMC-10; fax:   843-769-4520; e-mail: safmc@noaa.gov.  Amendment 13A includes an Environmental Assessment (EA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that was supplemented by NMFS, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement.
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Julie Weeder, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Julie Weeder, telephone:   727-570-5753, fax:   727-570-5583, e-mail: Julie.Weeder@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The snapper-grouper fishery off the southern Atlantic states is managed under the FMP.  The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

        In Amendment 6 to the FMP the Council proposed prohibitions on fishing for South Atlantic snapper-grouper in what is currently known as the experimental closed area and on retaining such species in or from the area.  NMFS approved these prohibitions, and they became effective June 27, 1994 (59 FR27242, May 26, 1994).  In the experimental closed area, any South Atlantic snapper-grouper taken incidentally by hook-and-line gear must be released immediately by cutting the line without removing the fish from the water.
        The experimental closed area is slightly less than 92 square nautical miles in the EEZ offshore from Ft. Pierce to Sebastian Inlet, FL.  The geographical coordinates are specified at 50 CFR 622.35(c)(2).  The experimental closed area constitutes a portion of the southern part of the Oculina Bank HAPC.  In the entire HAPC no person may:  (1) Use a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap; (2) if aboard a fishing vessel, anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain; or (3) fish for rock shrimp or possess rock shrimp in or from the area on board a fishing vessel.
        Both the proposed and final rules for Amendment 6 stated that the measures applicable to the experimental closed area ”... will “sunset” after 10 years if not reauthorized by the Council.”(59 FR 9721, March 1, 1994 and 59 FR 27242, May 26, 1994, respectively).
        As stated above, measures applicable to the experimental closed area were intended to enhance stock stability and increase recruitment of South Atlantic snapper-grouper by providing an area where deepwater snapper-grouper species could grow and reproduce without being subjected to fishing mortality.They were based on the Council's concern that traditional fishery management measures, such as minimum size limits and quotas, might not be sufficient to protect fully the snapper-grouper resources.  The Council believed the measures would provide protection for overfished species in the management unit while minimizing adverse impacts upon user groups.
        Based on limited information, there appear to be some encouraging signs of positive biological impacts from the initial 9-year prohibition of fishing for snapper grouper species within the experimental closed area since it was established in 1994.  A study conducted in 2001 found that, in the few areas where habitat remained intact, there were more and larger groupers than observed in a 1995 study, and male gag and scamp were also common.  The observation of male gag and scamp is particularly of interest because size, age, and proportion of males of these species have declined both in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions.  Other encouraging signs include the observation of juvenile speckled hind, which is a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act.  However, species in the management unit remain overfished and continued protection is required.
        Proposed Actions
        Amendment 13A proposes to continue the current measures applicable to the experimental closed area indefinitely.  Those measures at 50 CFR 622(c)(2) read as follows:

          “(2) Experimental closed area.  Within the Oculina Bank HAPC, the experimental closed area is bounded on the north by 27°53′ N. lat., on the south by 27°30′ N. lat., on the east by 79°56′ W. long., and on the west by 80°00′ W. long.  No person may fish for South Atlantic snapper-grouper in the experimental closed area, and no person may retain South Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from the area.  In the experimental closed area, any South Atlantic snapper-grouper taken incidentally by hook-and-line gear must be released immediately by cutting the line without removing the fish from the water.”

        The Council would review the configuration and size of the experimental closed area within 3 years of the publication date of the final rule that would implement Amendment 13A and would re-evaluate all measures applicable to the area after 10 years. The Council believes these actions provide the most biological, social, and economic benefits while allowing for adaptive management.  Extending the prohibition on fishing for snapper-grouper species in the experimental closed area for an indefinite period will continue to protect snapper-grouper populations and protect Oculina coral and associated habitat. Such extension will also provide a hedge against the high degree of scientific uncertainty associated with the status of snapper-grouper species and reduce the possibility that these populations may fall below sustainable levels.  Economically it is expected that the long-term benefits, such as “insurance” against the uncertainty of stock assessments and the non-use benefits of extending the prohibitions on snapper-grouper fishing in the closed area, outweigh the short-term benefits of opening the area to harvest.  These measures are also expected to provide the most long-term positive social impacts because they allow for adaptive management which can be seen as an assurance to the public that the area will be monitored and reviewed.  Should the Council find after the 3-year review on size and configuration that the boundaries of the area are not appropriate, they can be changed at that time.  In addition, the 10-year re-evaluation period will assure the public that the area will not be closed and forgotten.
        Availability of Amendment 13A

        Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed above are contained in Amendment 13A.  The availability of Amendment 13A was announced in the Federal Register on November 4, 2003, (68 FR 62422).  Written comments on Amendment 13A must be received by January 5, 2004.  All comments received on Amendment 13A or on this proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the preamble to the final rule.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 13A is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on Amendment 13A.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        The Council prepared, and NMFS supplemented, an IRFA, based on the RIR, that describes the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small business entities. A summary of the IRFA follows:

        Amendment 6 to the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan, implemented in May 1994, established a harvest prohibition for snapper-grouper species in the Oculina Experimental Closed Area. This prohibition is scheduled to sunset in June 2004.  The proposed rule would extend the prohibition for an indefinite period of time for the purpose of providing continued protection of snapper-grouper species, thereby reducing the possibility that these populations may fall below sustainable levels.  Further, by restricting the ability to harvest fish from the area, the proposed rule is also expected to provide protection to the Oculina coral in the area.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.  The proposed rule does not impose any reporting or record keeping requirements.

        There are two general classes of small entities that would be directly affected by the proposed rule, commercial fishing vessels and for-hire fishing vessels.  The Small Business Administration defines a small business that engages in commercial fishing as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts up to $3.5 million per year.  The revenue benchmark for a small business that engages in for-hire fishing is a firm that has annual receipts up to $6.0 million per year. There were 1,174 commercial vessels that participated in the snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic during 2002.Of these vessels, 120 were homeported in the area of interest, where the “area of interest” is defined as those home port locations on the Florida Atlantic coast from Cape Canaveral south to West Palm Beach and are in the closest geographic proximity to the area covered by the proposed rule.  Commercial vessels operating in the snapper-grouper fishery in this area are estimated to have average annual gross and net incomes of approximately $39,745 and $12,388, respectively.  Based on this income profile, it is assumed that all commercial fishing entities that would be affected by the proposed rule are small entities.
        For the for-hire sector, 1,221 snapper-grouper for-hire permits were issued to vessels in the southern Atlantic states in 2002.  Of this total, 94 permits were issued to for-hire vessels in the area of interest.  These vessels comprise two types of business operations, charterboats, which are smaller vessels (6 or fewer passengers) that book trips on a vessel basis, and headboats, which are larger vessels that book passage on an individual angler basis.  The average gross and net revenues in 1997 for charterboats operating off the Atlantic coast of Florida are estimated at $57,000 and $15,000 (2001 dollars), while that of headboats are estimated at $155,000 and $69,000 (2001 dollars).  Based on these gross revenue profiles, all for-hire vessels that would be affected by the proposed rule are assumed to be small entities.
        The number of commercial and for-hire vessels that would fish in the closed area should the area reopen after sunset of the current rule is not known.  However, all entities in the area of interest have the potential to enter the area.  Since all such entities would be covered by the proposed rule and all said entities are small entities, it is concluded that a substantial number of small entities would be affected by the proposed rule. An IRFA was prepared to analyze the expected impacts on small entities.  The proposed rule extending harvest prohibition for an indefinite period would not alter present fishing practices. Therefore, it would not affect the profitability of identified vessels.  However, if there are any speculative decisions about the sunset of the existing rule in June 2004, there could be some reduction in future speculative earnings.  The public is invited to comment and to provide any information that would enable NMFS to identify and assess any future potential economic impacts that could result from the proposed rule.

        Five alternatives to the proposed rule were considered.  One alternative differs from the proposed rule only in that it lacks a specific schedule for re-evaluation of the rule.  Three alternatives also lack a re-evaluation schedule and differ from the proposed rule in the duration of the prohibition.  No impacts have been identified associated with the presence or absence of a prescribed re-evaluation schedule.  These four alternatives, therefore, are expected to have the same effect on the affected entities as the proposed rule, and none would adversely affect current profitability but would, instead, eliminate potential increased short-term profits that might be derived from fishing activity directed into the Oculina area, should sunset occur. The fifth alternative, the no-action alternative, would allow for sunset of the prohibition and fishing in the area to occur.  This alternative would, therefore, allow these potential short-term increases in profits to occur.  However, if snapper-grouper populations become depleted as a result of directed effort insidethe area, the short-term gains would dissipate.  Further, these potential short-term profits are not believed to be greater than the benefits that would accrue to continued protection of the resource and area.  These benefits are expected to exceed potential short-term profits no matter how long the prohibition continues.  The proposed rule, therefore, would best suit management needs and meet the Council's intent.
        Changes to Regulatory Text
        If approved, the measures in Amendment 13A would continue in effect in the current regulations.  Accordingly, this proposed rule contains no changes to regulatory text.  If Amendment 13A is disapproved, the regulatory text at 50 CFR 622.35(c)(2) would be removed effective June 27, 2004.

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

          Dated:  November 19, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-29444 Filed 11-24-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S