        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 18
        RIN 1018-AH86
        Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; withdrawal. Availability of Record of Decision.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have determined that we are unable to authorize the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) resulting from governmental activities related to the authorization, regulation, or funding of watercraft and watercraft access facilities within certain regions of the species' range in Florida. Comments and new information received during the public comment period for our proposed rule to authorize such incidental take raised significant questions about the standards, information, and analytic methodologies appropriate for making the necessary findings. These significant questions preclude us from finding that incidental takings of Florida manatee resulting from these governmental activities will have a negligible impact on any of the four stocks in Florida. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) does not allow us to authorize incidental take unless we are able to find that the total authorized incidental take will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock. Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 18.27(d)(4), we are making negative findings for all four stocks. Consistent with this determination we are withdrawing our November 2002 MMPA proposed rule to authorize the incidental take of Florida manatees.

          We published a proposed regulation and announced the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in the Federal Register on November 14, 2002. We announced the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this decision on April 4, 2003. Responses to comments received during the public comment period for the proposed rule and DEIS are available in Appendix N of the FEIS. Through this notice, we are also announcing the availability of the Record of Decision related to the FEIS.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to review the FEIS and Record of Decision, obtain copies by any one of the following methods:
          1. You may visit our Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov.
          2. You may request a copy by electronic mail (e-mail) to manatee@fws.gov.
          3. You may write the Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
          4. You may call the Jacksonville Field Office, 904/232-2580, during normal business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Pete Benjamin, at the above address (telephone 904/232-2580; or visit our Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On November 14, 2002, the Service published a proposed rule to authorize the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) resulting from government activities that authorize and regulate watercraft and watercraft access facilities in Florida. Under the provisions of the MMPA of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407), all take, including incidental take, is prohibited unless otherwise authorized. To date, there is no authorization for the incidental, unintentional death, injury, or harassment of Florida manatees caused by these otherwise legal activities. In the proposed rule, we examined the issue of take of Florida manatees to determine whether the incidental, unintentional take of manatees could be authorized.

        The Secretary of the Interior may authorize the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals resulting from specified activities in a specified geographic area pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA if the Secretary finds, based on the best scientific evidence available, that the total authorized taking for the authorized period will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock. Negligible impact is defined as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” (50 CFR 18.27(c)).

        If a negligible impact finding is made, specific regulations must be established for the activities that describe permissible methods of taking; means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat; and requirements for monitoring and reporting. If the Secretary cannot find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, the Secretary must publish a negative finding in the Federal Register along with the basis for such a determination (50 CFR 18.27(d)(4)).
        Manatee Lawsuit Settlement
        In Save the Manatee Club, et al. v. Ballard,
          et al., Civil No. 00-00076 EGS (D.D.C.), several organizations and individuals filed suit against the Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers alleging violations of the MMPA, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). Four groups representing development and boating interests intervened. Following extensive negotiations, a settlement agreement was approved by the court on January 5, 2001. Under the terms of the settlement, the Service agreed to take several actions, including pursuing a rulemaking proceeding to adopt incidental take regulations under the MMPA. According to the settlement agreement, draft and final products were due on November 5, 2002, and May 5, 2003, respectively. The agreement further specified that, if, during the rulemaking process, we determined that requirements of the MMPA could not be met, then we must submit a negative finding to the Federal Register by May 5, 2003.

        Beginning in January 2001, the Service held a series of meetings with the affected agencies to discuss the scope of government activities and incidental take rulemaking. At the Manatee Population Ecology and Management Workshop in April 2002, the Service discussed the issue of incidental take rulemaking with scientists and managers involved in manatee research and conservation. On June 10, 2002, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 39668) announcing our intent to prepare an EIS to evaluate the effects on manatees of a rulemaking to authorize incidental take; public comments were solicited. On November 14, 2002, the Service published in the Federal Register (67 FR 69077) a proposed rule and notice of availability for the Draft EIS and announced six public hearings and the commencement of the public comment period. We published a notice on November 29, 2002, announcing a seventh public hearing (67 FR 71127). In December 2002, the Service conducted seven public hearings throughout Florida. On January 9, 2003, we extended the public comment period from its original closing date of January 13, 2003, to January 27, 2003 (68 FR 1175).

        In response to these notices, meetings, and public hearings, over 8,000 written comments were received. The majority of these comments related to manatee population issues; NEPA, ESA, and MMPA concerns; recommendations regarding the proposed determination of negligible impact under the MMPA; identification of information needs believed necessary to adequately address issues of concern; and socioeconomic and public involvement concerns. The comments and our responses are provided in Appendix N of the FEIS. The Service refined the Incidental Take Model, an analytic tool; examined and fully considered all comments submitted by the public; and released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on March 26, 2003, with a notice of availability published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16544).
        We identified four distinct stocks of the Florida manatee, which we call the Upper St. Johns River, the Northwest, the Atlantic, and the Southwest stocks. In addition to the No Action Alternative, the FEIS evaluated a range of action alternatives that included findings of negligible impact for between one (Upper St. Johns River) to three stocks (Upper St. Johns River, Northwest, and Atlantic). The FEIS presented information, including new information, as well as a comparison of results from different methodologies for determining negligible impact. The FEIS also identified areas of uncertainty in various methodologies, stated pertinent information needs, and presented criticisms of each methodology and of our population benchmark criteria.
        Proposed Rule
        In the proposed rule, we made the following findings with respect to the effects of watercraft-related incidental take on each stock—(1) Current levels of watercraft-related incidental take were having a negligible impact on the Upper St. Johns River and Northwest stocks; (2) current incidental take levels were having a greater than negligible impact on the Atlantic stock, but incidental take could be reduced to the negligible level with implementation of additional mitigating measures; and (3) current levels of incidental take were having a greater than negligible impact on the Southwest stock, and mitigating measures were not available to reduce this take to a negligible level.

        The rationale behind the negligible impact threshold presented in the proposed rule was: In terms of stocks that are depleted (i.e., population levels below Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP)), it is generally accepted that the large majority of annual net productivity must be reserved for the recovery of the stock to its OSP level, and that only a small portion should be allocated for incidental take, so that human-related take does not significantly increase the time needed to reach OSP. Therefore, based on our interpretation of the MMPA, its implementing regulations, previous incidental take rulemakings, and our current understanding of manatee population dynamics, we concluded that, in order for us to determine that the allowable level of human-related incidental take would have a “negligible impact,” we must be reasonably certain that the take would not significantly increase the time needed to achieve OSP (67 FR 69086). Our negligible impact standard, based on the above rationale, was reasonable certainty that authorized incidental take will not significantly increase the time needed to reach OSP (67 FR 69086). OSP is defined in the MMPA as “the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element” (16 U.S.C. 1362).

        We relied on criteria developed through the ESA recovery planning process to assess the status of the manatee stocks against the negligible impact standard. The proposed rule stated that, as concluded in the newly revised Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, the Florida manatee population could be considered to be “healthy” and able to sustain itself after the demographic benchmarks were met for all four stocks based on at least a 20-year data set. Assuming that none of the stocks were severely depleted when data collection relative to the demographic benchmarks began (in the late 1970s and 1980s), 20 years of continued growth at the benchmark rates would in all likelihood result in stocks that are within or near the range of OSP. As such, we believed it was reasonable to assume that achievement of the demographic benchmarks would result in a population that is within or near the range of OSP, and that the negligible impact threshold would be that level of incidental take that does not significantly increase the time needed to achieve the demographic benchmarks (67 FR 69087).

        Applying these standards to the best information available at the time of the proposed rule, we concluded that the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River stocks were currently meeting the demographic benchmarks and were progressing toward OSP at a biologically acceptable rate (i.e., current incidental take was having a negligible impact). Regarding the Atlantic stock, we determined that it was close to the demographic benchmarks, and would meet the negligible impact standard provided additional mitigation measures were implemented to reduce take. The Southwest stock was not close to meeting the demographic benchmarks, so we proposed a negative finding with respect to that stock. We stated that it might be possible to refine this analysis for the final rule using a stochastic manatee population model (67 FR 69091), which will be referred to hereafter as the “Incidental Take Model.” The Incidental Take Model structure was described in the proposed rule and DEIS, but was not completed at the time the proposed rule was published. It was included in Appendix I of the FEIS.
        Discussion and Findings
        Standards and Assumptions
        Some of the standards and assumptions that supported our proposed rule have been questioned. This includes criteria for quantifying negligible impact and assumptions about OSP and the status of each stock (including population growth rate).
        We quantified the negligible impact standard as that which would not exceed a five percent probability of delaying a stock's time to reach its OSP by no more than 10 percent. The specific probability and delay values were selected based on standards used by other agencies for other types of regulations under the MMPA, and because the 95 percent probability is frequently used in statistical decision-making. We are currently considering whether this is an appropriate standard for incidental take caused by watercraft.
        We also assumed that, if historical population levels were sufficiently high relative to carrying capacity, continued growth at the benchmark rates would result in population levels that are within or near OSP. This assumption played a role in our conclusions that current levels of watercraft-related take are either not currently delaying the time to reach OSP or are mitigable, depending on the stock.
        Information developed during the rulemaking process, but not available until after the DEIS and proposed rule were published and made available, calls into question some of the assumptions upon which our analysis was based. One of the uncertainties raised by the new information is that all four stocks may be further from OSP, and growing at a slower rate than we originally thought. In short, new information challenges the verity of the assumptions that we built into our negligible impact criteria.
        We are also reconsidering the use of the recruitment benchmark because we have no data that allow us to generate confidence intervals for the percent of females with first and second year calves, which undermines our current ability to evaluate the status of the stocks against this benchmark.
        In summary, some of the assumptions relied upon in our negligible impact criteria and standards have been called into question. Key among these are:
        • The assumption that achievement of demographic benchmarks developed through an ESA recovery plan will result in a population that is within or near the range of OSP;
        • The recruitment benchmark, which is complicated by gaps in our understanding of the percent of females with first and second year calves;
        • The biological implications of our assumptions about the linkage between (1) stock status, and (2) population benchmarks;
        • The significance of various probabilities of delay in the time to reaching OSP; and
        • The time it takes to reach OSP.
        New Information
        We gained significant information about manatee populations and trends after the proposed rule and DEIS were made available to the public. Some fundamental questions about our understanding occurred as a result of collecting the information necessary to refine the Incidental Take Model. The most important new information included new estimates of watercraft-related mortality, age-related survivorship, trends in carrying capacity, and demographic trends in the Atlantic Stock.
        New information about carcass recovery suggests that rates vary significantly by stock, which challenges our estimates of watercraft-related mortality in all four stocks. Manatee carcass recovery rate is our leading indicator of the fraction of mortality due to watercraft. The carcass recovery rate (the fraction of dead manatees recovered by the carcass salvage program) plays a role in the calculation of negligible impact, because it serves as the link between the numbers of observed and actual watercraft-related mortalities. The fraction of mortality due to watercraft also can be used to calculate the survival rate in the absence of take, hence the degree to which take-reduction could improve the population growth rate. Both of these quantities have only recently been estimated from Florida Marine Research Institute data, and a peer review of the analysis has not been conducted. Further, only a point estimate for recovery rate in each region is available, which means that we do not yet have an expression for the uncertainty in that rate.
        New information about carrying capacity suggests that it may decline over the next 3 to 60 years, which would affect density-dependent life history and management functions of the Florida manatee. The limiting factor for the carrying capacity of each stock is warm water refugia. Each stock of Florida manatees is variably dependent on natural and artificial warm water refugia, such as springs, sewerage outfalls, and power plant discharges. Preliminary information presented in the Incidental Take Model, but not yet peer reviewed, suggests that a reduction in total warm water carrying capacity is possible, if not likely, in the near future. This would suggest that OSP will change over time. Our implicit assumption of a stable OSP is challenged by this information. This, in turn, has implications for our interpretation of total population estimates, and our assumption that none of the stocks were severely depleted based on the demographic benchmarks.

        We also are considering how information gaps may affect our ability to make a negligible impact determination for Florida manatee. The most important information gap is our limited understanding of density-dependent effects on manatees.

        Methodologies
        Questions have been raised about the analytic methods we proposed to use to determine negligible impacts. We stated that, to be negligible, authorized incidental take must be reasonably certain not to significantly delay the time to reach OSP. We also said that the final determination may be informed by an Incidental Take Model (which was presented in the DEIS, or a refined version, included in the FEIS as Appendix I). Comments received during the comment period included suggestions for two alternative methodologies, the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level, and a method which we characterize as the Fraction of Excess Growth (FEG) method.
        The PBR for each species or stock of marine mammal is calculated as part of the Stock Assessment required under section 117 of the MMPA, and is defined as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP. PBR is typically used for determinations for the purpose of regulating commercial fishing activities under the MMPA, but is not used by the Department of the Interior for analyzing incidental take for activities other than commercial fishing.
        The FEG method assumes that negligible impact includes both a delay in time to reach OSP and a percent of annual growth harvested through incidental take functions. As suggested, this method concludes that any incidental take that delays the time to reach OSP by 10 percent or more, or that harvests 10 percent or more of annual growth rate, exceeds negligible levels.
        The Incidental Take Model is based on a model developed by USGS and presented at the April 2002 Manatee Population Ecology and Management Workshop. The model projects population trends for each of the four manatee stocks based on repeated simulations that incorporate environmental and demographic variability, as well as varying levels of human-related take. In the proposed rule, we stated that the initial model used the best available science, and that the Manatee Population Ecology and Management Workshop attendees believed that it was the most suitable model for use in the negligible impact determination. However, the Incidental Take Model currently projects population trends, including the negligible impact criteria, in 20-year increments, which exceeds the 5-year increments required in the MMPA. This approach is currently being assessed.
        The qualitative assessment methodology used the initial results of the April 2002 version of the Incidental Take Model, and was described in detail in the proposed rule. This analytic methodology was applied to make the proposed findings.
        Conclusion
        After carefully considering the various analytic methodologies and relevant information generated during the public comment period, we conclude that the questions regarding standards and assumptions, new information, and analytic methodologies preclude us from finding that under the requirements set out in 50 CFR 18.27, incidental take resulting from government activities related to the authorization, regulation, or funding of watercraft and watercraft access facilities within certain regions of Florida will have a negligible impact on any of the four stocks of Florida manatee. Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 18.27(d)(4), we are withdrawing our November 2002 MMPA proposed rule to authorize the incidental take of Florida manatees and are publishing this notice as our findings.
        Relationship Between MMPA Incidental Take Authorization and ESA Section 7 Consultation
        We wish to clarify the relationship between an MMPA incidental take rulemaking and review of proposed watercraft access projects under section 7 of the ESA. The manatee is listed as an endangered species under the ESA and is also a marine mammal. As such, both the MMPA and the ESA prohibit the incidental take of Florida manatees in the course of conducting otherwise lawful activities, unless authorized. Through section 7 of the ESA, the Service can authorize the incidental take of listed species when take is reasonably certain to occur as a result of Federal actions as long as specific ESA requirements are met. However, if the listed species is also a marine mammal, incidental take authorization under the MMPA must be in place before incidental take under the ESA can be authorized. This rulemaking process analyzed whether incidental take could be authorized for any of the four stocks under the MMPA, which would have allowed the Service to authorize incidental take for these stocks under section 7 of the ESA.
        Actions To Be Taken
        The following describes additional efforts to improve manatee protection.
        (1) We will continue to manage our consultation program to ensure that our responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA are fulfilled in accordance with our regulations and policies, and that these responsibilities are executed efficiently without imposing undue delays or burdens on the regulated public.

        Over the past 2 years, we have made several alterations to our ESA section 7 procedures related to Corps of Engineers' authorization of new watercraft access facilities. Many members of the public apparently believed that these changes were precipitated by the MMPA incidental take proposed rule, which is not the case. Rather, these changes occurred during the same time period as development and publication of the proposed rule. Similarly, in accordance with the settlement agreement in Save the Manatee Club, et al. v. Ballard, et al., the Service's Interim Strategy for review of watercraft access permits (i.e., docks, boat ramps, and marinas) remained in effect through publication of the final MMPA incidental take determination.
        With the publication of this final decision regarding MMPA incidental take regulations for manatee, the Service's Interim Strategy for review of watercraft access permits is no longer in effect. Therefore, the Service will conduct manatee consultations in accordance with section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations and policies.
        Because no MMPA incidental take regulations have been promulgated the Service is precluded from authorizing incidental take of manatees in the ESA consultation process for any project that would be reasonably certain to result in take of manatees. In making its determinations, the Service will give consideration to State and/or local manatee protection measures, State-approved manatee protection plans and similar measures, and will use the best available scientific and commercial information, including information on law enforcement efforts and the adequacy of manatee speed zones and their signage.
        (2) We have proposed additional protection measures in Duval, St. Johns, Clay, Volusia, and Lee counties (68 FR 16601, April 4, 2003).
        (3) We will coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to review and comment on county Manatee Protection Plans and will give consideration to approved plans and protection measures in our section 7 consultations.

        (4) We will establish the Working Group on Watercraft-related Incidental Take as a subcommittee of the Florida Manatee Recovery Team.
        (5) We have initiated a status review of the Florida manatee pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of the ESA.
        (6) We will be revising the Florida manatee stock assessment to reflect our determination that the four regional populations of Florida manatees are separate stocks, as defined by the MMPA. The stock assessment will build from and complement the status review to include a summary of the most recent data that provides the biological basis for separating the population into four stocks.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available upon request from the Jacksonville Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Author
        The primary author of this document is Pete Benjamin (see
          ADDRESSES section).

          Dated: May 3, 2003.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 03-11480 Filed 5-7-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 212, 246, and 252
        [Docket DARS-2016-0014]
        RIN 0750-AI92
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Amendments Related to Sources of Electronic Parts (DFARS Case 2016-D013)

          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 a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 that makes contractors and subcontractors subject to approval (as well as review and audit) by appropriate DoD officials when identifying a contractor-approved supplier of electronic parts.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 3, 2016, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2016-D013, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2016-D013” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2016-D013.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2016-D013” on your attached document.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2016-D013 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          o 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 revise the DFARS to implement section 885(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), which amends section 818(c)(3)(D)(iii) of the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81). Section 885(b) provides that contractors and subcontractors are subject to approval (as well as review and audit) by appropriate DoD officials when identifying a contractor-approved supplier of electronic parts.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This rule proposes to amend DFARS 212.301(f)(xix)(C), 246.870-0(a), and 252.246-7008(b) to cite to section 885(b) of the NDAA for FY 2016. In addition, the rule proposes to amend DFARS 246.870-2(a)(1)(ii)(C) and 252.246-7008(b)(2) to provide that contractor and subcontractor identification of contractor-approved suppliers of electronic parts is subject to review, audit, and approval by the contracting officer or a designee.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items
        This rule does not add any new provisions or clauses to implement section 885(b) of the NDAA for FY 2016, which amends section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012. It revises an existing clause 252.246-7008, which applies to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) and to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (including commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. A determination and findings was signed under DFARS Case 2014-D005 on May 26, 2016, by the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, to justify the application of section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 to acquisitions at or below the SAT and to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (including COTS items).
        IV. 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.
        V. 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. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

        This proposed rule implements section 885(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), which amended section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012.
        The objective of this proposed rule is to provide to DoD the authority to approve contractor-approved suppliers of electronic parts, in accordance with section 885(b) of the NDAA for FY 2016.
        Based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System for FY 2013 and 2014, DoD estimates that this rule will apply to approximately 65,357 small entities that have DoD prime contracts or subcontracts for: Electronic parts; end items, components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts; or services, if the contractor will supply electronic parts or components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts as part of the service.
        This proposed rule does not impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements other than being subject to approval by DoD if the contractor or subcontractor identifies a contractor-approved supplier of electronic parts. However, the contractor may proceed with the acquisition of electronic parts from a contractor-approved supplier unless otherwise notified by DoD.
        The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        DoD was unable to identify any significant alternatives that would reduce the economic impact on small entities and still fulfill the requirements of the statute.
        DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        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 2016-D013), in correspondence.
        VI. 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 212, 246, and 252
          Government procurement.

          Jennifer L. Hawes,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 246, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for parts 212, 246, and 252 continues to read as follows:

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

          PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

            212.301
             [Amended]

        2. In section 212.301, amend paragraph (f)(xix)(C) by removing “(Pub. L. 113-291)” and adding “(Pub. L. 113-291) and section 885 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92)” in its place.

          PART 246—QUALITY ASSURANCE

            246.870-0
             [Amended]

        3. Amend section 246.870-0, by removing “(Pub. L. 113-291)” and adding “(Pub. L. 113-291) and section 885 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92)” in its place.
        4. In section 246.870-2, revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows:

          246.870-2
           Policy.
          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) * * *
          (C) The selection of such contractor-approved suppliers is subject to review, audit, and approval by the contracting officer. The contractor may proceed with the acquisition of electronic parts from a contractor-approved supplier unless otherwise notified by DoD.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        5. Amend section 252.246-7008 by—
        a. Removing the clause date “(AUG 2016)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place;
        b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, by removing ““(Pub. L. 113-291)” and adding “(Pub. L. 113-291) and section 885 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92)” in its place; and
        c. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii).
        The revision reads as follows:

          252.246-7008
           Sources of Electronic Parts.

          (b) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (iii) The Contractor's selection of such contractor-approved suppliers is subject to review, audit, and approval by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor may proceed with the acquisition of electronic parts from a contractor-approved supplier unless otherwise notified by DoD.

      [FR Doc. 2016-18194 Filed 8-1-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6820-ep-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 130402313-3499-01]
        RIN 0648-BD15
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Queen Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Regulatory Amendment 2

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Regulatory Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Regulatory Amendment 2), as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would revise the commercial trip limit for queen conch in the Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to be compatible with the trip limit in USVI territorial waters. The purpose of this proposed rule is to improve the compatibility of Federal and USVI territorial regulations for queen conch in order to facilitate enforcement efforts while ensuring the long-term health of the queen conch resource.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0068,” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0068, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Maria del Mar Lopez, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 2, which includes an environmental assessment, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Maria del Mar Lopez, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: Maria.Lopez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Caribbean queen conch fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council, and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The queen conch is currently classified as an overfished species, and it is managed under a 15-year rebuilding plan. Harvest and possession of queen conch in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ is limited to the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank to the east of St. Croix, USVI, and only from November 1 through May 31 each year. The USVI has expressed interest in having Federal regulations modified to make them compatible with the territorial regulations to facilitate enforcement efforts, enhance compliance by fishers, and allow for more efficient management of the queen conch resource in the U.S. Caribbean.
        Regulatory Amendment 1 to the FMP, implemented in 2011 (76 FR 23907, April 29, 2011), established a compatible seasonal closure with the USVI (from June 1 through October 31, each year), and a compatible queen conch harvest quota closure for Federal waters. The quota or annual catch limit (ACL) consists of an annual harvest of 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) for combined Federal and St. Croix waters. When that ACL is reached and the USVI closes territorial waters off St. Croix to the harvest and possession of queen conch, NMFS will concurrently close the Caribbean EEZ in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude. The EEZ closure will remain in effect until the next fishing season for territorial and Federal waters opens on November 1.
        Current commercial trip limits and recreational bag limits for the harvest of queen conch in Federal waters are not compatible with USVI regulations. The current trip limit in Federal waters allows a licensed commercial fisherman to harvest up to 150 queen conch per day, but does not establish a harvest limit per vessel. USVI regulations allow the harvest of 200 queen conch per vessel per day regardless of the number of licensed fishermen on board. The daily recreational bag limit in Federal waters allows 3 queen conch per person and a maximum of 12 queen conch per vessel. In contrast, the USVI daily recreational bag limit consists of 6 queen conch per person and a maximum of 24 per vessel.
        At its March 2013 meeting, the Council voted to establish a daily commercial trip limit of 200 queen conch per vessel and to leave the recreational bag limit unchanged. As the Federal recreational bag limit is less than the territorial limit, increasing the recreational bag limit would only slightly facilitate law enforcement efforts, but may negatively impact the continued health of the queen conch resource.
        Provisions Contained in This Proposed Rule
        If implemented, this rule would revise the commercial trip limit to 200 queen conch per vessel per day instead of the current 150 queen conch per licensed commercial fisher per day.
        Other Changes Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This rule would also change the language in the codified text specifying the queen conch fishing season. This revision is intended to correct a mistake that occurred in prior rule-making (Regulatory Amendment 1), in which the sentence was restructured and a distinction was inadvertently removed. This rule would revise the codified text to its previous form. Fishing for queen conch is only allowed from November 1 through May 31, and only in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, USVI. In the rest of the Caribbean EEZ, there is a prohibition on the harvest and possession of queen conch. Changing the text to its previous form reflects the original and current intent of the Council.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory amendment, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise the commercial trip limit for queen conch in the Caribbean EEZ. This rule would also implement an administrative change to the regulations regarding the queen conch season. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This proposed rule would not establish any changes to current reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements.
        This rule, if adopted, would be expected to directly affect commercial fishermen in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, who harvest queen conch. Queen conch harvest in the EEZ in the U.S. Caribbean is restricted to the Lang Bank area off St. Croix and all queen conch harvest from this area is believed to be landed in St. Croix because of the prohibitive travel distances that would be required to land in other locations. As a result, the assessment of the number of commercial entities expected to be affected by this rule is based on St. Croix commercial trip ticket data.
        The USVI fishing year for all species is July 1 through June 30. Over the 2009/2010 through 2011/2012 fishing years, an average of 40 fishermen (range of 30-48) per fishing year recorded landings of queen conch in St. Croix. The average total revenue per fishing year from the harvest of all marine species (queen conch and all other species) by these fishermen was approximately $2.6 million (nominal or un-inflated dollars), or approximately $64,000 per fisherman ($2.6 million/40). These estimates include all fishermen with recorded queen conch landings in St. Croix, regardless of where the queen conch were harvested (EEZ or territorial waters). Precise comparable estimates for fishermen who harvested queen conch in the EEZ are not available because the area of harvest was not provided on all trip tickets (area fished was not reported on trip tickets that accounted for approximately 11 percent of the average queen conch harvest per fishing year). However, an average of 17 fishermen (range of 9-23) per fishing year reported queen conch harvests from the EEZ. The average total revenue from the harvest of all marine species by these fishermen during this period was approximately $1.0 million (nominal or un-inflated dollars), or approximately $60,000 per fishermen ($1.0 million/17).

        The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Both average revenue estimates, approximately $64,000 for all fishermen with commercial queen conch landings and approximately $60,000 for fishermen who reported harvesting queen conch from the EEZ, are significantly lower than the SBA threshold. As a result, all commercial fishermen expected to be affected by this proposed rule are determined, for the purpose of this assessment, to be small business entities.
        This rule, if adopted, would increase the number of queen conch that could be harvested per vessel per trip if one licensed commercial fisherman is on board the vessel and decrease the allowable harvest if multiple licensed commercial fishermen are on board. However, 2 percent or fewer of the trips that harvest queen conch are believed to carry multiple licensed commercial fishermen and no licensed commercial fishermen are known to exclusively fish with other licensed commercial fishermen on board. As a result, the effects of increasing the allowable queen conch harvest per vessel per trip on trips with a single licensed commercial fisherman on board would be expected to account for the majority of the impacts.
        The net direct economic effects of this proposed rule cannot be quantified with available data. Increasing the number of queen conch that could be harvested per vessel per trip would be expected to increase the average daily harvest and associated revenue per trip for trips on which queen conch are harvested. Total operating costs could be reduced if fishermen take fewer trips to harvest the queen conch ACL. An increase in the revenue per trip and a decrease in operating costs would result in an increase in profit to affected small entities.
        The queen conch commercial ACL in St. Croix is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) and queen conch harvest and possession in the EEZ is prohibited when the St. Croix ACL is reached. As a result, the total average annual revenue to all commercial fishermen from queen conch harvest would not be expected to be affected by this proposed rule other than as a result of a possible reduction in average price if increased harvest rates result in a derby fishery and depress prices. However, of the estimated average 40 fishermen who harvest queen conch per year, only an estimated average of 17 fishermen per year harvest queen conch in the EEZ. Additionally, closure of the fishery due to the ACL being reached has only occurred once since the 2008/2009 fishing year and because approximately two-thirds of the total queen conch harvest in St. Croix comes from territorial waters, any increased harvest rate accruing in response to the proposed increase in the trip limit in the EEZ may not significantly reduce the length of the open season and, thus, have minimal to no effect on queen conch prices. Therefore, increasing the daily average harvest rate, which may occur as a result of the proposed increase in the trip limit, may have only a small effect on increasing the likelihood of the fishery closing due to the ACL being reached and/or reducing the average price for queen conch.
        In addition to the effects described in the previous paragraph, fishing for, and revenue from, other species may increase as a result of this proposed rule, if adopted, if fishermen are able to take fewer trips to harvest the queen conch ACL and increase fishing effort for other species. However, any increase in revenue from other species would be an indirect effect of the proposed action and, therefore, outside the scope of the IRFA.
        This rule, if adopted, would also change the language in the codified text specifying the queen conch fishing season. This change would correct an inadvertent change to the text that occurred in a prior rulemaking, as discussed in the preamble. The proposed revision better reflects the original and current intent of the Council. Queen conch fishing in the Caribbean EEZ has been consistent with the season specified by the proposed change and, therefore, this proposed change would not be expected to result in any economic effects on any small entities.
        In summary, the average fisherman expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule would be expected to experience an increase in revenue and profit. However, neither the amount nor the significance of these increases can be determined with available data.
        Although the significance of the expected change in profit to the small entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule cannot be determined, the proposed rule would be expected to increase the revenue and profit of the average small entity that would be expected to be affected. Because the expected effect of this proposed rule would be positive and not adverse, the issue of significant alternatives to minimize the adverse effects is not relevant.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Queen Conch, St. Croix, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: June 4, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.491, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.491
          Seasonal and area closures.
          (a) No person may fish for or possess on board a fishing vessel a Caribbean queen conch in or from the Caribbean EEZ, except from November 1 through May 31 in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

        3. In § 622.495, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:

          § 622.495
          Commercial trip limit.

          (a) Applicability. The trip limit of paragraph (b) of this section applies to a vessel that has at least one person on board with a valid commercial fishing license issued by Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. If no person on board the vessel has a valid commercial fishing license issued by Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, the bag limit specified in § 622.494(b) applies.
          (b) Trip limit. The trip limit for queen conch in or from the Caribbean EEZ is 200 queen conch.

      [FR Doc. 2013-13565 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        RIN 0648-AW61
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Swordfish Quotas

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

          ACTION:
          Extension of comment period and change of public hearing date and time.

          SUMMARY:
          In order to provide additional time and opportunities for highly migratory species (HMS) constituents, and other interested parties to comment on the proposed rule published on November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68398), to adjust the 2008 North and South Atlantic swordfish commercial quotas and modify the vessel chartering regulations, NMFS is extending the proposed rule comment period for this action from December 18, 2008, to January 16, 2009. NMFS is also changing the date and time of the December 16, 2008, public hearing scheduled for Gloucester, MA, to January 15, 2009.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2009.
          The new Gloucester, MA, public hearing date and time is January 15, 2009, from 3:00 — 5:00 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by [0648-AW61], by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: 301-713-1917, Attn: LeAnn Southward Hogan
          • Mail: NMFS SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the supporting documents including the 2007 Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are available from the HMS website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or by contacting LeAnn Southward Hogan (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
          The public hearing location is: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          LeAnn Southward Hogan or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. Regulations issued under the authority of ATCA carry out the recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
        On November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68398), NMFS published a proposed rule, requested comments on the adjustment of the 2008 swordfish quotas and modifications to the vessel chartering regulations, and scheduled two public hearings in December 2008 to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the proposed rule. The original comment period was scheduled to conclude on December 18, 2008, and the Gloucester, MA public hearing was scheduled for December 16, 2008. Due to requests from HMS fishery constituents, in order to provide additional time and opportunities for public comment by HMS constituents, NMFS is extending the public comment period on the proposed rule to 5 p.m., January 16, 2009, and changing the date of the Gloucester, MA public hearing to January 15, 2009 from 3:00 — 5:00 p.m.

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

          Dated: December 5, 2008.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-29377 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 367
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0009]
        Uniform Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors; Request for Nominations

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

          ACTION:
          Notice Requesting Public Comment on Motor Carrier Industry Nominations to the Board of Directors.

          SUMMARY:
          The FMCSA solicits nominations and applications from interested persons to serve as motor carrier industry representatives on the Board of Directors of the Unified Carrier Registration Plan, which governs the Uniform Carrier Registration Agreement (UCRA), as authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Agency will appoint five members from the motor carrier industry. The UCRA governs the registration and the collection and distribution of fees paid by for-hire and private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. The UCRA replaced the Single State Registration System (SSRS), which was repealed January 1, 2008.

          DATES:
          Nominations to the Board of Directors must be received on or before February 12, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to this notice, identified by docket number FMCSA-2010-0009, by any of the following methods—Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver.

            Federal eRulemaking Portal: Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. The FDMS is the preferred method for submitting comments, and we urge you to use it. In the “Comment” or “Submission” section, type Docket ID Number “FMCSA-2010-0009”, select “Go”, and then click on “Send a Comment or Submission.” You will receive a tracking number when you submit a comment.

            Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

            Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Docket: Comments and material received from the public, as well as background information and documents mentioned in this preamble, are part of docket FMCSA-2010-0009, and are available for inspection and copying on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may also view and copy documents at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Operations Unit, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

            Privacy Act: All comments will be posted without change including any personal information provided to the FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov. Anyone can search the electronic form of all our dockets in FDMS, by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). The Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can be viewed at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov. Comments received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket, and we will consider late comments to the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Julie Otto, Office of Enforcement and Program Delivery, (202) 366-0710, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by e-mail at: FMCSAregs@dot.gov.

          Background
          Section 4305(b) of SAFETEA-LU [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005] enacted 49 U.S.C. 14504a titled “Unified carrier registration system plan and agreement.” Under the UCRA, motor carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies register and pay certain fees. The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors must issue rules and regulations to govern the UCR. Section 14504a(a)(9) defines the Unified Carrier Registration Plan as the organization of State, Federal, and industry representatives responsible for developing, implementing, and administering the UCRA. Section 14504a(d)(1)(B) directed the Secretary to establish a Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors made up of 15 members from FMCSA, State government, and the motor carrier industry. The Board also must recommend initial annual fees to be assessed against carriers, leasing companies, brokers, and freight forwarders under the UCRA, as well as any annual adjustments to those fees. Section 14504a(d) stipulates that the Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors must consist of directors from the following groups:

            U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department): One individual, either the FMCSA Deputy Administrator or such other Presidential appointee from the Department, must represent the Department.

            Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: One director must be selected from each of the FMCSA service areas (as defined by FMCSA on January 1, 2005) from among the chief administrative officers of the State agencies responsible for administering the UCRA.

            State Agencies: The five directors selected to represent State agencies must be from among the professional staffs of State agencies responsible for overseeing the administration of the UCRA and must be nominated by the National Conference of State Transportation Specialists (NCSTS), a non-profit organization founded in 1959 and consisting of State agencies involved in transportation safety, insurance and consumer protection.

            Motor Carrier Industry: Five directors must be from the motor carrier industry. Today's publication serves as a notice for public comment and recommendations for the five members of the UCRA Board of Directors from the motor carrier industry in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d). At least one of the five motor carrier industry directors must be from “a national trade association representing the general motor carrier of property industry” and one of them must be from “a motor carrier that falls within the smallest fleet fee bracket.”
          The establishment of the Board was announced in the Federal Register on May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27777). In that notice, the Agency recognized the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) as the national trade association representing the general motor carrier of property industry. ATA is a national affiliation of State trucking organizations representing the national, State and local interests of the 50 affiliated State trucking associations; and the interests of specialized areas of the trucking industry through conferences and councils. The Agency selected the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) as the organization from which to appoint an individual to represent motor carriers comprising the smallest fleet fee bracket. OOIDA is a national trade association representing the interests of small trucking companies and drivers. The Secretary has discretion to appoint the remaining three industry representatives. In order to ensure participation on the Board by segments of the industry newly subject to the SSRS replacement system, the Secretary previously appointed three members as follows: (1) One member from the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), (2) one member from the National Private Truck Council (NPTC), and (3) one member from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart). TIA represents transportation intermediaries such as brokers, freight forwarders, and shippers doing business in domestic and international commerce. NPTC is a national trade association representing private motor carrier fleets. With nearly 7,000 tractors, over 40,000 trailers, and annual sales over $285 billion, Wal-Mart is the nation's largest private motor carrier.
          Each of the five current Directors from the motor carrier industry served an initial term of 3 years. Those terms expired, but the directors continue to serve until their replacements are appointed; each of them may be reappointed (49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(D)(iii) and (iv)).
          Board Member Nominations
          FMCSA seeks either nominations of, or expressions of interest from, individuals to serve as members of the board of directors for the UCR Plan from the motor carrier industry. Nominations or expressions of interest should be transmitted by means of the procedures for comments specified earlier in this notice. FMCSA and the Department will make the appointments for the five members from the motor carrier industry for three-year terms, expiring on May 31, 2012.

            Issued on: January 15, 2010.
            William A. Quade,
            Associate Administrator, Enforcement and Program Delivery.

      [FR Doc. 2010-1772 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P