        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Parts 20 and 21
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1232099BPP0L2]
        RIN 1018-BC72
        Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Managing Resident Canada Goose Populations

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or “we”) published a final environmental impact statement on management of resident Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that documented resident Canada goose population levels “that are increasingly coming into conflict with people and causing personal and public property damage.” Subsequently, the Service implemented several actions intended to reduce, manage, and control resident Canada goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce related damages; those actions included depredation and control orders that allow destruction of Canada goose nests and eggs by authorized personnel between March 1 and June 30. However, some resident Canada geese currently initiate nests in February, particularly in the southern United States, and it seems likely that in the future nest initiation dates will begin earlier and hatching of eggs will perhaps end later than dates currently experienced. Thus, the Service proposes to amend the depredation and control orders to allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs at any time of year.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by May 25, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the related environmental assessment at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012.

            Comment submission: You may submit comments by either one of the following methods. Please do not submit comments by both.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. See Public Comments, below, for more information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paul I. Padding, Atlantic Flyway Representative, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708; (301) 497-5851 or email paul_padding@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Authority and Responsibility
        Migratory birds are protected under four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into with Great Britain (for Canada in 1916 as amended in 1999), the United Mexican States (1936 as amended in 1972 and 1999), Japan (1972 as amended in 1974), and the Soviet Union (1978). Regulations allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), which implements the above-mentioned treaties. The Act provides that, subject to and to carry out the purposes of the treaties, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine when, to what extent, and by what means allowing hunting, killing, and other forms of taking of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs is compatible with the conventions. The Act requires the Secretary to implement a determination by adopting regulations permitting and governing those activities.
        Canada geese are federally protected by the Act because they are listed as migratory birds in all four treaties. Because Canada geese are covered by all four treaties, regulations must meet the requirements of the most restrictive of the four. For Canada geese, this is the treaty with Canada. All regulations concerning resident Canada geese are compatible with its terms, with particular reference to Articles II, V, and VII.
        Each treaty not only permits sport hunting, but permits the take of migratory birds for other reasons, including scientific, educational, propagative, or other specific purposes consistent with the conservation principles of the various Conventions. More specifically, Article VII, Article II (paragraph 3), and Article V of “The Protocol Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Amending the 1916 Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States” provides specific limitations on allowing the take of migratory birds for reasons other than sport hunting. Article VII authorizes permitting the take, kill, etc., of migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests. Article V relates to the taking of nests and eggs, and Article II, paragraph 3, states that, in order to ensure the long-term conservation of migratory birds, migratory bird populations shall be managed in accord with listed conservation principles.
        The other treaties are less restrictive. The treaties with both Japan (Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b)) and the Soviet Union (Article II, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d)) provide specific exceptions to migratory bird take prohibitions for the purpose of protecting persons and property. The treaty with Mexico requires, with regard to migratory game birds, only that there be a “closed season” on hunting and that hunting be limited to 4 months in each year.
        Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are promulgated at title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 13, 21 and 22, and issued by the Service. The Service annually promulgates regulations governing the take, possession, and transportation of migratory game birds under sport hunting seasons at 50 CFR part 20. Regulations regarding all other take of migratory birds (except for eagles) are published at 50 CFR part 21, and typically are not changed annually.
        Background

        In November 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or “we”) published a final environmental impact statement on management of resident Canada geese that documented resident Canada goose population levels “that are increasingly coming into conflict with people and causing personal and public property damage.” On August 10, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR 45964) a final rule establishing regulations at 50 CFR parts 20 and 21 authorizing State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports to conduct (or allow) indirect and/or direct population control management activities to reduce, manage, and control resident Canada goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce related damages. Those activities include depredation and control orders that allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs by authorized personnel between March 1 and June 30, because that timeframe encompassed the period when resident Canada geese typically nested.
        In recent years, some resident Canada geese have initiated nests in February, particularly in the southern United States, and it seems likely that in the future nest initiation dates will begin earlier and hatching of eggs will perhaps end later than dates currently experienced. This proposed rule would amend the special permit and depredation and control orders to allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs at any time of year, thereby affording State agencies, private landowners, and airports greater flexibility to use these methods of controlling local abundances of resident Canada geese.
        Definition of Resident Canada Geese

        The current definition of resident Canada geese contained in 50 CFR 20.11 and 21.3 states that “Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August” are considered resident Canada geese. We are proposing to amend this definition by deleting the phrase, “in the months of March, April, May, or June,” (following the word “Columbia”) to clarify that any Canada geese that nest within lower 48 States and the District of Columbia are resident Canada geese.
        Removal of Date Restrictions on Nest and Egg Destruction
        In title 50 of the CFR, destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs is currently authorized under special Canada goose permits (§ 21.26), a control order for airports and military airfields (§ 21.49), a depredation order specific to nests and eggs (§ 21.50), a depredation order for agricultural facilities (§ 21.51), and a public health control order (§ 21.52). Each of these regulations prescribes the dates during which nests and eggs of resident Canada goose may be destroyed. We propose to remove those date restrictions and allow destruction of Canada goose nests and eggs, as otherwise authorized under these regulations, at any time of year.
        Our proposal is based on several factors. First, nest and egg destruction has been an effective tool in reducing local conflicts and damages caused by resident Canada geese. Second, resident Canada geese are identified as such based on where, not when, they nest. Lastly, some Canada geese are already nesting in February in southern States, and it seems likely that nest initiation dates will also advance into February in mid-latitude and perhaps northern States in the future, and hatching of nests may occur later than June 30.
        Eliminating Date Restrictions for Lethal Control Activities in California, Oregon, and Washington
        On June 17, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 32766) a final rule establishing 50 CFR 21.26, the special Canada goose permit. Special Canada goose permits may be issued to State wildlife agencies authorizing them to conduct certain resident Canada goose management and control activities that are normally prohibited. At that time, we indicated that States may conduct those control activities between March 11 and August 31, but that they should make a concerted effort to limit the take of adult birds to June, July, and August in order to minimize the potential impact on migrant populations. We imposed a date restriction of May 1 through August 31 in some areas in California, Oregon, and Washington inhabited by the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Aleutian Canada goose was listed as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967) and reclassified to threatened status in 1990 (55 FR 51106; December 12, 1990). Aleutian geese occur in a small numbers within these States, primarily San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento River Delta areas in central California, Humboldt Bay and Crescent City areas on the northern California coast, and Langlois and Pacific City areas on the Oregon coast. We indicated that if this subspecies is delisted, we would review this provision.
        On March 20, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 15643) a final rule to remove the Aleutian Canada goose from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, due to recovery. Abundance of this population increased from 790 birds in 1975, to an estimated 156,030 in the winter of 2016. The Pacific Flyway Council's objective for this population is 60,000 geese. Currently, there is no special habitat or other threat that may reduce this population back to levels that may need protection under the ESA. Considering the current status of the Aleutian Canada goose, we propose to remove the May 1 restriction so that management and control activities may be conducted during the same period (March 11 through August 31) throughout all States.
        Environmental Assessment
        We prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed two alternative courses of action to address these earlier nesting and later hatching dates and decrease local abundances of Canada geese that nest in the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia:
        (1) Maintain the current date restrictions specified in regulations at 50 CFR 21.26, 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52 on destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs, and no change in the definition of resident Canada geese at 50 CFR 20.11 and 21.3 (No action); and
        (2) Revise the definition of resident Canada geese at 50 CFR 20.11 and 21.3, and allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs at any time of year under 50 CFR 21.26, 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52 (Proposed action).
        The full EA can be found on our website at http://www.fws.gov/birds or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012.

        We note that the proposed amendment to § 21.26 in regard to accounting for the current status of the Aleutian Canada goose was not addressed in the EA, but is a categorically excluded action (43 CFR 46.210) addressed in an environmental action statement (EAS). The EAS can be found on our website at http://www.fws.gov/birds or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012.
        Public Comments

        You may submit your comments and supporting materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax, or written comments sent to an address other than the one listed in ADDRESSES. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov.

        We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such as your street address, phone number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
        Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

        Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
        The economic impacts of this proposed rule would primarily affect State and local governments and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services because of the structure of wildlife damage management. Data are not available to estimate the exact number of local governments that would be affected, but it is unlikely to be a substantial number nationally. Therefore, we certify that, if adopted, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This proposed rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        Finally, this rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the abilities of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Executive Order 13771—Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
        This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) deregulatory action because it would relieve a restriction in 50 CFR parts 20 and 21.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following:
        a. This proposed rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small government activities. A small government agency plan is not required.
        b. This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property, and would not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
        Federalism
        This proposed rule would not interfere with the States' abilities to manage themselves or their funds. We do not expect any economic impacts to result from this regulations change. This rule would not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under E.O. 13132.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed rule does not contain new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with the control and management of resident Canada geese at 50 CFR part 20 and 50 CFR part 21, and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0133 (expires December 31, 2018).
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and U.S. Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We have completed an environmental assessment of the proposed amendment of the depredation and control orders that would allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs at any time of year; that environmental assessment is included in the docket for this proposed rule. We conclude that our proposed action would have the impacts listed below under Environmental Consequences of the Action. The proposed amendment to § 21.26 in regard to accounting for the current status of the Aleutian Canada goose was not addressed in the EA, but is a NEPA categorically excluded action (43 CFR 46.210) addressed in an environmental action statement (EAS), which is also included in the docket for this proposed rule. The docket for this proposed rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012).
        Environmental Consequences of the Action
        Migrant Canada geese do not nest in the lower 48 States or the District of Columbia; thus, this proposed action (amendments related only to depredation and control orders) is not expected to have any significant impacts on migrant Canada geese. All resident Canada goose population abundances are well above population objectives. Assuming that the number of resident Canada geese that initiate nests in January or February does not exceed the current number that initiate nests in March, we expect that this proposed action would result in destruction of a maximum of 2,749 additional nests in January and February. We expect it is more likely that the proposed action would shift some portion of the current resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction activities occurring in March to either January or February. All populations of resident Canada geese are expected to remain at or above population objective levels.

          Socioeconomic. This proposed action is expected to have positive impacts on the socioeconomic environment in localized urban and suburban areas where resident Canada geese are subjected to continued (annual) nest and egg destruction actions that gradually reduce goose numbers and resulting conflicts. It is also expected to reduce crop depredation at some localized agricultural sites where nest destruction can encourage geese to leave the site.

          Endangered and threatened species. The proposed rule will not affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitats.
        Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements

        Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that “[e]ach Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). The proposed rule would not affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitats.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This proposed rule would not interfere with the tribes' abilities to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on tribal lands.
        Clarity of This Proposed Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
        E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, and would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action. No Statement of Energy Effects is required.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend parts 20 and 21, of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 20—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING

        1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 703 et seq, and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.

        2. Amend § 20.11 by revising paragraph (n) to read as follows:

          § 20.11
          What terms do I need to understand?

          (n) Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia or that reside within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August.

          PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS

        3. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 703-712.

        4. Amend § 21.3 by revising the definition for “Resident Canada geese” to read as follows:

          § 21.3
          Definitions.

            Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia or that reside within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August.

        5. Amend § 21.26 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:

          § 21.26
          Special Canada goose permit.

          (d) * * *
          (2) When may a State conduct management and control activities? States and their employees and agents may conduct egg and nest manipulation activities at any time of year. Other management and control activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under this section may only be conducted between March 11 and August 31.

        6. Amend § 21.49 by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

          § 21.49
          Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and military airfields.

          (d) * * *
          (3) Airports and military airfields may conduct management and control activities, involving the take of resident Canada geese, under this section between April 1 and September 15. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place at any time of year.

        7. Amend § 21.50 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

          § 21.50
          Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs.

          (d) * * *
          (4) Registrants may conduct resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction activities at any time of year. Homeowners' associations and local governments or their agents must obtain landowner consent prior to destroying nests and eggs on private property within the homeowners' association or local government's jurisdiction and be in compliance with all State and local laws and regulations.

        8. Amend § 21.51 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

          § 21.51
           Depredation order for resident Canada geese at agricultural facilities.

          (d) * * *

          (4) Authorized agricultural producers and their employees and agents may conduct management and control activities, involving the take of resident Canada geese, under this section between May 1 and August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place at any time of year.

        9. Amend § 21.52 by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

          § 21.52
          Public health control order for resident Canada geese.

          (e) * * *
          (3) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies and their employees and agents may conduct management and control activities, involving the take of resident Canada geese, under this section between April 1 and August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place at any time of year.

          Dated: April 10, 2018.
          Susan Combs,
          Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2018-08500 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-XE888
        Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils are developing an omnibus amendment to allow for industry-funded monitoring. This amendment includes omnibus alternatives that would modify all the fishery management plans managed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils to allow for standardized and streamlined development of future industry-funded monitoring programs. Additionally, this amendment includes alternatives for new industry-funded monitoring programs for the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan and the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment (IFM Amendment) will be accepted from Friday, September 23, 2016, until Monday, November 7, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments 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-2016-0125, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments;
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on IFM Omnibus Amendment;”

          • Comments may also be provided verbally at any of the five public hearings. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates, times, and locations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Daniel Luers, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8457. The IFM Amendment will be available on the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Office Web site (www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov) and the Council Web sites (www.mafmc.org, www.nefmc.org) starting on September 23, 2016. In addition, please visit any of the Web sites for details on meeting locations, webinar listen-in access, and public hearing materials.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils have initiated an amendment to allow for industry-funded monitoring in all of the fishery management plans managed by the Councils. The industry-funded monitoring would be used to assess the amount and type of catch, more precisely monitor annual catch limits, and provide other information for management. This increased monitoring would be above coverage required under the standardized bycatch reporting methodology, the Endangered Species Act, or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The amount of available Federal funding to support additional monitoring and legal constraints associated with sharing the costs of industry-funded monitoring between NMFS and the fishing industry have recently prevented NMFS from approving proposals for industry-funded monitoring in some fisheries.
        The Omnibus Alternatives consider the following for new industry-funded monitoring programs: (1) Standard cost responsibilities associated with industry-funded monitoring for NMFS and the fishing industry; (2) a process for fishery management plan-specific industry-funded monitoring to be implemented via a future framework adjustment action; (3) standard administrative requirements for industry-funded monitoring service providers; (4) a process to prioritize industry-funded monitoring programs in order to allocate available Federal resources across all fishery management plans; and (5) a process for monitoring set-aside programs to be implemented via a future framework adjustment action.
        This amendment also includes industry-funded monitoring coverage target alternatives for the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries. Specifically, this amendment considers a variety of monitoring types and coverage targets to address the following goals: (1) Accurate estimates of catch (retained and discarded); (2) accurate catch estimates for incidental species for which catch caps apply; and (3) effective and affordable monitoring for the herring and mackerel fisheries.
        Public Hearings
        The dates and locations of the public hearings are as follows.
        • Tuesday, October 4, 2016, 6-8 p.m., Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, telephone: (978) 281-9300;
        • Monday, October 17, 2016, 5-7 p.m., Internet webinar, connection information to be available at (http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/ifm-hearing/) or by contacting NMFS or either Council at the above addresses.
        • Thursday, October 20, 2016, 6-8 p.m., Double Tree by Hilton Hotels, 363 Maine Mall Road, Portland, ME 04106, telephone: (207) 775-6161;
        • Thursday, October 27, 2016, 5-7 p.m., Congress Hall, 200 Congress Place, Cape May, NJ 08204, telephone: (888) 944-1816;
        • Tuesday, November 1, 2016, 6-8 p.m., Corless Auditorium, Watkins Building University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, 218 Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02874.

        Special Accommodations

        These public hearings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Dr. Fiona Hogan (NEFMC) at fhogan@nefmc.org, (978) 465-0492 (x121), or Jason Didden (MAFMC) at jdidden@mafmc.org, (302) 526-5254, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: September 14, 2016.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-22493 Filed 9-19-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 402
        [ID 092603B]
        RIN 1018-AJ02; RIN 0648-AR05
        National Marine Fisheries Service; Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations

          AGENCIES:
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; Bureau of Land Management, Interior; National Park Service, Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior; Forest Service, Agriculture; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of Environmental Assessment.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, (Services) announce the reopening of the comment period for the proposed joint counterpart regulations and the availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Healthy Forests Initiative Counterpart Regulations. The Services are evaluating the environmental effects of establishing counterpart regulations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). These counterpart regulations are being proposed in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS) (jointly, Action Agencies). The proposal supports the President's Healthy Forests initiative and is intended to streamline ESA section 7 consultations on proposed projects that support the National Fire Plan (NFP).

          We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated Environmental Assessment. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2003 (68 FR 33805), need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          Comments on this environmental assessment or the associated proposed rule must be received by November 10, 2003 to be considered in the final decision.

          ADDRESSES:

          Electronic copies of this Environmental Assessment or the associated proposed rule may be obtained from the USFWS World Wide Web Consultation Home Page at: http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/forestplan.html. Written copies of this Environmental Assessment or the associated proposed rule may be obtained from the Chief of the Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery, and State Grants, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203, or the Chief of the Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

          Comments or materials concerning the Environmental Assessment or the associated proposed rule should be sent to the Chief, Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery and State Grants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Comments can also be accepted if submitted via e-mail to healthyforests@fws.gov. Comments and materials received in conjunction with this rulemaking will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Patrick Leonard, Chief, Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery and State Grants, at the above address (Telephone 703/358-2171, Facsimile 703/358-1735) or Phil Williams, Chief, Endangered Species Division, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-1401; facsimile 301/713-0376).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        In response to several years of catastrophic wildland fires throughout the United States culminating in the particularly severe fire season of 2000, when over 6.5 million acres of wildland areas burned, President Clinton directed the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop a report outlining a new approach to managing wildland fires and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. The report, entitled Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, was issued September 8, 2000. This report set forth ways to reduce the impacts of fires on rural communities, a short-term plan for rehabilitation of fire-damaged ecosystems, and ways to limit the introduction of invasive species and address natural restoration processes. The report, and the accompanying budget requests, strategies, plans, and direction, have become known as the NFP. The NFP is intended to reduce risk to communities and natural resources from wildland fires through rehabilitation, restoration and maintenance of fire-adapted ecosystems, and by the reduction of accumulated fuels or highly combustible fuels on forests, woodlands, grasslands, and rangelands.

        In August 2002, during another severe wildland fire season in which over 7.1 million acres of wildlands burned, President Bush announced the Healthy Forests Initiative. The initiative was intended to accelerate implementation of the fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration goals of the NFP in order to minimize the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires by reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that have at times delayed and frustrated active land management activities. As part of the initiative, the agencies were tasked with streamlining the section 7 consultation process for projects implementing the NFP.
        The Action Agencies published a proposed rule to establish Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act section 7 regulations on June 5, 2003 (68 FR 33805). The proposed counterpart regulations, authorized in general at 50 CFR 402.04, will provide an optional alternative to the existing section 7 consultation process described in 50 CFR part 402, subparts A and B. The counterpart regulations complement the general consultation regulations in part 402 by providing an alternative process for completing section 7 consultation for agency projects that authorize, fund, or carry out actions that support the NFP.
        In the Environmental Assessment, we considered three alternatives that would streamline the consultation process. The Memorandum of Understanding/Programmatic consultation alternative was eliminated from further consideration. The no action alternative would keep the current section 7 consultation process in place. The preferred alternative is to finalize the proposed counterpart regulation. The proposed action is to establish an alternative consultation process that would eliminate the need to conduct informal consultation and eliminate the requirement to obtain written concurrence from the applicable Service for those NFP actions that the Action Agency determines are “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) any listed species or designated critical habitat.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: October 3, 2003.
          Julie MacDonald,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
          Dated: October 3, 2003.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-25621 Filed 10-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P; 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R1-ES-2009-0036; MO 92210 50083 B2]
        RIN 1018-AV47
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly (M. pacificum) Throughout Their Ranges

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our July 8, 2009, proposal to list two species of Hawaiian damselflies, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (M. pacificum), as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32490) is reopened. To allow us adequate time to consider and incorporate submitted information into our review, we request that we receive information on or before December 21, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2009-0036, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9581. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We reopen the public comment period on our July 8, 2009, proposal (74 FR 32490) to list two species of Hawaiian damselflies: the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, as endangered under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Some peer review comments have already been received during the initial comment period on the proposal and may be found at http://www.regulations.gov. In order to allow for additional peer review, we are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days. Comments previously received on this proposal need not be resubmitted, as they are already incorporated in the public record and will be fully considered in the final determination. We request information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of these species. We are seeking information regarding:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may be addressing those threats;
        (2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population sizes of these species, including the locations of any additional populations of these species;
        (3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of these species;
        (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these species and their possible impacts on these species;
        (5) Which physical and biological factors are essential to the conservation of each species and whether those features may require special management considerations or protections;
        (6) Which specific areas are essential to the conservation of each species; and

        (7) The reasons why any areas should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether the benefits of designation would outweigh the threats to the species that designation could cause, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.

        Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Information previously submitted need not be resubmitted as it has already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered.

        You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hard copy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used to prepare this notice, will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
        Background
        On July 8, 2009, we published a proposed rule to list two species of Hawaiian damselflies: the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly, as endangered under the Act (74 FR 32490). We determined that critical habitat for these two Hawaiian damselflies is prudent but not determinable at this time.
        We are reopening the public comment period on this proposed rule in response to a request from the public to provide time for the compilation and submission of additional information relevant to the threat factors affecting these two Hawaiian damselflies. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to these species. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on our proposed rule. In order to allow for the public to review these comments and have an opportunity to comment, we are reopening the public comment period for 30 days.
        The flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are unique insects found only in Hawaii and nowhere else in the world. Historically found on the islands of Hawai`i and Maui, the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly has not been seen on the island of Hawai`i for over 80 years. Currently, the species is known only from one location on Maui. The primary threats to the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly are: habitat loss and degradation due to agriculture and urban development, stream modifications, feral pigs, and nonnative plants; natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and landslides; predation by nonnative insects and bullfrogs; and the demographic and genetic consequences of small population size.
        The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly was historically found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Kaho`olawe and Ni`ihau. This species is found at lower elevations and breeds predominantly in standing water such as marshes, ponds, and pools along stream channels. Currently, the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly is known only from the islands of Hawai`i, Maui and Moloka`i. The primary threats to the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly are: habitat loss and modification by agriculture and urban development, stream modifications, and nonnative plants; natural catastrophes such as hurricanes, drought, and landslides; and predation by nonnative fish, insects, and bullfrogs.
        We are seeking public comment on our proposal to list the flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific Hawaiian damselfly as endangered. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to these species.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in the proposed rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.
        Authority

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

          Dated: November 10, 2009.
          Gary Frazer,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-27797 Filed 11-18-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Administration for Children and Families
        45 CFR Parts 302, 303, and 307
        RIN 0970-AC01
        State Parent Locator Service; Safeguarding Child Support Information: Proposed Delay of Effective Date

          AGENCY:
          Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Heath and Human Services.

          ACTION:
          Proposed delay of effective date.

          SUMMARY:

          In accordance with the Memorandum of January 20, 2009, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Review” [74 FR 4435], the Department published a document in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009 [74 FR 9171], seeking public comment on a contemplated delay of 60 days in the effective date of the rule entitled “State Parent Locator Service; Safeguarding Child Support Information,” published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2008 [73 FR 56422]. That rule addresses requirements for State Parent Locator Service responses to authorized location requests, State IV-D program safeguarding of confidential information, authorized disclosures of this information, and restrictions on the use of confidential data and information for child support purposes with exceptions for certain disclosures permitted by statute. In response to comments, the Department issued a document March 20, 2009 [74 FR 11880] delaying the effective date of the rule by 60 days until May 22, 2009, in order to permit officials of the new Administration an opportunity to review and approve the policies in the regulation.

          The Department is currently reviewing questions of law and policy raised by the rule. However, based upon the review that has been conducted to date and the nature of the comments received in response to the March 3, 2009 document, it appears that further revisions to the final rule may be warranted in one or more areas. In response to these comments and in order to afford officials an opportunity to review and consider further the provisions of the September 26, 2008 final rule, the Department is considering delaying the effective date to December 30, 2010.

          The Department solicits comments specifically on the contemplated delay in effective date.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments via regular postal mail to: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th floor, Washington, DC 20447, Attention: Division of Policy; Mail Stop: ACF/OCSE/DP.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Yvette Riddick, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Division of Policy, (202) 401-4885.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        On September 26, 2008, a final rule following notice and comment period entitled “State Parent Locator Service; Safeguarding Child Support Information” [73 FR 56422], was published in the Federal Register to address requirements for State Parent Locator Service, State IV-D program safeguarding and authorized disclosure of confidential information, and restrictions on the use of confidential data and information for child support purposes with exceptions for certain disclosures permitted by statute. The effective date given for the final rule was March 23, 2009.

        In accordance with the Memorandum of January 20, 2009, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Review” [74 FR 4435], on March 3, 2009, we published a notice in the Federal Register [74 FR 9171] on a contemplated delay of 60 days in the effective date of the safeguarding. In response to comments, the Department issued a subsequent notice on March 20, 2009 [74 FR 11880] delaying the effective date of the September 26, 2008 final rule for 60 days until May 22, 2009, in order to permit officials of the new Administration an opportunity to review and approve the policies in the regulation.
        We now believe additional time is needed for Department officials to complete their review of the rule and to assess fully the comments received in response to the March 3, 2009 notice. Although the Notice invited comments generally on whether a delay in effective date was needed “to allow Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration,” it also generated focused comments recommending changes to several particular substantive areas of the final rule. In addition to supporting a delay in the effective date, the commenters raised a number of serious questions that warrant further consideration by the Administration.
        For example, one commenter indicated that the final rule appeared to prohibit the State IV-D agency from disclosing confidential information, such as child support payment records to other State agencies, including the State food assistance (Food Stamps) program and the State revenue (Tax) program. Another commenter stated that a delay in the effective date would give the Administration an opportunity to conduct a review of the child welfare data exchange provisions of the rule to ensure that the provisions of the rule conform with The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Pub. L. 110-351), signed into law on October 7, 2008, after the rule was finalized.
        Several commenters raised specific policy objections to the September 26, 2008 final rule including concerns about the rules for disclosure of confidential location information. Another commenter stated that the regulations need to be reviewed and revised to assure significantly greater protection of that information from use for non-child support purposes.
        Additionally, a number of commenters focused on the disclosure of information to an “agent of a child” and raised concerns that some private collection agencies may not actually serve the child's best interests and raised concerns that these private entities are not subject to ethics and confidentiality rules such as those governing State agencies and attorneys and there may be unintended adverse consequences of such disclosures.
        Department officials need time to complete their review of the policies contained in the September 26, 2008, final rule and to consider fully the concerns raised by commenters. Should Department officials determine that it is necessary and appropriate to make any changes to the provisions of the September 26, 2008, final rule, HHS will provide the public with notice of and an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes. Accordingly, we are considering delaying the effective date of the September 26, 2008, final rule until December 30, 2010.
        II. Provisions of This Action
        The contemplated delay in the effective date would give Department officials the opportunity for further review of the issues of law and policy raised by the rule. The Department is inviting comments on the contemplated extension of the effective date of the regulation to December 30, 2010.

          (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.563, Child Support Enforcement)

          Dated: April 9, 2009.
          Charles E. Johnson,
          Acting Secretary.

       [FR Doc. E9-8542 Filed 4-10-09; 11:15 am]
      BILLING CODE