We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0290; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-210-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received multiple reports of cracked rib cap castellations on Model L-1011-385-1 airplanes. The predominance of cracked castellations have been found on the upper cap at inboard wing station (IWS) 555.0. Cracked castellations were also found on the lower cap at IWS 555.0, and at a few locations on the upper caps at IWS 529.4 and 503.76. Castellation cracks may propagate into the rib cap proper, and with several castellations cracked and the rib cap severed, fail safe capability cannot be analytically proven. Continued operation in this condition can result in severe additional damage and loss of stiffness in the pylon back-up structure creating a potential flutter hazard. This condition, if not corrected, could result in degraded structural capabilities of the airplane.

We reviewed Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008. This service bulletin describes procedures for:

• A repetitive detailed inspection of the wing box pylon back-up structure, front spar to rear spar, for castellation and/or skin clips cracked or damaged between stringers and cracked stringer clips.

• A repetitive general visual inspection for cracking or damage of the pylon back-up torque box structure.

• A repetitive general visual inspection for cracking, damage, or failure of the wing box external areas at the drag brace aft wing fitting.

• A repetitive general visual inspection for cracking or damage of the outer surface of the wing upper and lower skins for cracks or damage along the rib attachment at the fastener holes and between the two rows of attachments.

Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008, describes corrective actions as replacing cracked clips with a new clip, and stop drilling a single cracked castellation with a crack that is no longer than three quarters of an inch, provided the two adjacent castellations on either side are crack free (i.e., every third castellation may be cracked and stop drilled). Additionally, this service bulletin specifies that if more than two consecutive castellations are cracked, the airplane should be modified by installing new rib caps or the cracked castellations repaired by replacing a segment of the rib cap using cap splices. This service bulletin states that all other damaged structural items should be repaired in accordance with the best shop practices, following procedures in Structural Repair Manual 57-12-00 and to advise Lockheed of all such repairs.

Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008, describes a compliance time of before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles or 27,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. The repetitive inspection interval is described as not to exceed 3,600 flight cycles or 7,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.” This proposed AD also requires sending a report of crack findings during any inspection required by this AD to the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.

Although Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.

This proposed AD is related to AD 94-05-01, Amendment 39-8839 (59 FR 10275, March 4, 1994). For Model L-1011-385 series airplanes, serial numbers 1002 through 1188, paragraph (c) of AD 94-05-01 specifies that doing the modification specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 3, dated November 22, 1991, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of that service bulletin. We have determined that the modification no longer constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections, and this proposed AD would require repetitive inspections.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

Other than the modification stated above, we have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the crack repair actions specified in this proposed AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0287; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-247-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-37, dated November 28, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0287.

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-52-037, Revision B, dated September 16, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 73 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,205, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on action would take about 22 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $1,870 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0288; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-101-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

We received reports indicating that the improved tee sections are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid decompression of the airplane.

We reviewed McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993. For information on the procedures and repetitive compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0288.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing repetitive inspections of the improved (shot-peened) non-ventral aft pressure bulkhead tees as specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

Although McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, recommends accomplishing the inspections between 300 and 1,500 flight cycles “from issue date of Revision 1 of this Service Bulletin,” this proposed AD specifies variable compliance times depending on when the tee was installed. The compliance times for this proposed AD differ from those specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, because it has been determined that the new improved tees could crack before the part's LOV is reached.

Although McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, describes inspection procedures for the original design tees, the inspection procedures also apply to the improved (shot-peened) tees specified in this proposed AD.

Although McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, notes that replacing an original tee section with a new improved tee section eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections for that tee section, this proposed AD would not allow that terminating action. We have determined that the inspections must be repetitively performed because the new improved tee could crack before the airplane's LOV is reached.

Although McDonnell Douglas Alert DC-9 Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, notes that replacing all six original tee sections with new improved tee sections eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections, this proposed AD would not allow that terminating action because the new improved tee could crack before the airplane's LOV is reached.

Although Table 1 of Figure 4, and paragraph 3, “Material Information,” of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, specifies doubler configuration part numbers (P/Ns) SR09530056-3, SR09530056-5, SR09530056-6, SR09530056-7, SR09530056-8, SR09530056-9, 5910163-387, 5910163-389, 5910163-391, 5910163-392, 5910163-393, and 5910163-394, the correct part numbers are identified in paragraphs (h) and (k) of this proposed AD.

These differences have been coordinated with The Boeing Company.

AD 89-06-04, Amendment 39-6152 (54 FR 11167, March 17, 1989), requires repetitive inspections of the original tee section having P/Ns 5910163-89, 5910163-91, 5910163-92, 5910163-93, 5910163-94, and 5910163-95, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-231, Revision 2, dated June 25, 1993, for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10 through -30 series and C-9 (Military) series airplanes equipped with a non-ventral aft pressure bulkhead. AD 89-06-04 requires that the inspections be repeated whether or not the tee is replaced.

The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0289; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-146-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On June 19, 2012, we issued AD 2012-13-08, Amendment 39-17110 (77 FR 40481, July 10, 2012), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, without a stretched upper deck or stretched upper deck modification. AD 2012-13-08 supersedes AD 2006-01-07, Amendment 39-14446 (71 FR 1947, January 12, 2006), and requires repetitive inspections for cracking in the tension ties and the surrounding structure, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2012-13-08 also requires, for certain airplanes, modifying the tension tie structure or tension tie and frame structure at certain stations; a post-modification inspection of the modified area; and post-modification repetitive inspections of the unmodified area and repair if necessary. AD 2012-13-08 also requires, for certain airplanes, additional inspections. AD 2012-13-08 resulted from reports that certain airplanes have tension ties that are susceptible to widespread fatigue damage, reports of cracks on the forward and aft tension tie channels at station (STA) 740 and STA 760, and a determination that initial inspection intervals required by AD 2006-01-07 needed to be reduced. We issued AD 2012-13-08 to prevent tension ties from becoming severed or disconnected from the frames, which could lead to rapid in-flight decompression.

Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

The WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

Tension ties have been determined to be structure that is susceptible to WFD. WFD can cause tension ties to become severed or disconnected from the frames. Severed or disconnected tension ties or frames at multiple locations could result in reduced structural integrity and sudden decompression of the airplane in flight.

Since we issued AD 2012-13-08, Amendment 39-17110 (77 FR 40481, July 10, 2012), Boeing conducted the WFD analysis and determined that additional inspections are needed, the interval for the repetitive inspections for cracking in the unmodified areas of the tension tie structure and frame structure should be reduced, and, for certain airplanes, a new modification of tension tie and frame structures is necessary. The additional inspections include surface HFEC inspections for cracking in unmodified center section tension ties, and repetitive post-modification eddy current inspections for cracking in modified and unmodified areas.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2605, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0289.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Although this proposed AD does not completely restate the requirements of AD 2012-13-08, Amendment 39-17110 (77 FR 40481, July 10, 2012), this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2012-13-08 in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this proposed AD. Actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2605, Revision 1, dated May 27, 2010, that are required by AD 2012-13-08 are not restated but are retained in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would also require, for certain airplanes, surface HFEC inspections for cracking in unmodified center section tension ties, and repair if necessary. In addition, this proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, repetitive post-modification eddy current inspections for cracking of modified and unmodified areas and repair if necessary. Furthermore, this proposed AD would also require, for certain airplanes, a new modification of tension tie and frame structures, and repetitive inspections of tension ties and surrounding structure for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also reduce the interval for the repetitive inspections for cracking in the unmodified areas of the tension tie structure and frame structure.

The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

The service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

This proposed AD would require that certain actions be done concurrently. Table 1 in Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2605, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2013, specifies to concurrently do the tension tie and frame modification and surface HFEC inspection for cracks in the tension tie center sections: Therefore, paragraph (j) of this proposed AD would require that the HFEC inspections be done concurrently with the tension tie and frame modification.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 86 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

I. Background

The Commission has long established and enforced speculative position limits for futures and options contracts on various agricultural commodities as authorized by the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). 1 The part 150 position limits regime  2 generally includes three components: (1) the level of the limits, which set a threshold that restricts the number of speculative positions that a person may hold in the spot-month, individual month, and all months combined, 3 (2) exemptions for positions that constitute bona fide hedging transactions and certain other types of transactions, 4 and (3) rules to determine which accounts and positions a person must aggregate for the purpose of determining compliance with the position limit levels. 5 The Position Limits Proposal generally sets out proposed changes to the first and second component of the position limits regime and would establish speculative position limits for 28 exempt and agricultural commodity futures and option contracts, and physical commodity swaps that are “economically equivalent” to such contracts (as such term is used in CEA section 4a(a)(5)). 6 The Aggregation Proposal generally sets out proposed changes to the third component of the position limits regime. 7

In order to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the Aggregation Proposal during the comment period on the Position Limits Proposal, the Commission extended the comment period for the Aggregation Proposal to February 10, 2014, the same end date as the comment period for the Position Limits Proposal. 8

Comment letters received on the Position Limits Proposal are available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1436. Comment letters received on the Aggregation Proposal are available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1427.

Subsequent to publication of the Position Limits Proposal and the Aggregation Proposal, the Commission directed staff to schedule a June 19, 2014, public roundtable to consider certain issues regarding position limits for physical commodity derivatives. The roundtable will focus on hedges of a physical commodity by a commercial enterprise, including gross hedging, cross-commodity hedging, anticipatory hedging, and the process for obtaining a non-enumerated exemption. Discussion will include the setting of spot month limits in physical-delivery and cash-settled contracts and a conditional spot-month limit exemption. Further, the roundtable will include discussion of: the aggregation exemption for certain ownership interests of greater than 50 percent in an owned entity; and aggregation based on substantially identical trading strategies. As well, the Commission invites comment on whether to provide parity for wheat contracts in non-spot month limits.

In light of the roundtable, the Commission is reopening the comment periods for the Position Limit Proposal and the Aggregation Proposal. Thus, both comment periods will reopen on June 12, 2014, and end on July 3, 2014.

After the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) (Pub. L. 101-535), which added section 403(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(q), we issued various regulations related to nutrition information on food labels, including regulations requiring the declaration of certain nutrients, regulations specifying the format for nutrition labeling, regulations setting reference values for use in declaring nutrient content for certain nutrients, and regulations exempting certain products from nutrition labeling (see 21 CFR 101.9). In addition, after the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-417), we amended our food labeling regulations to establish requirements for the nutrition labeling of dietary supplements (§ 101.9(j)(6) and 21 CFR 101.36). Section 403(q) of the FD&C Act specifies certain nutrients to be declared in nutrition labeling, and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require other nutrients to be declared if the Secretary determines that a nutrient will provide information regarding the nutritional value of such food that will assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices. The Secretary also has discretion under section 403(q) of the FD&C Act to remove, by regulation and under certain circumstances, nutrient information that is otherwise explicitly required in food labeling under this section.

In the Federal Register of March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11879), we published a proposed rule entitled “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels” (the Nutrition Facts label proposed rule). In the Nutrition Facts label proposed rule, we proposed to revise our regulations to update, among other things, the nutrients that are required and/or permitted to be declared and the daily values, as applicable, for required and permitted nutrients; amend requirements for foods represented or purported to be specifically for children under the age of 4 years and pregnant and lactating women and establish nutrient reference values specifically for these population subgroups; and update the format of the Nutrition Facts label. We based the proposed rule on the latest science and public health information, dietary recommendations of the most recent consensus reports, and public comments received in response to advance notices of proposed rulemaking.

After the passage of the NLEA, we issued various regulations related to serving size requirements (see § 101.9 and 21 CFR 101.12). Since we established those regulations, developments have compelled us to re-evaluate our regulations on serving sizes and determine whether and what, if any, revisions are needed to ensure that the Nutrition Facts label meets its intended goal of helping consumers maintain healthy dietary practices. Specifically, such developments include the availability of newer consumption data, research showing that amounts of food consumed by the American public have changed, and recent consumer research on the use and understanding of the Nutrition Facts label.

Therefore, in the Federal Register of March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11989), we published a proposed rule entitled “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One-Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments” (the serving size proposed rule). In the serving size proposed rule, we proposed to amend the definition of a single-serving container; require dual-column labeling for certain packages; update and modify certain reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs); add several food products and food product categories to the RACCs for the general food supply; amend the label serving size for breath mints; and make technical amendments to various aspects of the serving size regulations.

FDA is holding the public meeting on the Nutrition Facts label and serving size proposed rules to inform the public of the provisions of the proposed rules and the rulemaking process (including how to submit comments, data, and other information to both dockets) as well as solicit oral stakeholder and public comments on the proposed rules and to respond to questions about the proposed rules. In general, the meeting format will include introductory presentations by FDA with time to hear stakeholder perspectives, questions and public comments.

The meeting will be held on June 26, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) at the Jefferson Auditorium, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Wing 5 Entrance, 14th and Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20024. FDA encourages all persons who wish to attend the meeting to register in advance of the meeting. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.

If you preregister and would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please submit a request when you preregister. Due to the anticipated high level of interest in presenting public comment and limited time available, FDA will allocate time (typically 3 to 4 minutes) to each speaker to make an oral presentation. Speakers will be limited to making oral remarks; there will not be an opportunity to display materials such as slide shows, videos, or other media during the meeting. We would like to maximize the number of individuals who make a presentation at the meeting and will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation or express their opinions at the meeting.

FDA encourages persons and groups who have similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation by a single representative. After reviewing the oral presentation requests, FDA will notify each participant before the meeting if their presentation request is granted, and, if so, the approximate time their presentation is scheduled to begin and remind them of the presentation format (e.g., 3-minute oral presentation without visual media).

While oral presentations from specific individuals and organizations will be limited to a certain length of time due to time constraints during the public meeting, stakeholders may submit electronic or written comments discussing any issues of concern to the dockets for the proposed rules. All relevant data and documentation should be submitted with the comments to the relevant docket, i.e., Nutrition Facts label proposed rule, Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1210 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2012-N-1210-0002 , or serving size proposed rule, Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0258 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2004-N-0258-0006 .

Table 1 of this document provides information on participation in the public meeting.

Information and data, including any personal information, submitted to FDA during the public meeting and the comment period for the proposed rules will become part of the administrative record for the relevant rulemaking. This information and data will be accessible to the public at http://www.regulations.gov and between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Division of Dockets Management (see Addresses in table 1).

Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons may submit to FDA's Division of Dockets Management (see Addresses in table 1) either electronic or written comments. You only need to send one set of comments. Identify the comments with the appropriate docket number (Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1210 for the Nutrition Facts label proposed rule or Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0258 for the serving size proposed rule). If you have comments pertaining to both proposed rules, submit them separately for each rule to ensure consideration.

The transcript of the proceedings from the public meeting will become part of the administrative record for each of the rulemakings. As soon as the transcript is ready, we will make it available at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ . It may also be viewed between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Division of Dockets Management (see Addresses in table 1). The transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Send written requests to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

Additionally, FDA will be video recording the public meeting. Once the recorded video is available, you can access it at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ .

I. Executive Summary

This proposed rule would comprehensively revise part 83 to comply with plain language standards, using a question-and-answer format. The proposed rule would update the Part 83 criteria to include objective standards and improve the processing of petitions for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. The proposed rule is limited to Part 83 and does not affect federal acknowledgment under any other statutory or administrative authorities. Primary revisions to the process would:

• Provide for a series of reviews that may result in the issuance of proposed findings and final determinations earlier in the process;

• Separate the Departmental review into three main steps whereby:

○ The Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) first reviews the petition and issues a proposed finding;

○ If the proposed finding is negative and the petitioner elects to have a hearing before a judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), the OHA judge issues a recommended decision to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs;

○ The Assistant Secretary reviews the record, including (if applicable) an OHA judge's recommended decision, and issues a final determination. The final determination is final for the Department and any challenges to the final determination would be pursued in United States District Court.

• Remove the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) process by which a final determination can be reconsidered on certain grounds.

• Allow, in limited circumstances, a petitioner previously denied under the regulations to re-petition under the revised rules.

Revisions to the criteria for acknowledgement would eliminate the need for a petitioner to demonstrate that third parties identified the petitioner as a tribe (although this evidence may be submitted in support of other criteria, including (b) (Community) and (c) (Political authority)). The proposed rule would require petitioners to provide a brief narrative with evidence of the group's existence at some point during historical times. The revisions would also define “historical” to be prior to, but as late as, 1900, and require evidence of criteria (b) (Community) and (c) (Political Authority) from 1934 to the present.

The Department is defining historical as 1900 or earlier based in part on the Department's experience over its nearly 40 years in implementing the regulations that any group that has proven its existence in 1900 has proven its existence prior to that time. Accordingly, the Department seeks comment on easing the documentary and administrative burdens and providing flexibility by defining historical as 1900 or earlier rather than requiring the documentation from as early as 1789 to the present.

Updating the review period for criteria (b) and (c) to 1934 reflects the United States' enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), which reversed the Federal Indian policy of allotment and assimilation that was aimed at destroying tribal governments and their communities. The IRA expressly repudiated the failed allotment and assimilation policy and provided a statutory framework to promote and foster tribal governments. Consistent with the existing policies of the IRA, utilizing 1934 as the starting year to satisfy the community and political authority criteria will reduce the documentary burden on petitioners and the administrative burden on the Department, and avoid potential problems with locating historical records while maintaining the integrity of the process. This is more fully explained below in section II, Explanation of Rule, under the heading “Criteria.”

Other revisions would clarify “substantial interruption” and clarify the existing burden of proof to reflect case law; provide that the Department will strive to abide by page limits for the proposed finding and final determination; and require the Department to post on the Internet those parts of the petition, proposed finding, recommended decision, and final determination that the Department is publically releasing in accordance with Federal law.

The following summarizes revisions this proposed rule would make to part 83.

The proposed rule consolidates definitions, where possible, deletes unnecessary definitions, and adds appropriate definitions.

The proposed rule would refer to petitioners as such, rather than as “Indian groups”—a term that some have objected to as offensive and that presumes Indian ancestry. The proposed rule would allow, in very limited circumstances, a petitioner previously denied under the regulations to re-petition under the revised rules. If a third party individual or entity has participated in an IBIA or Secretarial reconsideration or an Administrative Procedure Act appeal in Federal court and ultimately prevailed, the denied petitioner may seek to re-petition only with the consent of the individual or organization. If the individual or organization consents, or a third party did not participate in a reconsideration or appeal, an OHA judge will determine whether the changes to the regulations warrant a reconsideration of that particular final determination or whether the wrong standard of proof was applied to the final determination. This determination will be made based on whether the petitioner proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that re-petitioning is appropriate. Because the changes to the regulations are generally intended to provide uniformity based on previous decisions, re-petitioning would be appropriate only in those limited circumstances where changes to the regulations would likely change the previous final determination. Having an OHA judge review re-petitioning requests promotes consistency, integrity, and transparency in resolving re-petition requests. Requiring third-party consent recognizes the equitable interests of third parties that expended sometimes significant resources to participate in the adjudication and have since developed reliance interests in the outcome of such adjudication. Having weighed these equity considerations, the Department has determined that the proposed rule must acknowledge these third-party interests in adjudicated decisions.

The proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to file a letter of intent. The letter of intent is merely a statement of intent to petition and does not trigger any review by the Department; as such, it is unnecessary as a separate step. Under the proposed rule, the filing of a documented petition would begin the review process.

For transparency, the proposed rule would require that the Department post to the Internet those portions of the petition and the proposed finding and reports throughout the process that the Department is publically releasing in accordance with Federal law. (“Federal law” in this context refers to the Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and any other Federal laws that may limit information the Department publicly releases). The proposed rule would also add a provision to provide the petitioner with the opportunity to respond to comments received during preparation of the proposed finding, before the proposed finding is issued.

The proposed rule would delineate the roles of OFA and the Assistant Secretary in furtherance of transparency, and would revise the process to promote more timely decisions. Specifically, the proposed rule would allow for a Phase I review of criteria (e) (Descent), then (a) (Tribal Existence), (d) (Governing Document), (f) (Membership), and (g) (Congressional Termination) to allow for issuance of a negative proposed finding if any of these criteria are not met. A petitioner who satisfies these criteria, may obtain a review of whether the petitioner satisfies criteria (b) (Community) and (c) (Political Authority). A petitioner may satisfy criteria (b) and (c) through a number of ways, including if it has maintained a State reservation since 1934 or if the United States has held land at any point in time since 1934 for the petitioner. These criteria are appropriate for favorable determinations based on the Department's particular reliance on collective rights in tribal lands to conclude that an entity constitutes a tribe as explained in Felix Cohen's 1945 Handbook of Federal Indian Law. This is more fully explained under the heading “Criteria.”

If the proposed finding is negative, the proposed rule changes the process by providing the petitioner the right to a hearing before an OHA judge (who may be an administrative law judge with OHA, administrative judge with OHA, or an attorney designated by the OHA Director to serve as the OHA judge). If a hearing is held, individuals and organizations that can make a proper showing of interest or other factors for intervention may participate in the hearing, OFA staff shall be made available for testimony and the OHA judge shall issue a recommended decision to the Assistant Secretary. The rule does not require deference to OFA during the hearing process, but the Department's final determination would continue to be entitled to Chevron deference given that the Assistant Secretary would continue to issue the final determination. The goals of the hearing process are to promote transparency and efficiency and to focus the potential issues for the Assistant Secretary's consideration. Following the comment and response periods, and (if applicable) receipt of an OHA judge's recommended decision, the Assistant Secretary would then consider the evidence and publish a final determination. The final determination would be final for the Department.

The proposed rule would delete the IBIA reconsideration process because this process is the only instance in which the Assistant Secretary's decision is subject to IBIA review, the IBIA's jurisdiction for ordering reconsideration is limited, it has been exceedingly rare that IBIA has granted petitions for reconsideration, and the IBIA's heavy caseload has resulted in even further delays in the acknowledgment process. The finality of the Assistant Secretary's decision will allow parties to challenge the decision in United States District Court where all appropriate grounds may be considered.

The Department specifically requests comments on the proposed hearing process and the following questions: (1) Who is an appropriate OHA judge to preside over the hearing and issue a recommended decision—an administrative law judge appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105, an administrative judge with OHA, or an attorney designated by the OHA Director to serve as the OHA judge (the proposed rule defines “OHA judge” broadly to include all three); (2) whether the factual basis for the OHA judge's decision should be limited to the hearing record; and (3) whether the hearing record should include all evidence in OFA's administrative record for the petition or be limited to testimony and exhibits specifically identified by the petitioner and OFA. Indian Affairs is working with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) on a new rule at 43 CFR 4, subpart K, that would establish procedures for such hearings including procedures and limitations on expert testimony.

To promote efficiency, the proposed rule would allow the Assistant Secretary to automatically issue final determinations in those instances in which a positive proposed finding is issued and no timely comments or evidence challenging the proposed finding are received from the State or local government where the petitioner's headquarters is located or any federally recognized tribe within 25 miles of the petitioner's headquarters. This 25-mile radius is intended to include federally recognized tribes that may be across State lines but still be close enough to have evidence about the petitioner.

Other process changes the proposed rule would make are: Allowing petitioners to withdraw their petitions after active consideration, to provide the petitioner with flexibility if time and resources are not available at that time; limiting the comment periods for proposed findings to 90 days and any potential extensions to 60 days; providing that the Department will strive to abide by page limits in proposed findings and final determinations; and lengthening the Assistant Secretary's review time from 60 to 90 days because the Assistant Secretary is not involved in the decision-making until the final determination stage. If the Department does not meet its deadlines, parties may file a motion to compel action, as appropriate.

The proposed rule would not change the burden of proof set forth in the existing regulations. In the acknowledgment context, courts have examined whether the Department correctly applied the “reasonable likelihood” standard but have not articulated what the standard actually requires. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 708 F.3d 209, 220-21 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Instead, they have only stated that “conclusive proof” or “conclusive evidence” is not required. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 708 F.3d 209, 212 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The proposed rule would incorporate the Supreme Court's clarification—arising from criminal cases in which jury instructions are challenged—that the “reasonable likelihood” burden of proof standard does not require “more likely than not.” Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990) (explaining that the “reasonable likelihood” standard does not require something to be “more likely than not”).

Prior to the enactment of the Federal recognition regulations in 1978, the Department utilized an ad hoc approach to recognize tribes. The Department's longstanding ad hoc approach recognized tribes utilizing criteria developed by Felix Cohen. Cohen has since been recognized as the most important Federal Indian law scholar in American history, sometimes known as the “Blackstone of Federal Indian law.” As explained in his 1945 Handbook of Federal Indian Law, the passage of the IRA in 1934 prompted “extensive” analysis by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or the Solicitor's Office of what groups or bands constituted Indian tribes for purposes of federal law. Cohen then summarized that analysis as follows.

Handbook of Federal Indian Law at 271 (1945) (emphasis added). The proposed rule would adhere to these foundational legal principles while substantially reducing the documentary burden on petitioners and the public and review time by the Department.

The changes proposed in the proposed rule remain true to these fundamental standards and depart only in very modest ways from our existing Part 83 criteria. Consistent with the Federal policy of the IRA, the proposed rule would evaluate the community and political authority criteria from 1934 to the present. The starting year coincides with the 1934 passage of the IRA, which was a turning point in the Federal government's relationship with Indian tribes, recognizing and promoting tribal sovereignty. When Congress enacted the IRA, it also provided an avenue for tribes to reorganize as political entities with a political structure that facilitated the government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government. In other words, the IRA represented a sea change in Federal policy that promoted tribal governments by providing a framework that would make it easier for the Federal Government to interact with the tribe as an independent sovereign nation. The passage of the IRA in 1934 was a communication to tribes that the Federal Government would no longer pursue destruction of tribal governments and communities. Prior to this date, tribes had little to gain, and much to lose, by making themselves known to the Federal Government. To the contrary, Federal governmental policies prior to the IRA were aimed at dissolving tribes. While tribes existed as communities governed by political structures prior to 1934, the IRA encouraged tribes to document this framework through a constitution or otherwise. Further, the Department recognizes the limitations inherent in documenting community and political authority prior to 1934 and maintains that it is logical to deduce that a tribe in existence when the IRA was passed was in existence historically. Tribes that survived decades of harsh government policies and treatment leading up to the passage of the IRA should not be required to show documentation of their continuous existence, in spite of such harsh policies and treatment, up to that point.

Criteria (b) and (c) examine the internal community and the political authority of the petitioner. Consistent with the current regulations, the primary focus is on the petitioner and not the nature of the petitioner's relationship, if any, with the Federal Government. By utilizing 1934 as a starting point of evaluation, this proposed rule does not intend to change current practice regarding the types of evidence that may be submitted to establish criteria (b) and (c). Consistent with previous decisions, petitioner's may continue to submit evidence of interactions with Federal and other officials to the extent it illustrates community or political authority. While the Department previously considered utilizing the 1934 date but did not adopt it in the 1994 rulemaking, the Department's 20 years of experience since then suggests that the heavy administrative burden both on the petitioner and the Department of submitting and reviewing documentation back to 1789 is not justified.

The proposed rule would replace the existing criterion (a), currently at Section 83.7(a). Currently, criterion (a) requires parties external to the petitioner to identify the petitioner as an Indian entity from 1900 to the present. This requirement is being eliminated because the absence of such external identifications does not mean a tribe did not exist. Tribes may have insulated themselves from the outside world for protection, for example. While external identifications may provide evidence of the other criteria, the absence of external identifications alone is not appropriate for determining a tribe does not exist. The proposed rule would require the petitioner to provide a brief narrative, and evidence supporting the narrative, of its existence as an Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community generally identified at some point in time during the historical period (prior to and including 1900). The proposed rule would continue to allow the submittal of evidence that would have been provided under the existing criterion (a) in support of criteria (a) (tribal existence), (b) (distinct community), and/or (c) (political influence or authority).

The proposed rule would modify criterion (b) (distinct community) to include objective standards for clarity to petitioners and the public. For example, the proposed rule would clarify that the existing “predominant portion” standard in (b) is satisfied if 30 percent of the petitioner's members constitute a distinct community. This 30 percent standard follows the percentage of a tribe's eligible voters that Congress, in the IRA, required to vote on the tribe's governing document. With this percentage requirement, Congress signaled that this is a sufficient percentage of a tribe's membership to convene as a community to represent, and fulfill an official act on behalf of, the entire community. While the term “predominant portion” may be understood in common usage to be a majority, here it can mean as low as 30 percent in accordance with this standard established by Congress.

Consistent with earlier decisions, the proposed rule would clarify that the Department may utilize statistically significant sampling, rather than examining every individual relationship for petitioners with large memberships. This sampling promotes efficiency in review of petitions.

The proposed rule would add an example of evidence that may be submitted in support of criteria (b), particularly, placement of petitioners' children at an Indian boarding school or other Indian educational institution. In the past, the Department may have accepted such evidence only when the child was identified as a member of a specific tribe in school enrollment records. Allowing for this evidence even where a specific tribe may not be identified reflects that the Federal Government identified those children as Indian, and where there are children from one area placed at an Indian boarding school, this is indicative of an Indian community in that area.

The proposed rule would also add that a petitioner may satisfy criteria (b) and (c) if it has maintained a State reservation since 1934 or if the United States has held land at any point in time since 1934 for the petitioner. Regardless of what a State's process or criteria are for acknowledging a tribe, if a State recognizes land as a reservation for a petitioner for nearly the past 80 years continuously, it indicates the existence of a community possessing the requisite political cohesiveness to maintain the tribal land base. Maintenance of a State reservation since 1934 until present indicates a high likelihood that the community actually interacted throughout this time period by providing a physical location for such interactions. Likewise, maintenance of a State reservation since 1934 also indicates the petitioner had political authority/influence during this time period because some governing structure was necessary to address activities on the land and interact with the State regarding the reservation. In short, a State reservation is a formalization of “collective rights in Indian land” that the Department identified as a dispositive indicator of an Indian tribe. Nevertheless, the proposed rule would require that the petitioner still meet the other criteria (e.g., criteria (a), (d), (e), (f) and (g)).

The proposed rule would retain the current rule's provisions that allow certain evidence of criterion (b) to serve as evidence of criterion (c) and vice versa (§ 83.7(b)(2)(v) and (c)(3) of the current rule). These cross-over provisions reflect that evidence of criteria (b) and (c) may combine to show the existence of a tribe.

The proposed rule would define “substantial interruption” in criteria (b) and (c) to mean generally more than 20 years. This definition is intended to provide some clarity and uniformity with past practice in early Departmental acknowledgment decisions. Additionally, the proposed rule would allow petitioners to submit evidence for pre-1934 periods as relevant to (b) and (c), but would not require it. This is meant to provide flexibility in those instances where documentary evidence around 1934 may be lacking but pre-1934 evidence is relevant to the criteria.

We received several comments on the Discussion Draft that a bilateral political relationship should not be required for criterion (c) (Political Authority). The existing text of criterion (c) does not include such a requirement, and therefore the proposed rule makes no revision on this point. Political influence or authority does not mean that petitioner's members must have actively participated in the political process or mechanism. Just as there are various levels of engagement in Federal and State government by Federal and State citizens, engagement by tribal members will vary throughout the tribe and active reciprocating political action is not required.

The proposed rule would establish that 80 percent of the petitioner's members must descend from a tribe that existed in historical times (prior to 1900, as discussed above) to meet criterion (e). This quantification would make the standard more objective and is consistent with earlier decisions. Additionally, the proposed rule would clarify that criterion (e) may be satisfied by a roll prepared by the Department or at the direction of Congress, and the Department will rely on that roll as an accurate roll of descendants of the tribe that existed in historical times; otherwise, the petitioner may satisfy criterion (e) through the most recent evidence available for the historical time period (prior to 1900). The Department will not require evidence from years prior to that most recent evidence. The submission of a current membership list in support of this criterion has been moved to the section on what a documented petition must include.

In criterion (f), requiring the petitioner to be composed principally of persons who are not members of already acknowledged tribes, the proposed rule would add that members of petitioners who filed a petition by a certain date (2010) and then joined a federally recognized tribe would not be counted against the petitioner. The reason for this addition is to ensure that petitioners are not penalized if their members choose to affiliate with a federally recognized tribe in order to obtain needed services because of the time the petitioning process takes. The reason 2010 was chosen as the date is because four years have passed since then, and ideally, a final decision would be issued within at least four years. For all other purposes, criterion (f) remains unchanged.

The proposed rule would shift the burden of proof for criterion (g) to the Department to show that Congress has terminated or forbidden a relationship with the petitioner.

To align with current practice, the proposed rule would clarify the criteria a petitioner must meet after it has established that it was previously federally acknowledged. It would also delete the provision regarding petitions that seek to show previous Federal acknowledgment but are awaiting active consideration as of the date the regulations are adopted because this provision applied only at the adoption of the last version of the regulations in 1994 when consideration of previous Federal acknowledgment was codified.

We will be hosting several tribal consultation sessions and public meetings throughout the country to discuss this proposed rule. Tribal consultations are for representatives of currently federally recognized tribes only, to discuss the rule on a government-to-government basis with us. These sessions may be closed to the public. The dates and locations for the tribal consultations are as follows:

Public meetings will be held on the following dates and locations:

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is significant.

E.O. 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 E.O. 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 rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule's requirements will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises because the rule is limited to Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involves a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated the potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and Indian trust assets. The Department distributed a “Discussion Draft” of this rule to federally recognized Indian tribes in June 2013, and hosted five consultation sessions with federally recognized Indian tribes throughout the country in July and August 2013. Several federally recognized Indian tribes submitted written comments; some strongly supportive of revising the regulations and others strongly opposed to revisions. We considered each tribe's comments and concerns and have addressed them, where possible, in the proposed rule.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0104.

Title: Federal Acknowledgment as an Indian Tribe, 25 CFR 83.

Brief Description of Collection: This information collection requires entities seeking Federal recognition as an Indian tribe to collect and provide information in a documented petition evidencing that the entities meet the criteria set out in the rule.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Entities petitioning for Federal acknowledgment.

Number of Respondents: 10 on average (each year).

Number of Responses: 10 on average (each year).

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Time per Response: (See table below).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 12,240 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Cost: $21,000,000

OMB Control No. 1076-0104 currently authorizes the collections of information contained in 25 CFR part 83. If this proposed rule is finalized, DOI estimates that the annual burden hours for respondents (entities petitioning for Federal acknowledgment) will decrease by a minimum of 8,510 hours, for a total of 12,240 hours. Because the proposed rule would change sections where the information collections occur, we are including a table showing the section changes.

We invite comments on the information collection requirements in the proposed rule. You may submit comments to OMB by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or you may send an email to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. Please send a copy of your comments to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Note that the request for comments on the rule and the request for comments on the information collection are separate. To best ensure consideration of your comments on the information collection, we encourage you to submit them by June 30, 2014; while OMB has 60 days from the date of publication to act on the information collection request, OMB may choose to act on or after 30 days. Comments on the information collection should address: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment because it is of an administrative, technical, and procedural nature. See, 43 CFR 46.210(i). No extraordinary circumstances exist that would require greater review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

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 the “COMMENTS” section. 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 believe lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2013-0711), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online ( http://www.regulations.gov ), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov , it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, type the docket number [USCG-2013-0711] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov , type the docket number (USCG-2013-0711) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES . Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

On October 28, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Raccoon Creek, Bridgeport, NJ in the Federal Register (78 FR 64189). The original comment period, in which the Coast Guard received two comments, closed on December 27, 2013. The NPRM proposed the initial changes to the regulation governing the U.S. Route 130 lift bridge across Raccoon Creek, mile 1.8, and contains useful background and analysis related to the initial proposed change. The public is encouraged to review the NPRM.

The original request from the bridge owner, NJDOT, included logs from the 2007-2013 timeframe. The logs indicated an impact on average of up to 30 vessels annually and an average of 10 vessels in the months of March, April, and November. However, on page 64190 under “D. Discussion of Proposed Rule” heading of the NPRM, the Coast Guard stated ”fewer than 5 vessels annually will be required to provide 4 hours advance notice under the proposed change.” The Coast Guard would like to correct that statement here and give the public the opportunity to comment on the revised bridge data. Table A shows the monthly logs for 2007-2013 during the 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. time period provided by NJDOT.

Additionally, the Coast Guard received two comments on the NPRM that are addressed below. The first commenter stated that the change to the existing regulation is not in the public interest and would inconvenience captains that transit the waterway in those three months. The commenter further stated that this change is a cost savings to the bridge owner and that this cost savings is the true reason behind the change. The commenter requested a revision to the background and purpose and to reopen the comment period. Under the Coast Guard's policy for bridge administration, regulations are not promulgated to relieve the owner or operator of the duty to properly operate the bridge solely because of financial hardship. The Coast Guard did not seek further information from NJDOT. NJDOT provided the Coast Guard with bridge tender logs indicating the actual number of openings for the bridge for the preceding five years. The well-documented data, provided above, of an average of less than 10 bridge openings per month in March, April and November since 2006 justifies this regulatory change. The Coast Guard considers maintaining efficiency and reduction of waste in the operation of bridges as within the public interest. Based on this information, the Coast Guard proposes this change to the drawbridge operation schedule.

Based on the second comment from the marina owner, NJDOT provided additional information to the Coast Guard specific to the month of April. This includes data dating back to 1995. (See Table B)

With 19 years of documented openings for the month of April, the average number of transits is less than 10 vessels per month during the month of April. The commenter requested April be eliminated from the final rule. The Coast Guard does not plan to eliminate the month of April from the modification of the operating schedule that governs the Route 130 bridge over Raccoon Creek. The relatively few vessels that require an opening in the month of April may do so by providing four hours advanced notice.

This notice, re-opening the comment period, ensures the public has an opportunity to comment on the revised bridge opening data before the Coast Guard makes the proposed changes final.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223 and 5 U.S.C. 552.

Table of Acronyms COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2014-0329] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-0329) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES on or before June 5, 2014. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

There are four separate marine events addressed by this temporary regulation. The Brookhaven Memorial Hospital fireworks display and the Baker Family Celebration fireworks display are first time events with no regulatory history. The Village of Saltaire fireworks display and the Riverhead Rocks Triathlon were both held the previous year and had separate safety zones established by a temporary final rule entitled “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone.” This rulemaking was published on July 10, 2013 in the Federal Register (78 FR 41300).

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

This temporary rule is necessary to promote the safety of life on navigable waterways within the COTP Long Island Sound Zone during these events.

This temporary rule proposes to establish four safety zones for three fireworks displays and one swim event. This rule will be effective from 8:30 p.m. on August 2, 2014 to 10:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014.

The events covered by this regulation will be enforced on the respective dates and times listed in the table below. If any of the events are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this regulation will be enforced on rain dates listed in the table below.

The fireworks displays listed above are expected to attract large numbers of spectator vessels that will congregate around the location of these events. A regulated area, specifically a safety zone, is required for each of these fireworks displays to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by them, including unexpected pyrotechnics detonation and burning debris. The Riverhead Rocks Triathlon incorporates swim legs that will place many swimmers in the navigable waters of the Peconic River. A regulated area is required to minimize the hazards posed by spectators and other waterway users operating their vessels in close proximity to the event participants. The safety zone established for this swim event will minimize the risks to the event participants from this type of boat traffic and improve visibility and maneuverability for the safety vessels supporting the swim event.

This rule would prevent vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to the event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated areas will be of limited duration and cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Furthermore, vessels may transit the navigable waterways outside of the regulated areas. Vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP or designated representative.

Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community by the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the regulated areas during the periods of enforcement from August 2, 2014, 2014 to August 30, 2014.

This temporary special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The regulated areas are of short duration, vessels that can safely do so may navigate in all other portions of the waterways except for the areas designated as regulated areas, and vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Additionally, before the effective period, public notifications will be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of four safety zones. This rule may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

For Information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Frances Eargle at (202) 564-3115 or eargle.frances@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please request 2 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Persons wishing to attend the meeting in-person or online via the webinar must register in advance no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time on June 18, 2014, by sending an email to: UCMRWebinar@cadmusgroup.com . The agenda for the public meeting and webinar will include time for public involvement. To ensure adequate time for public involvement, individuals or organizations interested in making a statement should mention their interest when they register. All presentation materials should be emailed to UCMRWebinar@cadmusgroup.com by June 18, 2014, so that the information can be incorporated into the webinar. We ask that only one person present the statement on behalf of a group or organization, and that the statement be limited to ten minutes. Any additional comments or written statements from attendees will be taken if time permits or can be sent to UCMRWebinar@ cadmusgroup.com after the public meeting and webinar. The number of seats and webinar connections available for the meeting is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The meeting materials will be sent by email to the registered attendees prior to the public meeting and webinar; copies will also be provided for attendees at the meeting. Information about registration and participation in the meeting and webinar can be found on the EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program Meetings and Materials Web page: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/calendar.cfm .

Special Accommodations: Individuals with disabilities who wish to attend the meeting in person can request special accommodations by contacting UCMRWebinar@cadmusgroup.com no later than June 18, 2014.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires the EPA to promulgate rules establishing criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants in drinking water. Monitoring varies based on system size, source water, and contaminants likely to be found. SDWA also specifies that for systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer, only a representative sample of systems must monitor. Per SDWA, EPA is required to issue, every five years, a list of not more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. The third and most recent rule (UCMR 3) was published on May 2, 2012. The fourth (UCMR 4) is scheduled to be published by December 2016.

This is a summary of the document in PS Docket No. 09-19, DA 14-508, released on April 16, 2014. This document is available to the public at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/Query.do?numberFld=14-508&numberFld2=&docket=&dateFld=&docTitleDesc=.

1. By this document we seek comment on a proposal filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) that would relax but not eliminate § 90.242(b)(8) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR. 90.242(b)(8). This rule section requires the filtering of Travelers' Information Stations (TIS) audio frequencies between 3 and 20 kHz. NAB filed its proposal by way of reply comments to a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), which proposed elimination of § 90.242(b)(8).

2. Following the Commission's adoption of a 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that sought comment on various TIS issues, numerous commenters asserted that the TIS filtering requirement decreases the audibility of TIS broadcasts, especially at night and over difficult terrain. Because the filtering issue was not raised in the NPRM but rather was introduced for the first time by commenters in the record, the Commission sought further comment on the issue in the FNPRM, asking whether this requirement should be eliminated. The Commission received nine comments and four reply comments in response to the FNPRM. All commenters, save two, support elimination of the filtering requirement. In addition, many commenters, while supporting this elimination, oppose any mandates to require filter removal or to recertify TIS transmitters as a result of the filter removal.

3. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) and NAB submitted comments opposing removal of the TIS filtering restriction. SBE states that “[w]hile it is correct that removal of the filtering . . . would improve the audio quality of a TIS transmission, this would be accomplished by a secondary spectrum user at the cost of harmful interference to adjacent channel AM Broadcast station reception.”

4. Although NAB submitted comments opposing removal of the filtering requirement, it also noted that “a compromise approach may be workable.” Specifically, NAB states that “a filter capable of filtering audio frequencies above 5 kHz should allow for a TIS signal of sufficiently higher quality, without impeding neighboring AM services.” NAB notes that “full-power AM radio stations routinely use 5 kHz filters to address and prevent interference among AM stations, with few significant problems.” NAB tempers its proposal by noting that SBE states that “broadcast engineers have observed that some TIS broadcasts contain musical content in the form of segues and other enhancements.” NAB states that “[m]usical content requires wider bandwidth that may not be successfully dealt with by a 5 kHz filter.” Thus, NAB argues that “a 5 kHz filter may not be adequate if TIS stations continue broadcasting musical content contrary to Commission rules.” Accordingly, NAB “offers a proposal to allow TIS operators to use a 5 kHz filter, presuming TIS stations broadcast only voice content, as required under the Commission's rules.”

5. AAIRO responds that it “can . . . support the compromise proposed by the National Association of Broadcasters, . . .” because “[t]he wider filter bandpass would markedly improve TIS voice transmissions and would also protect adjacent broadcasters should a TIS operator transmit non-voice material without authorization.” AAIRO further submits that if: a wider bandwidth filter may be substituted in place of the present 3-kHz filter . . . the filter [should] be outboard to the TIS transmitter and immediately ahead of its audio input. The FCC should prescribe the exact formula for the audio filter and require its use by all TIS operations—new or existing—whose 3-kHz filters have been deactivated. AAIRO suggests the use of the same roll-off curve presently used in the 3-kHz filter, as it has proven to be adequate during the 30+ years of the TIS service's existence. The use of an outboard filter will streamline the timeline to improve the service and dramatically lower costs for existing operators who would otherwise be required to purchase new transmitters or have their present transmitters modified and recertified.”

6. We now seek comment on NAB's proposal and related comments. Specifically, we seek more detailed comments with respect to the following issues:

7. Elimination Versus Relaxation of TIS Filtering Requirement. Rather than eliminate the TIS filtering requirement, as proposed in the FNPRM, is the public interest better served by NAB's proposal, as endorsed by AAIRO, which would relax the filter requirement from 3 kHz to 5 kHz? Is NAB correct that “a filter capable of filtering audio frequencies above 5 kHz should allow for a TIS signal of sufficiently higher quality, without impeding neighboring AM services”? Or, would improved audio quality of a TIS transmission come at the cost of harmful interference to adjacent channel AM Broadcast station reception? On what basis should the Commission make this determination? Are there any compelling reasons why the Commission should not adopt the NAB proposal?

8. We also invite comment on any other measures that could both improve the intelligibility of TIS and provide adequate measures to protect adjacent channel stations from harmful interference. SBE contends that many TIS stations fail to adhere to generally accepted modulation standards employed by AM broadcasters, which could result in poor audio quality. In this regard, we seek comment on the state of licensee compliance with TIS modulation rules, and if compliance is lacking, how it could be improved. We also seek comment on whether and how the Commission could revise its TIS modulation rules as part of a solution to improve audio intelligibility and protect adjacent channel stations.

9. Revision of Operational Requirements. The current rule requires that at audio frequencies between 3 kHz and 20 kHz, the filter “shall have an attenuation greater than the attenuation at 1 kHz by at least: 60 log 10 (f/3) decibels, where `f' is the audio frequency in kHz.” At audio frequencies above 20 kHz, the attenuation shall be at least 50 decibels greater than the attenuation at 1 kHz. This produces a roll-off curve that starts at 0 dB attenuation for 3 kHz, then increases attenuation to approximately 50 dB at 20 kHz. AAIRO suggests that the Commission should use “the same roll-off curve presently used in the 3-kHz filter” for a 5-kHz filter. However, if we slide this curve up in frequency to have 0 dB attenuation at 5 kHz but maintain the same slope, then the curve would attenuate signals only by 36 dB at 20 kHz. We seek comment on whether 36 dB attenuation at 20 kHz would be sufficient or whether the roll-off curve for a 5 kHz audio filter in a TIS system should have 50 dB attenuation at 20 kHz, consistent with the existing rule.

10. Staff determined that a roll-off curve of 83 log 10 (f/5) decibels for frequencies between 5 kHz and 20 kHz would have 0 dB attenuation at the 5-kHz starting point, and would achieve 50 dB attenuation at 20 kHz. However, this is a steeper roll-off curve than the formula prescribed in the current rule. We seek comment on whether the Commission should impose this attenuation if the Commission decides to relax the filtering requirement from 3 kHz to 5 kHz. We also seek comment on whether affordable audio filters exist in the marketplace that satisfy this roll-off curve, or whether equipment manufacturers could retrofit existing filters or economically design, manufacture, and market such filters in the near term. We also seek comment on the general availability of 5 kHz audio filters in the marketplace, the roll-off curves of specific models, and whether, alternatively, we should impose one of those roll-off curves in our rules.

11. Revision of Filter Placement Requirements. The current rule requires that “[e]ach transmitter in a Travelers Information Station shall be equipped with an audio low-pass filter [that] shall be installed between the modulation limiter and the modulated stage.” However, as noted above, AAIRO suggests that “the [replacement] filter [should] be outboard to the TIS transmitter and immediately ahead of its audio input.” Given this difference in the placement of the filter, we seek comment on the feasibility of AAIRO's suggestion and whether to require such configuration in our rules in the event that the Commission relaxes the filter requirement.

12. Certification. As indicated above, many commenters who support elimination of the filtering requirement also request that no recertification requirement accompany such change. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether audio filter elimination/replacement and AAIRO's foregoing suggestion regarding filter placement would either: (1) constitute a change to TIS transmitters that requires recertification; (2) constitute a permissive change in certificated equipment that does not require recertification; or (3) be exempt from the Commission's equipment authorization rules. Commenters should provide evidence to support their arguments.

13. Should Any Change in the Filtering Requirement be Mandatory? Finally, whether the Commission either relaxes or eliminates the TIS filtering requirement, should it also require filter replacement or removal, respectively, for existing licensees? Many commenters who support elimination of the filtering requirement also request that such elimination be made optional, at the discretion of individual licensees. To what extent, if any, would such a requirement present an undue financial burden? Is AAIRO correct that a mandatory replacement or removal requirement would likely cause most TIS Services to cease operation due to expense and logistics? On the other hand, are there compelling counter-reasons, to require filter removal or replacement rather than leave it to the discretion of TIS licensees?

14. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

15. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Interested parties may file comments using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Commenters should refer to docket number 09-19 when filing comments.

16. Electronic Filers: Interested parties may file comments electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs2.

17. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

18. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

19. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

20. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

21. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

22. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

23. Interested parties may view documents filed in this proceeding on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) using the following steps: (1) Access ECFS at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. (2) In the introductory screen, click on “Search for Filings.” (3) In the “Proceeding Number” box, enter the numerals in the docket number. (4) Click on the box marked “Search for Comments.” A link to each document is provided in the document list. The public may inspect and copy filings and comments during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The public may also purchase filings and comments from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com. The public may also download this Public Notice from the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/.

In Rail Fuel Surcharges ( Fuel Surcharges ), EP 661 (STB served Jan. 26, 2007), the Board inquired into and made findings regarding rail carrier practices related to fuel surcharges, i.e., a separately identified component of the total rate that is charged for the transportation involved and is designed to recoup increases in the carrier's fuel costs. The Board prohibited rate-based fuel surcharges as an unreasonable practice and, as to the matter at issue here, established as a “safe harbor” an index upon which carriers could rely to measure changes in fuel costs for purposes of a fuel surcharge program. Id., slip op. at 11. That index was the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)  1 U.S. No. 2 Diesel Retail Sales by All Sellers (Cents per Gallon), which was and continues to be referred to as the Highway Diesel Fuel Index (HDF Index). 2 Id. Although the HDF Index tracks retail fuel prices, which include taxes not paid by wholesale buyers like the Class I railroads, the Board was persuaded that the HDF Index “accurately reflects changes in fuel costs in the rail industry.” Id. (emphasis added). The Board noted that alternative indexes could be used but that they could be challenged as unreasonable on a case-by-case basis. 3

The changes in a rail carrier's fuel costs are reflected in its “incremental fuel costs” by which we mean those fuel costs, not embedded in the base rate, that the rail carrier seeks to recover through a fuel surcharge mechanism. A critical issue that arose in a complaint brought against BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) by Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill), a major shipper of agricultural products, was “how to measure BNSF's incremental fuel costs.” Cargill, Inc. v. BNSF Ry. ( Cargill ), NOR 42120, slip op. at 7 (STB served Aug. 12, 2013.) Cargill argued that BNSF's mileage-based fuel surcharge program constituted an unreasonable practice, asserting that it extracted substantial profits on the traffic to which it applied. Cargill sought to show that BNSF's fuel surcharge revenues exceeded BNSF's incremental fuel costs by comparing BNSF's fuel surcharge revenue to its internal fuel costs.

To address Cargill's “Profit Center” claim, the Board had to decide how to calculate BNSF's incremental fuel costs. The Board determined that the “safe harbor” language in Fuel Surcharges dictated the answer. Specifically, the Board found, in part, that if rail carriers use the HDF Index to measure changes in their fuel costs for purposes of a fuel surcharge program then, under the safe harbor provision adopted in Fuel Surcharges, they “are entitled to rely on the HDF Index as a proxy to measure changes in their internal fuel costs.” Id. at 14. Having created the safe harbor “to encourage use of the HDF Index” to measure changes in rail carrier fuel costs, id. at 9, the Board concluded that because BNSF had used the HDF Index in the fuel surcharge program at issue, the Board had to use that index as well to calculate BNSF's incremental fuel costs Id. (“what the safe harbor means is that if a rail carrier uses the HDF Index [in its fuel surcharge program] to measure changes in its fuel costs, then that is how the Board will measure these changes as well, rather than by looking at evidence of changes in the rail carrier's internal fuel costs”). 4

Performing its own examination of BNSF's month-to-month incremental fuel costs over a five-year period, the Board determined that, as measured by the HDF Index, BNSF's total incremental fuel costs for the traffic subject to the challenged fuel surcharge program only narrowly exceeded the fuel surcharge revenues BNSF collected on that traffic. The Board observed, however, that if BNSF's incremental fuel costs were instead measured by the rail carrier's internal fuel costs, BNSF's fuel surcharge revenues would have exceeded its incremental fuel costs by $181 million. Id. at 14. This occurred because changes in the HDF Index did not precisely reflect changes in BNSF's internal fuel costs. In particular, the “spread”—i.e., the difference between the average retail price per gallon as reflected in the HDF Index and the lower wholesale price per gallon actually paid by BNSF—increased overall significantly more than it decreased over the five-year analysis period.

This result concerned the Board. Pointing out that it had not rejected Cargill's Profit Center claim lightly, the Board noted that in Fuel Surcharges neither it nor any commenting party had foreseen a situation where the spread between a rail carrier's internal fuel costs and the HDF Index would diverge as it had in Cargill and that it was unclear if this recovery was a unique situation affecting BNSF during a period of high fuel price volatility or if it was, or was likely to have been, a more widespread phenomenon that could undermine the usefulness of the safe harbor provision. The Board expressed concern that the safe harbor provision could give rail carriers an unintended advantage: if a rail carrier's internal fuel costs rise relative to HDF Index prices, the rail carrier could revise its fuel surcharge level upward to ensure that it fully recovers its incremental fuel costs; on the other hand, if a rail carrier's internal fuel costs declined relative to HDF Index prices (as happened to BNSF), the rail carrier could leave its fuel surcharge level in place, creating a spread and excessive revenues. Id. at 17. This could allow a rail carrier to recover substantially more than its incremental internal fuel costs yet still be permissible under the safe harbor.

The Board found no evidence to suggest that BNSF had intentionally taken advantage of this aspect of the safe harbor. Nevertheless, because of the possibility of future abuse, the Board stated that it would give shippers, rail carriers, and other interested persons the opportunity to file comments on the issue.

We are seeking comments from the public on whether the safe harbor provision of Fuel Surcharges should be modified or removed. In particular, we seek comments on: whether or not the phenomenon that we observed in Cargill (a growing spread between a rail carrier's internal fuel costs and the HDF Index) was likely an aberration; whether there are problems associated with the Board's use of the HDF Index as a safe harbor in judging the reasonableness of fuel surcharge programs; whether any problems with the safe harbor could be addressed through a modification of it; and whether any problems with the safe harbor are outweighed by its benefits. Parties are also encouraged to comment on any other matter that they believe bears on whether the safe harbor should be modified or removed.

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

Public Comments

We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress that was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 47060), our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.

(2) Specific information on:

(a) The distribution of Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress;

(b) The amount and distribution of habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress; and

(c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and

(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.

(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.

(4) The new area that we are proposing for critical habitat designation for the fleshy-fruit gladecress in this revised proposed rule.

(5) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress and proposed critical habitat.

(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.

(7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.

(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.

(9) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

(10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 FR 47060) during the initial comment period from August 2 to October 1, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning proposed critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.

If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment 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 that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0086, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0086, or by mail from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress in this document. For more information on these species and their habitats or previous Federal actions concerning these species, refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 47109), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0087) or from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

On August 2, 2013, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress (78 FR 47060). We proposed to designate approximately:

• 373 hectares (ha) (925.5 acres (ac)) of critical habitat in 20 units for Short's bladderpod in Posey County, Indiana; Clark, Franklin, and Woodford Counties, Kentucky; and Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Jackson, Montgomery, Smith, and Trousdale Counties, Tennessee.

• 624 ha (1,542 ac) of critical habitat for whorled sunflower in 4 units in Cherokee County, Alabama; Floyd County, Georgia; and Madison and McNairy Counties, Tennessee.

• 8.4 ha (20.5 ac) of critical habitat for fleshy-fruit gladecress in 6 units in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama.

Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

In this document, we are proposing to increase the designation of critical habitat for the fleshy-fruit gladecress by approximately 0.04 ha (0.1 ac), for a total of approximately 8.4 ha (20.6 ac) in 7 critical habitat units in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama.

We are proposing to modify our proposed critical habitat designation by adding Unit 7 for the fleshy-fruit gladecress based on information received from the Tennessee Valley Authority about a previously unknown population and based on our field visits made on March 27, 2014. The change is described in Table 1 and the unit description below. Maps illustrating the changes from previously proposed unit boundaries are included in the rule portion of this document and are also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at docket number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0086.

Unit 7 consists of 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) of privately owned land in Lawrence County, Alabama. This unit is currently occupied and is located within a powerline right-of-way approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of County Roads 217 and 222, near Hillsboro. Habitat in this unit consists of a relatively small limestone glade outcrop within a powerline right-of-way that is bordered by a forested area. Well-illuminated, open areas (Primary Constituent Element (PCE) 2), with shallow soils and exposed limestone bedrock that are dominated by characteristic glade vegetation (PCE 1), are present within the unit. The features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of the invasion of exotic species into open glades and possible changes in land use, including agriculture or development.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.

When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any ancillary benefits triggered by existing local, State, or Federal laws as a result of the critical habitat designation.

When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to incentivize or result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for these species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.

We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. To consider information related to economic impact, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES ).

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct an optional 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.

For this designation, we developed an Incremental Effects Memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress (IEc 2014, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation and may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM were used to develop our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress, and this information is summarized in the narrative below.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess, to the extent practicable, and if sufficient data are available, the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our IEM dated December 2, 2013, and modified on April 17, 2014 to include the additional critical habitat unit for the fleshy-fruit gladecress, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Utility projects, including work on electricity transmission lines, gas pipelines, sewer pipelines, water pipelines, and telecommunications equipment; (2) recreation; (3) conservation projects; (4) transportation activities including bridge construction; (5) agriculture; and (6) residential and commercial development. We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement but only activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress are present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.

In our IEM, we attempted to distinguish between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the three plant species. Because the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress was proposed concurrently with their listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the species and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress would also likely adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for these species.

The proposed critical habitat designation for Short's bladderpod totals approximately 373 ha (925.5 ac) in 20 units, all of which are currently occupied by the species, and includes lands under Federal (30 percent), State or local government (6 percent), and private (64 percent) land ownership. All of the Federal lands are administered by the Army Corps of Engineers, which also holds leases on approximately four percent of the privately owned lands included in this proposed critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat designation for whorled sunflower totals approximately 624.2 ha (1,542.3 ac) in four units, all of which are currently occupied by the species and are located entirely within privately owned lands. The proposed critical habitat designation for fleshy-fruit gladecress totals 8.4 ha (20.6 ac) in seven units, all of which are currently occupied by the species, and includes Federal (6 percent) and privately owned (94 percent) lands.

In these areas any actions that may affect the species or their habitat would also affect designated critical habitat and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected to result from the proposed critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.

The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are residential and commercial development that may occur on private lands. However, based on coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $5,000 per consultation effort).

The probable incremental economic impacts of the critical habitat designations for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress are expected to be limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This is due to the fact that all of the proposed critical habitat units are considered to be occupied by the species, and incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation, other than administrative costs, are unlikely. The administrative costs are expected to range from $410 to $5,000 per consultation. At maximum, the incremental cost per year is not expected to exceed $16,000.00 annually. Therefore, future probable incremental economic impacts are not likely to exceed $100 million in any single year.

In our August 2, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 47060), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 12630 (Takings).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), 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 entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Agency is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under these circumstances only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. Federal agencies are not small entities and, to this end, there is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding or assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency, for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. The economic analysis found that no significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress. Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights should result from this designation. Based on information contained in the economic analysis and described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended on August 2, 2013, at 78 FR 47060, as set forth below:

Background

The current trawl gear stowage regulations, at 50 CFR 648.23(b), require that trawl gear being stowed on the net reel be covered with a “canvas or similar opaque material” when transiting closed areas and areas with mesh size restrictions. The industry typically uses a commonly available opaque plastic tarp to meet this requirement, which is intended to help facilitate enforcement. However, industry has raised two safety concerns with this requirement. First, the tarps most frequently used have very few places where a rope or similar material can be attached to assist in pulling the tarp over the net reel. As a result, crew members at sea often have to climb or stand on the net reel or surrounding parts of the vessel to successfully cover the reel. This creates a safety concern for crew members who may slip or fall and injure themselves or others. In addition, because the tarps are non-porous, they catch wind, similar to a sail, adding to the difficulty of covering the net reel and increasing the safety risks.

As a result of these safety concerns, the New England Fishery Management Council's Enforcement Committee has been working with the fishing industry and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to develop an alternative to the tarp requirement for stowing trawl nets on the reel. Through public workshops and at-sea trials, the industry, USCG, and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) developed an orange mesh material as a safer alternative to the current tarp requirement. At its September 2013 meeting, the Council approved a motion requesting that the Regional Administrator implement two new trawl gear stowage methods and modify one provision of the existing methods. This action proposes to add a provision to allow the use of a highly visible orange mesh material, as an alternative to the current requirement to use a tarp or similar canvas material. This action would be implemented under authority delegated to the NMFS Regional Administrator at § 648.23(b)(5), at the request of the Council.

In addition, when considering this revision to the gear stowage regulations, the Committee examined whether the current requirement that the “towing wires are detached from the doors” also presents safety concerns. When trawl gear is being stowed, detaching the wires leaves the doors unsecured and swinging freely, which can result in damage to the vessel. This is particularly problematic for smaller fiberglass vessels. If the wires were allowed to remain attached to the doors, the doors could be held securely in place, preventing them from moving and causing damage to the vessel or injuring crew. The Committee, with concurrence from the USCG and NMFS Office of Law Enforcement, concluded that this measure is no longer needed to conduct enforcement and, as such, recommends this measure be removed from the regulations pertaining to all on-reel gear stowage requirements.

As a result, the new stowage method would not include the requirement to remove the towing wires from the doors for all on-reel trawl gear stowage methods where it currently applies.

NMFS is also taking this opportunity under its authority at section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to reorganize the current gear stowage regulations. Currently, all Northeast region gear stowage regulations reside under the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB) regulations at subpart B of 50 CFR part 648. The gear stowage regulations were originally implemented in Amendment 1 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan as part of the exempted fishing programs. These regulations were subsequently expanded and modified a number of times. In 1996, NMFS undertook a comprehensive reorganization of fishery regulations in response to a Presidential directive. As a result, the gear stowage regulations that had previously been part of the Northeast multispecies regulations were moved to the MSB regulations. While there is not information available as to exactly why this move occurred, it is likely because the MSB fisheries constitute a large majority of the small-mesh fisheries, which were the original reason for implementing the gear stowage regulations.

Consequently, when considering updating or revising the gear stowage regulations for fisheries other than MSB, the rulemaking process is unnecessarily complex and challenging, since these regulations are in the MSB regulations, but in fact are referenced by several other fisheries. To help streamline the regulations and to assist in making future adjustments to these regulations, NMFS is proposing to move the entirety of the gear stowage regulations at § 648.23(b) to the definitions section of subpart A at § 648.2. The way the regulations are currently organized can be interpreted that gear stowage regulations are specific to MSB, when in fact they apply to several fisheries. This change would clarify that these regulations apply to numerous fisheries and not just MSB. The current organization of these regulations also causes confusion with the Council process, since the regulations are within a section of the regulations managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council, but they actually apply to several fisheries, including fisheries managed by the New England Council. This change would make it clear that the gear stowage regulations apply to numerous fisheries, thus affecting fisheries managed by both Councils. Although this is outside of the request of the Council, this restructuring would not directly affect fisheries operations and would better organize the regulations. As such, this change would be beneficial to fisheries, future policy development, and Council proceedings.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with 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.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.

The proposed measures would affect Federal permit holders that use trawl gear. In 2013, there were 468 Federal permit holders that reported using trawl gear. All of these permit holders fall within the SBA's definition of a small business because each permit holder has annual receipts that do not exceed $19.0 million. The primary fisheries affected would be the Northeast multispecies, including small-mesh multispecies, herring, squid, mackerel, butterfish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries.

This action would allow for additional methods of stowing trawl gear on the net reel to provide the industry with more flexibility and to help increase safety at sea. This action would not directly impact fisheries operations or the marine environment. This action would provide the opportunity to use a new gear stowage method: a mesh type material that could be used in lieu of the current requirement to use an opaque canvas type material. Based on industry input, testing, and at sea trials, a mesh type material would be easier and safer to work with than the current opaque canvas requirement. As a result, this action could increase safety at sea and vessel efficiency, thus potentially reducing vessel operating costs. Initially, converting from the current opaque canvas material to a mesh-like material could require an investment by the vessel operator; however, the mesh type materials that were tested are readily available with relatively low cost, commonly available for less than $100. In addition, this new storage method would not be required, but would merely provide a new gear stowage option as an alternative to the current method. As such, vessels could continue to use the current opaque canvas method and would not be required to purchase a new material or other equipment. As such, vessels that continued to use the current opaque material would incur no additional expenses. Therefore, because this action only proposes a new gear stowage option, and because no net change in fishing effort, participation in the fishery, or fishery expenses is expected, this action will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows: