Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76351 

reducing risk. Covered railroads will be 

specifically required to evaluate 

components of the program that were 

not audited by FRA that year. These 

evaluations will likely be required to 

utilize valid mathematical tests or 

methods that conform to the standards 

of the American Evaluation Association. 

a. How often should a railroad be 

required to evaluate the effectiveness of 

its RRP? 

b. What other standards could a 

railroad use to evaluate the effectiveness 

of its RRP? 

28. Should FRA allow a railroad to 

hire a contractor to evaluate its RRP? If 

so, what qualifications or certifications 

should this contractor have? 

29. What documentation/certification 

must a railroad maintain so that FRA 

can verify that the railroad has properly 

evaluated the effectiveness of its RRP? 

Cost/Benefits 

30. What are the initial and recurrent 

costs of establishing and maintaining 

RRP processes (e.g., internal auditing 

and evaluation, data collection, 

employee training, computer software, 

personnel hiring and training)? 

31. How could railroads maximize 

benefits associated with a risk reduction 

program without unjustified or 

unnecessary costs? 

32. What new knowledge, skills, and 

abilities would your organization need, 

if any, to operate successfully within a 

risk reduction framework? 

33. What are practical ways a small 

business could apply the elements of an 

RRP? 

34. What business benefits are created 

by a risk reduction program? 

35. Are there special costs or loss of 

benefits of scale for small businesses? If 

so, how can they be minimized? 

General/Background 

36. FRA may require a railroad to 

develop and submit an RRPP for 

approval six months after publication of 

the final rule. Is this timeline 

appropriate? If not, why? What 

additional problems does the six month 

deadline create? 

37. FRA may require a railroad to 

establish a full initial implementation of 

an RRP six months after the RRPP has 

been approved by FRA. 

a. Is this timeline appropriate? If not, 

explain why it is not appropriate. 

b. Should FRA permit a railroad to 

implement its RRP in phases? What 

should those phases be? Explain. 

38. Has your organization 

implemented an official safety risk 

reduction program (or other programs 

that could qualify as risk reduction)? 

Please describe your implementation 

experience. 

a. How has this program impacted 

organizational safety and compliance 

with existing Federal statutes and 

regulations? 

b. How have the resources required to 

implement and maintain the program 

affected your organization? 

c. If you do not represent a railroad, 

how do you think your risk reduction 

activities would apply in a railroad 

context? 

d. How has this program improved 

your organization’s corporate safety 

culture? 

39. Has your railroad undertaken a 

risk reduction pilot project? If so, please 

tell us how successful that pilot project 

has been and how any data or 

information obtained through the 

project could assist in the development 

of an RRP regulation. 

40. What areas of FRA’s current 

regulations do you believe already 

incorporate risk reduction principles? 

How would you suggest the FRA avoid 

any duplicative requirements in any risk 

reduction rulemaking effort? 

Public Meetings 

41. After the ANPRM comment period 

has closed, FRA may hold one or more 

public hearings on the announced risk 

reduction rulemaking. Decisions 

regarding public meetings will be made 

based upon the content of the 

comments. As such, all interested 

entities should, to the best of their 

ability, respond fully in writing to the 

questions presented in this ANPRM. 

a. How many public meetings, if any, 

should FRA hold? 

b. Where should any public 

meeting(s) be held? Are there certain 

meeting locations that would increase 

participation? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 

2010. 

Karen J. Hedlund, 

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30836 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 100526227–0256–01] 

RIN 0648–AY71 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Atlantic 

Surfclam (Surfclam) and Ocean 

Quahog Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS withdraws the 

proposed rule published on June 30, 

2010, which proposed to open a portion 

of the Georges Bank (GB) Closed Area to 

the harvest of surfclams and ocean 

quahogs. The previously published 

proposed rule will not be issued as a 

final rule and will not become effective 

or enforceable. The current GB Closed 

Area remains in effect. 

DATES: The withdrawal of the proposed 

rule to open a portion of the GB Closed 

Area to the harvest of surfclams and 

ocean quahogs (75 FR 37745, June 30, 

2010) is effective December 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anna Macan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, phone (978) 281–9165, fax 

(978) 281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS is withdrawing a proposed rule 

to open a portion of the GB Closed Area 

to the harvest of surfclams and ocean 

quahogs that was published on June 30, 

2010 (75 FR 37745), with public 

comments accepted through July 30, 

2010. The background and full details 

on the development of the June 30, 2011 

proposed rule are contained in the 

preamble of the proposed rule and are 

only summarized here. 

The GB Closed Area, located in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone east of 69°00’ 

W. long. and south of 42°20′ N. lat., has 

been closed to the harvest of surfclams 

and ocean quahogs since 1990 due to 

red tide blooms that cause paralytic 

shellfish poisoning (PSP). The closure 

was implemented based on advice from 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), after samples tested positive for 

toxins (saxotoxins) that cause PSP. PSP 

toxins are produced by the alga, 

Alexandrium fundyense, which can 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
76352 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

form blooms commonly referred to as 

red tides, or harmful algal blooms 

(HABs), and can produce toxins that 

accumulate in water column filterfeeding shellfish. Shellfish 

contaminated with the toxin, if eaten in 

large enough quantity, can cause illness 

or death in humans. 

Due to inadequate testing or 

monitoring of the GB Closed Area for 

the presence of PSP-causing toxins, the 

closure was made permanent in 1999, 

under Amendment 12 to the Atlantic 

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). Since the 

implementation of the permanent 

closure, NOAA’s National Ocean 

Service (NOS) has provided grants to 

the FDA; the States of Maine, New 

Hampshire, and Massachusetts; and a 

clam industry representative to collect 

water and shellfish samples from 

Federal waters off of southern New 

England. The FDA, in consultation with 

NMFS and several States, also 

developed the Protocol for Onboard 

Screening and Dockside Testing in 

Molluscan Shellfish (Protocol), which is 

designed to test and verify that clams 

harvested from GB are safe. NMFS first 

issued an Exempted Fishing Permit 

(EFP) on January 9, 2008, to Truex 

Enterprises of New Bedford, MA, to 

allow for testing the efficacy of 

harvesting surfclams and ocean quahogs 

from a portion of the GB Closed Area 

using the Protocol. The EFP was 

subsequently renewed on January 22, 

2009, and December 10, 2009. 

On January 21, 2010, NMFS received 

a letter from the FDA requesting that 

NMFS open a portion of the GB Closed 

Area, as specified at 648.73(a), to the 

harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs 

for human consumption. The FDA 

indicated that testing of clams from the 

portion of the GB Closed Area known as 

Cultivator Shoal had demonstrated that 

PSP toxin levels were well below the 

regulatory limit established for public 

health and safety. This information 

contributed to the FDA’s determination 

that harvesting of surfclams and ocean 

quahogs from this area is once again 

safe. In response to the FDA’ s request, 

NMFS published the aforementioned 

proposed rule to solicit public 

comments on the FDA’s request to open 

a portion of the GB Closed Area. 

Basis for Withdrawal 

During the public comment period, 

NMFS received substantive comments 

from leading experts in PSP, who 

questioned the validity of the data on 

which the proposed re-opening is based, 

and strongly cautioned against reopening the area without a rigorous 

testing protocol designed to protect the 

public health. Several other comments 

were also received in support of a reopening, but with the use of the FDAapproved Protocol. 

Upon review of public comments, 

NMFS agrees that testing is necessary to 

ensure clams harvested from the area 

are safe for human consumption. The 

proposed rule did not propose any 

additional requirements such as a 

testing protocol. The Regional 

Administrator does not have the 

authority to implement a testing 

protocol under the existing regulations 

for the FMP. Therefore, NMFS is 

withdrawing the proposed rule. 

Comments and Responses 

During the public comment period on 

the proposed rule, 11 comments were 

received. Two comments were in 

support of the re-opening; six comments 

supported the re-opening, but with the 

use of the FDA-approved Protocol; two 

comments were opposed to the action, 

due to lack of a monitoring requirement; 

and one comment was opposed to the 

re-opening but did not supply any 

significant rationale for the opposition. 

Comment 1: Two experts questioned 

the validity of the data on which the 

proposed opening of the GB Closed Area 

is based, and strongly cautioned NMFS 

against re-reopening the area without a 

rigorous testing protocol to ensure the 

clams harvested from the area are safe. 

Six comments were in support of the reopening, but with the use of the FDA 

approved Protocol. 

Response: NMFS agrees that testing is 

necessary; however, the proposed rule 

only proposed to re-open an area, and 

did not propose any additional 

requirements such as a testing protocol. 

The Regional Administrator does not 

have the authority to implement a 

monitoring requirement under the 

existing regulations implementing the 

FMP. 

Comment 2: One commenter 

supported the re-opening, since the FDA 

determined that clams from the area 

were safe. This commenter stated that 

the industry should be permitted to 

harvest clams from the area. The 

commenter further supported the reopening because a large portion, roughly 

50 percent of the surfclam and ocean 

quahog biomass, is located in GB and 

opening a portion of the GB Closed Area 

would alleviate fishing pressure on 

areas that are experiencing declines in 

landings per unit of effort. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that reopening a portion of the GB Closed Area 

may help address problems associated 

with localized depletion. However, 

given the significant health risk 

associated with opening the area 

without a sufficient monitoring program 

to ensure that clams harvested from the 

area are safe for human consumption, 

NMFS will not take action to re-open 

the area. NMFS does not have the 

authority to implement a monitoring 

requirement under the existing 

regulations implementing the FMP. 

NMFS would consider supporting a 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council action to open the area, 

provided a sufficient monitoring 

program was included as part of the 

action. 

Comment 3: One commenter 

supported the proposed opening, but 

expressed concern as to whether there 

were enough data to support the finding 

that ocean quahogs harvested from GB 

are safe. 

Response: NMFS agrees this is a valid 

concern. Based on the significant 

comments received on this action, and 

given the significant risk associated 

with opening the area without a testing 

protocol, NMFS is withdrawing the 

proposed rule. 

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

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30874 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 101126522–0522–02 ] 

RIN 0648–XZ89 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; 

Proposed 2011 and 2012 Harvest 

Specifications for Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2011 and 

2012 harvest specifications, 

apportionments, and Pacific halibut 

prohibited species catch limits for the 

groundfish fishery of the Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA). This action is necessary to 

establish harvest limits for groundfish 

during the 2011 and 2012 fishing years 

and to accomplish the goals and 

objectives of the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS