Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20977 

containing Kentucky’s 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Kentucky BiState Louisville Area. The maintenance 

plan includes regional MVEBs for 2003 

and 2020, among other requirements. 

Further, as part of today’s action, EPA 

is providing notice that it is reviewing 

the adequacy of the regional MVEBs in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

Within 24 months from the effective 

date of EPA’s adequacy finding for the 

MVEBs, or the date of publication of the 

final rule for this action, whichever is 

done first, the transportation partners 

will need to demonstrate conformity to 

these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e) as effectively amended by new 

section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added 

by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which 

was signed into law on August 10, 2005. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

Redesignation of an area to attainment 

under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA 

does not impose any new requirements 

on small entities. Redesignation is an 

action that affects the status of a 

geographical area and does not impose 

any new regulatory requirements on 

sources. Accordingly, the Administrator 

certifies that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by State law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

affects the status of a geographical area, 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources, or allow a State to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant and because the Agency does 

not have reason to believe that the rule 

concerns an environmental health risk 

or safety risk that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

Commonwealth to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no 

authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use VCS. It 

would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission, to use VCS in place 

of a SIP submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 

Redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area but 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 18, 2007. 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E7–8114 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 94 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0120; FRL–8306–6] 

RIN 2060–A026 

Change in Deadline for Rulemaking To 

Address the Control of Emissions 

From New Marine CompressionIgnition Engines at or Above 30 Liters 

per Cylinder 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: A January 2003 final rule 

established the first U.S. emission 

standards for new compression-ignition 

Category 3 marine engines, those with a 

displacement at or above 30 liters per 

cylinder displacement. It also 

established a deadline of April 27, 2007 

for EPA to promulgate a new tier of 

emission standards for these engines as 

determined appropriate under Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 213(a). This 

rulemaking schedule was intended to 

allow EPA time to consider the state of 

technology that may permit deeper 

emission reductions and the status of 

international action for more stringent 

standards. Since 2003, we have 

continued to gain a greater 

understanding of the technical issues 

described in the final rule and to assess 

the continuing efforts of manufacturers 

to apply advanced emission control 

technologies to these very large engines, 

through ongoing discussions with 

various stakeholders. In addition, we 

have continued to work with and 

through the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) toward more 

stringent international emission 

standards that would apply to all new 

marine diesel engines on ships engaged 

in international transportation. IMO is 

an important forum for EPA to gather 

new information and data regarding 

emission control technologies, costs, 

and other information on Category 3 

engines and vessels. IMO is also 

important because the majority of ships 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20978 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

used in international commerce are 

flagged in other nations. Due to the 

length of time necessary to assess 

advanced emission control technologies 

much of the information that we believe 

is necessary to develop more stringent 

Category 3 marine diesel engines 

standards has only become available 

recently and we expect more 

information to come to light in the 

course of the current negotiations 

underway at the IMO. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing a new deadline for the 

rulemaking that will consider the next 

tier of Category 3 marine diesel engine 

standards. Under this new schedule, 

EPA would adopt a final rule by 

December 17, 2009. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, we are making this revision as 

a direct final rule without a prior 

proposed rule. If we receive no adverse 

comment, we will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by May 29, 2007. If a public 

hearing is requested no later than May 

17, 2007, it will be held at a time and 

place to be published in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2007–0120, by mail to 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC, 20460. Please 

include two copies. Comments may also 

be submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier, or a public 

hearing may be requested, by following 

the detailed instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Samulski, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 

48105; telephone number: (734) 214–

4532; fax number: (734) 214–4050; 

e-mail address: 

samulski.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed 

Rule? 

This document proposes to take 

action on changing the regulatory 

deadline for a rulemaking to address the 

control of emissions from new marine 

compression-ignition engines at or 

above 30 liters per cylinder. We have 

published a direct final rule making this 

revision in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register because 

we view this as a relatively 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. We have 

explained our reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment or 

a request for a public hearing, we will 

not take further action on this proposed 

rule. Otherwise, we will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. We would address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

II. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action will affect companies that 

manufacture, sell, or import into the 

United States new marine compressionignition engines for use on vessels 

flagged or registered in the United 

States; companies and persons that 

make vessels that will be flagged or 

registered in the United States and that 

use such engines; and the owners or 

operators of such U.S. vessels. This 

action may also affect companies and 

persons that rebuild or maintain these 

engines. Affected categories and entities 

include the following: 

Category NAICS code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ..................................................... 333618 Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines. 

Industry ..................................................... 336611 Manufacturers of marine vessels. 

Industry ..................................................... 811310 Engine repair and maintenance. 

Industry ..................................................... 483 Water transportation, freight and passenger. 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether particular activities may be 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the regulations. You 

may direct questions regarding the 

applicability of this action as noted in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

III. Summary of Rule 

This proposed rule would make a 

revision to the regulations to implement 

the following amendment: 

• Extend the regulatory deadline to 

promulgate a new tier of standards for 

Category 3 marine engines by amending 

§ 94.8(a)(2)(ii), so that the date is on or 

before December 17, 2009. 

For additional discussion of the 

proposed rule change, see the direct 

final rule EPA has published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register. This proposal 

incorporates by reference all the 

reasoning, explanation, and regulatory 

text from the direct final rule. 

Furthermore, elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register, EPA is publishing an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking which describes EPA’s 

current thinking with regard to potential 

new requirements for C3 marine engines 

and identifies and discusses a number 

of important issues upon which EPA is 

seeking comment. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under the 

EO. This proposed rule merely changes 

the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking 

to address emissions from Category 3 

marine engines. There are no new costs 

associated with this proposed rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

direct final rule merely changes the 

regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to 

address emissions from Category 3 

marine engines. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations [40 CFR 94] under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0287, EPA ICR number 1684.08. A 

copy of the OMB approved Information 

Collection Request (ICR) may be 

obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20979 

Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that meet the definition for 

business based on SBA size standards at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

This proposed rule merely changes 

the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking 

to address emissions from Category 3 

marine engines. We have therefore 

concluded that today’s proposed rule 

will relieve regulatory burden for all 

affected small. We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

federal mandates for state, local, tribal 

governments, or the private sector as 

defined by the provisions of Title II of 

the UMRA. The proposed rule imposes 

no enforceable duties on any of these 

governmental entities. This proposed 

rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that would significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

contains no federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures of more than 

$100 million to the private sector in any 

single year. This proposed rule merely 

changes the regulatory schedule for a 

rulemaking to address emissions from 

Category 3 marine engines. See the 

direct final rule EPA has published in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of UMRA policy. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

rule merely changes the regulatory 

schedule for a rulemaking to address 

emissions from Category 3 marine 

engines. See the direct final rule EPA 

has published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register for a more extensive discussion 

of Executive Order 13132. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This proposed rule does not uniquely 

affect the communities of Indian Tribal 

Governments. Further, no circumstances 

specific to such communities exist that 

would cause an impact on these 

communities beyond those discussed in 

the other sections of this rule. This 

proposed rule merely changes the 

regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to 

address emissions from Category 3 

marine engines. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. See 

the direct final rule EPA has published 

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of Executive Order 

13132. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant, and does not 

involve decisions on environmental 

health or safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. See 

the direct final rule EPA has published 

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of Executive Order 

13045. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This proposed rule merely changes the 

regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to 

address emissions from Category 3 

marine engines. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

rule merely changes the regulatory 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
20980 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

schedule for a rulemaking to address 

emissions from Category 3 marine 

engines. Thus, we have determined that 

the requirements of the NTTAA do not 

apply. See the direct final rule EPA has 

published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register for a more extensive discussion 

of NTTAA policy. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. See the direct final 

rule EPA has published in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register for a more extensive 

discussion of Executive Order 13045. 

K. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

comes from section 213 of the Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7547). This 

action is a notice of proposed 

rulemaking subject to the provisions of 

Clean Air Act section 307(d). See 42 

U.S.C. 7607(d). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 94 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vessels, Warranties. 

Dated: April 23, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–8103 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 070410083–7083–01; I.D. 

040207C] 

RIN 0648–AV45 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of 

Mexico Vermilion Snapper Fishery 

Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule that would implement a regulatory 

amendment to the Fishery Management 

Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council (Council). This proposed rule 

would reduce the minimum size limit 

for vermilion snapper to 10 inches (25.4 

cm) total length (TL), eliminate the 10–

fish recreational bag limit for vermilion 

snapper within the existing 20–fish 

aggregate reef fish bag limit, and 

eliminate the 40-day commercial closed 

season for vermilion snapper (from 

April 22 through May 31 each year). The 

intended effect of this proposed rule is 

to help achieve optimum yield (OY) by 

reducing vermilion snapper harvest 

limitations consistent with the findings 

of the recent stock assessment for this 

species. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: 0648– 

AV45.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in 

the subject line the following document 

identifier: 0648–AV45. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Sarah DeVido, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Fax: 727–824–5308; Attention: Sarah 

DeVido. 

Copies of the regulatory amendment, 

which includes an environmental 

assessment (EA), a regulatory impact 

review (RIR), and an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) may be 

obtained from the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. 

Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 

33607; telephone: 813–348–1630; fax: 

813–348–1711; e-mail: 

gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah DeVido, telephone 727–824–5305; 

fax 727–824–5308; e-mail 

sarah.devido@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is 

managed under the FMP. The FMP was 

prepared by the Council and is 

implemented through regulations at 50 

CFR part 622 under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Background 

In 2001, the Gulf of Mexico vermilion 

snapper stock was assessed using data 

through 1999. The findings from that 

assessment indicated the stock to be 

overfished and undergoing overfishing. 

Based on the assessment, the Council 

prepared Amendment 23 to the FMP, 

which implemented measures to end 

overfishing and rebuild the stock within 

10 years. This plan was implemented on 

July 8, 2005 (70 FR 33385). In 2006, a 

new stock assessment was conducted 

through the Southeast Data, Assessment, 

and Review (SEDAR) process. This 

assessment included a new data set to 

assess the vermilion snapper stock 

through 2004. The findings from this 

assessment determined vermilion 

snapper to be neither overfished nor 

undergoing overfishing. 

Based on the findings of this recent 

stock assessment, the rebuilding plan 

for vermilion snapper implemented in 

Amendment 23 is no longer necessary. 

Under the current rebuilding plan, 

harvest of vermilion snapper would not 

achieve the OY for the fishery. This is 

resulting in the unnecessary loss of 

social and economic benefits. National 

standard (NS) 1 of the MagnusonStevens Act requires that management 

measures prevent overfishing while 

achieving on a continuing basis the OY 

from the fishery. Therefore, the Council 

recommended and NMFS is proposing 

to implement the measures described 

above. This proposed rule contains a 

measure that would eliminate the 

annual commercial closure period, thus 

relieving a restriction in the commercial 

sector, and other measures for both the 

recreational and commercial sectors that 

allow for increased harvest of vermillion 

snapper consistent with national 

standard 1 and the best scientific 

information available. 

Current Rebuilding Plan 

The current rebuilding plan, under 

Amendment 23, is based on a steppedharvest strategy that was designed to 

restore the vermilion snapper stock to 

the stock biomass needed to allow 

harvest at maximum sustainable yield 

(BMSY) in 10 years or less. The plan 

would reduce harvest to 1.475 million 

lb (0.669 million kg) for the first 4 years 

(2005–2008), increase to 2.058 million 

lb (0.933 million kg) for the next 3 years 

(2009–2011), and increase to 2.641 

million lb (1.198 million kg) for the final 

3 years (2012–2014). Overfishing was 

expected to end by 2008, three years 

after the plan was implemented. The 

final rule for Amendment 23 (70 FR 

33385, July 8, 2005) implemented 

measures designed to achieve the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS