This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

34704 

Vol. 74, No. 136 

Friday, July 17, 2009 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0475; FRL–8932–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from steamenhanced crude oil production well 

vents, aerospace coating operations, and 

polyester resin operations. We are 

proposing action on local rules that 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0475, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972–3368, 

chilingaryan.sona@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rules Did the State Submit? 

B. Are There Other Versions of These 

Rules? 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? 

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rules Did the State Submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVAPCD ................................... 4401 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells ............................... 12/14/06 5/8/07 

SJVAPCD ................................... 4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations .......... 9/20/07 3/7/08 

SJVAPCD ................................... 4684 Polyester Resin Operations ............................................................ 9/20/07 3/7/08 

On July 23, 2007, EPA determined 

that the submittal for Rule 4401 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. On April 17, 2008, 

EPA determined that the submittal for 

Rules 4605 and 4684 met the 

completeness criteria. 

B. Are There Other Versions of These 

Rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 4401 into the SIP on June 22, 1998 

(63 FR 33854). The SJVAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

December 14, 2006. We approved an 

earlier version of Rule 4605 into the SIP 

on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64537). 

The SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the 

SIP-approved version on September 20, 

2007. We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 4684 into the SIP on June 26, 2002 

(67 FR 42999). The SJVAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

September 20, 2007. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34705 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. The revisions to Rule 4401 

narrow exemptions, add leak inspection 

and repair requirements, enhance 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements and improve rule clarity. 

The revisions to Rule 4605 and Rule 

4684 improve rule clarity and 

strengthen the solvent cleaning 

provisions. EPA’s technical support 

documents (TSD) have more 

information about these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see section 

182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates 

an extreme (for the 1-hour NAAQS) and 

serious (for the 8-hour NAAQS) ozone 

nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), 

so Rules 4401, 4605, and 4684 must 

fulfill RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Surface Coating Operations at 

Aerospace Manufacturing & Rework 

Operations,’’ EPA–453/R–97–004, 

December 1997. 

5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials,’’ EPA–453/R–08–004, 

September 2008. 

6. ‘‘State Implementation Plans, 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498, Apr. 16, 1992. 

7. ‘‘Preamble, Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 70 FR 

71612, Nov. 29, 2005. 

8. Letter from William T. Harnett to 

Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘RACT 

Qs & As—Reasonable Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Questions and 

Answers,’’ May 18, 2006. 

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

Rule 4401 improves the SIP by 

establishing more stringent work 

practice requirements and by enhancing 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

provisions. Rules 4605 and 4684 

improve the SIP by clarifying 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

provisions and establishing more 

stringent emission limits for solvents. 

The rules are largely consistent with the 

relevant policy and guidance regarding 

enforceability, RACT and SIP 

relaxations. Rule provisions which do 

not meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

These provisions do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the Act and prevent full approval of 

the SIP revision. 

1. Rule 4401 allows sources to request 

a waiver from an annual source test 

requirement if approval is granted by 

the District, CARB, and EPA. However, 

Rule 4401 states that a request for a 

waiver is deemed approved by EPA if 

we do not object within 45 days of 

receipt. The SJVAPCD cannot obligate 

EPA’s decision making in this manner. 

Section 6.2.4 effectively provides 

executive officer discretion in conflict 

with CAA sections 110(a) and (i) and 

long-standing national policy. 

2. Rule 4605 does not include 

seventeen of the specialty VOC coating 

limits provided in the 1997 CTG for 

coating operations at aerospace facilities 

and has limits for two other specialty 

coating categories that are higher than 

the applicable limits listed in the CTG. 

SJVAPCD has not demonstrated that the 

CTG limits are infeasible in San Joaquin 

Valley or otherwise adequately 

demonstrated that Rule 4605 

implements RACT. 

3. Rule 4684 contains limits that are 

not as stringent as requirements in 

several other California districts. 

Fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities 

subject to this rule are covered by EPA’s 

2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials. As such, the 

District is required to adopt and submit 

a SIP revision that satisfies RACT for 

these sources by September 2009. In 

addition, Rule 4684 appears also to 

apply to certain other sources that are 

not covered by the CTG but that emit 

major amounts of VOCs. These sources 

are also subject to RACT because they 

are major sources of ozone precursors. 

The District has not demonstrated that 

the more stringent monomer content 

requirements and capture and control 

device requirements in other California 

rules are infeasible in San Joaquin 

Valley or otherwise adequately 

demonstrated that Rule 4684 meets 

RACT. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommended for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a limited approval of the submitted 

rules to improve the SIP. If finalized, 

this action would incorporate the 

submitted rules into the SIP, including 

those provisions identified as deficient. 

This approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rules under section 

110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 

finalized, sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the disapproval. These 

sanctions would be imposed according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval 

would also trigger the two year clock for 

the Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). Note 

that the submitted rules have been 

adopted by the SJVAPCD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
34706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or Tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action proposed does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or Tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule 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, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34707 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–17045 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 192 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0203] 

Pipeline Safety: Notice of Technical 

Pipeline Safety Advisory Committee 

Meetings 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of technical pipeline 

safety advisory committee meetings. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

public meeting of the Technical 

Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 

(TPSSC) and of the Technical 

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety 

Standards Committee (THLPSSC). 

The PHMSA staff will brief the 

committee members on pipeline 

regulatory actions and policy concerns. 

The purpose of the meeting is to keep 

the members updated on current safety 

concerns, proposed rules, and future 

proposals. 

DATES: The meeting will be on 

Thursday, August 6, 2009, from 1 p.m. 

to 5 p.m. EST. The TPSSC and the 

THLPSSC will take part in the meeting 

by telephone conference call. The 

public may attend the meeting at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, Room E27–302. Please 

contact the individual listed under ‘‘FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’’ by July 

27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about the meetings, contact 

Cheryl Whetsel by phone at (202) 366– 

4431 or by e-mail at 

cheryl.whetsel@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Meeting Details 

Members of the public may attend 

and make a statement during the 

advisory committee meetings. For a 

better chance to speak at the meetings, 

please contact the individual listed 

under ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT’’ by July 27, 2009. 

Privacy Act Statement 

Anyone may search the electronic 

form of comments received in response 

to 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.). DOT’s complete Privacy 

Act Statement was published in the 

Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 

FR 19477). 

Information on Services for Individuals 

With Disabilities 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with 

disabilities, or to seek special assistance 

at the meetings, please contact Cheryl 

Whetsel at (202) 366–4431 by July 27, 

2009. 

II. Committee Background 

These two statutorily-mandated 

committees advise PHMSA on proposed 

safety standards, risks assessments, and 

safety policies for natural gas pipelines 

and for hazardous liquid pipelines. Both 

committees fall under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1) and both are 

mandated by the pipeline safety law (49 

U.S.C. Chap. 601). Each committee 

consists of 15 members—with 

membership evenly divided among the 

Federal and State government, the 

regulated industry, and the public. The 

committees advise PHMSA on technical 

feasibility, practicability, and costeffectiveness of each proposed pipeline 

safety standard. 

III. Preliminary Agenda 

The PHMSA will discuss its pipeline 

safety regulatory program, and the 

following proposed rules or topics of 

interest. The committee will not be 

voting on any proposals at this meeting. 

1. One-Rule and Changes to Incident 

and Accident Forms. 

2. Periodic Updates of Regulatory 

References to Technical Standards. 

3. Low Stress II—Survey Results. 

4. Installing Excess Flow Valves 

(EFV)—(Application for Apartments and 

Commercial Properties) 

5. Community Technical Assistance 

Grant Program. 

6. Pipelines and Informed Planning 

Alliance (PIPA). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2009. 

Jeffrey D. Wiese, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. E9–16965 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 090218199–91091–01] 

RIN 0648–AX38 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Pelagic Fisheries; Vessel Identification 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise 

identification requirements for U.S. 

vessels that fish for pelagic management 

unit species on the high seas of the 

central and western Pacific. The new 

measures would require vessels to 

display their International 

Telecommunication Union Radio Call 

Sign (IRCS). If an IRCS has not been 

assigned to the vessel, the vessel would 

be required to display its official 

number, preceded by the characters 

‘‘USA ’’. The intent of this proposed 

rule is to make existing Federal vessel 

identification requirements conform 

with other regulations being proposed to 

implement international requirements. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received by August 3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed 

rule, identified by 0648–AX38, may be 

sent to either of the following addresses: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e–Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov; or 

• Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., 

Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814–4700. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS