45082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18926 Filed 7–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0418; FRL–9183–8] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara 

County 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 Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District 

(SBCAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from boilers, steam 

generators and process heaters with a 

rated heat input rate greater than 2 

million BTU/hr and less than 5 million 

BTU/hr and internal combustion 

engines with a rated brake horse power 

of 50 or greater. 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 

September 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0418, 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: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@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 

rules? 

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 rules’ deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

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 

SBCAPCD .................................. 361 Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters ................ 01/17/08 07/18/08 

SBCAPCD .................................. 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.06/19/08 10/20/08 

On August 22, 2008, the submittal for 

SBCAPCD Rule 361 was found to meet 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. On 

November 22, 2008, the submittal for 

SBCAPCD 333 was found to meet the 

completeness criteria. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 361 in the SIP. There are no 

previous versions of Rule 333 in the SIP, 

although the District submitted a 

previous version of this rule on June 19, 

1992 and we proposed a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval (60 

FR 6049) but did not finalize the action. 

The District then submitted another 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45083 

version of this rule on March 10, 1998 

and later withdrew the submittal on 

January 18, 2000. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 361 

regulates emissions of oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) from 

boilers, steam generators and process 

heaters with a rated heat input rate 

greater than 2 million BTU/hr and less 

than 5 million BTU/hr. Rule 333 

regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), reactive organic compounds 

(ROC) and carbon monoxide (CO) from 

internal combustion (IC) engines with a 

rated brake horse power of 50 or greater. 

EPA’s technical support documents 

(TSDs) 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 sections 

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

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SBCAPCD regulates 

an area that is classified as maintenance 

for the 1-hour ozone standard and is in 

attainment for all criteria pollutants (see 

40 CFR part 81), thus, Rules 361 and 

333 do not have to fulfill RACT 

requirements. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability 

consistently include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

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. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’, 57 FR 

13498, April 16, 1992; 57 FR 18070, 

April 28, 1992. 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup and 

Shutdown’’ from Steven A. Herman, 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance, and Robert 

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, September 9, 1999. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

Rules 361 and 333 improve the SIP by 

establishing more stringent emission 

limits. The rules are largely consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. Rule provisions which do 

not meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSDs. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

These provisions in Rule 361 conflict 

with section 110(a) of the Act and 

prevent full approval of the SIP 

revision. 

1. Section F.3 defines the length of the 

startup and shutdown intervals as ‘‘not 

last[ing] longer than is necessary to 

reach stable temperatures and 

conditions’’. This leads to enforceability 

concerns due to the lack of specificity 

of the duration of these periods. The 

duration of these periods should be 

further specified. 

2. Section G.4 states that 

documentation of fuel sulfur content 

must be kept as a record. The type of 

documentation required should be 

specified in the rule. 

These provisions in Rule 333 conflict 

with section 110(a) of the Act and 

prevent full approval of the SIP 

revision. 

1. Rule 333 includes various 

provisions allowing for APCO discretion 

without having explicit and replicable 

procedures that define how the 

discretion will be exercised to assure 

emission reductions. 

2. Section I.1 indicates that source 

tests shall be performed at the engine’s 

maximum load or under the engines’ 

typical duty cycle as demonstrated by 

historical operation data. This should be 

constrained to the engine’s maximum 

load or conditions specified in the 

Permit to Operate. The option for testing 

at the engine’s typical duty cycle should 

be further defined and justified. 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules but that are not the basis for 

disapproval at this time. 

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, no sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act because 

SBCAPCD is not a required to have 

these rules in the applicable SIP. A final 

disapproval would also not trigger the 2- 

year clock for the federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). Note that the 

submitted rules have been adopted by 

the SBCAPCD, and EPA’s final limited 

disapproval would not prevent the local 

agency from enforcing them. 

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). 

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. 

These rules will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
45084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

proposed Federal SIP limited approval/ 

limited disapproval 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 limited 

approval/limited disapproval 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 and 

disapprove 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. 

These rules 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 proposes to approve or 

disapprove State rules 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.’’ These proposed rules do 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. They 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 these rules. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on these proposed rules 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 state rules implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

These rules are not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001) because they are 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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. The 

Executive Order has informed the 

development and implementation of 

EPA’s environmental justice program 

and policies. Consistent with the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45085 

Executive Order and the associated 

Presidential Memorandum, the 

Agency’s environmental justice policies 

promote environmental protection by 

focusing attention and Agency efforts on 

addressing the types of environmental 

harms and risks that are prevalent 

among minority, low-income and Tribal 

populations. 

This action will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or Tribal 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

Specially, EPA’s simultaneous limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

Rules 361 and 333 would have the affect 

of strengthening environmental 

requirements throughout SBCAPCD, 

and would not relax environmental 

requirements in any area. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18889 Filed 7–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 100630283–0300–01] 

RIN 0648–XX15 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fisheries; 2010–11 Main Hawaiian 

Islands Bottomfish Total Allowable 

Catch 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specification; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to specify a 

total allowable catch (TAC) for the 

2010–11 fishing year of 254,050 lb 

(115,235 kg) of Deep 7 bottomfish in the 

main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The TAC 

would be set in accordance with 

regulations established to support longterm sustainability of Hawaii 

bottomfish. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 17, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed 

specification, identified by 0648–XX15, 

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: Mail written comments to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Acting Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 

1110, Honolulu, HI 96814–4700. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted to one of these two addresses 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent to any other 

address or individual, or received after 

the end of the comment period, may not 

be considered. Comments will be posted 

for public viewing after thecomment 

period has closed. 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 commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘NA’’ 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. 

A supplemental environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared that 

describes the impact on the human 

environment that would result from this 

proposed action. Based on the 

environmental impact analyses 

presented in the EA, NMFS prepared a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

for the proposed action. Copies of the 

EA and FONSI are available from 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable 

Fisheries, 808–944–2271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Federal Register document is available 

at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

The bottomfish fishery in Federal 

waters around Hawaii is managed under 

the Hawaii fishery ecosystem plan 

(FEP), developed by the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

and implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (MagnusonStevens Act). Regulations governing 

bottomfish fishing by U.S. vessels in 

accordance with the Hawaii FEP appear 

at 50 CFR part 665 and subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600. Currently, bottomfish 

stocks in the Hawaiian Archipelago are 

not experiencing overfishing, and efforts 

to minimize localized stock depletion in 

the MHI Management Subarea are 

precautionary. The MHI Management 

Subarea refers to the portion of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone around the 

Hawaiian Archipelago lying to the east 

of 161° 20’ W. long. 

Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 

665.211, NMFS must specify a TAC for 

Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for each 

fishing year (September 1 through 

August 31), based on a recommendation 

from the Council, considering the best 

available scientific, commercial, and 

other information, and taking into 

account the associated risk of 

overfishing. The Deep 7 bottomfish are 

onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. 

carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides 

zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), 

opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi 

(Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu 

(Epinephelus quernus). 

NMFS uses commercial landings data 

to project the date when the TAC for the 

year will be reached, and closes the 

non-commercial and commercial 

fisheries from that date until the end of 

the fishing year. During a fishery closure 

for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may 

fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish 

in the MHI, except as otherwise 

authorized by law. Specifically, fishing 

for, and the resultant possession or sale 

of, Deep 7 bottomfish by vessels legally 

registered to Pacific Remote Island Area 

bottomfish fishing permits, and 

conducted in compliance with all other 

laws and regulations, are not affected by 

the closure. There is no prohibition on 

fishing for or selling other non-Deep 7 

bottomfish species throughout the year. 

For the 2009–10 fishing year, the TAC 

was 254,050 lb (115,235 kg) (74 FR 

48422; September 23, 2009). Monitoring 

of the commercial fishery indicated that 

the TAC for the 2009–10 fishing year 

was projected to be reached by April 20, 

2010, and, in accordance with the 

regulations at § 665.211, NMFS 

published a temporary rule closing the 

non-commercial and commercial MHI 

bottomfish fisheries on April 20, 2010 

(75 FR 17070; April 5, 2010). 

Subsequent analyses indicated that the 

2009–10 bottomfish fishery took 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1