61724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

longitude 76°32′06′′ W; thence to 

latitude 37°15′27′′ N, longitude 

76°31′48′′ W; thence to latitude 

37°15′05′′ N, longitude 76°31′27′′ W; 

thence to a point on the shore line at 

latitude 37°14′51′′ N, longitude 

76°31′50′′ W; and thence along the shore 

line to the point of beginning. 

(2) Naval mine service-testing area 

(restricted). A rectangular area adjacent 

to the northeast boundary of the 

prohibited area described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, beginning at 

latitude 37°16′00′′ N, longitude 

76°32′29′′ W; thence to latitude 

37°16′23′′ N, longitude 76°32′00′′ W; 

thence to latitude 37°15′27′′ N, 

longitude 76°30′54′′ W; thence to 

latitude 37°15′05′′ N, longitude 

76°31′27′′ W; thence to latitude 

37°15′27′′ N, longitude 76°31′48′′ W; 

thence to latitude 37°15′42′′ N, 

longitude 76°32′06′′ W; thence to 

latitude 37°15′40′′ N, longitude 

76°32′09′′ W; and thence to the point of 

beginning. 

(3) Explosives-Handling Berth 

(Naval). A circular area of 600 yards 

radius with its center at latitude 

37°13′56′′ N, longitude 76°28′48′′ W. 

(4) Felgates Creek (prohibited). 

Navigable waters of the United States as 

defined at 33 CFR part 329 within 

Felgates Creek from the boundary fence 

line at the mouth to the mean high 

water line of the head and all associated 

tributaries. The area contains the 

entirety of Felgates Creek and all 

associated tributaries south of the line 

which begins at latitude 37°16′24′′ N, 

longitude 76°35′12′′ W and extends east 

to latitude 37°16′21′′ N, longitude 

76°35′00′′ W. 

(5) Indian Field Creek (prohibited). 

Navigable waters of the United States as 

defined at 33 CFR part 329 within 

Indian Field Creek from the boundary 

fence line at the mouth to the mean high 

water line of the head and all associated 

tributaries. The area contains the 

entirety of Indian Field Creek and all 

associated tributaries south of the line 

which begins at latitude 37°16′05′′ N, 

longitude 76°33′29′′ W and extends east 

to latitude 37°16′01′′ N, longitude 

76°33′22′′ W. 

(b) The regulations. (1) All persons 

and all vessels other than naval craft are 

forbidden to enter the prohibited area 

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

(2) Trawling, dragging, and net-fishing 

are prohibited, and no permanent 

obstructions may at any time be placed 

in the area described in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section. Upon official 

notification, any vessel anchored in the 

area and any person in the area will be 

required to vacate the area during the 

actual mine-laying operation. Persons 

and vessels entering the area during 

mine-laying operations by aircraft must 

proceed directly through the area 

without delay, except in case of 

emergency. Naval authorities are 

required to publish advance notice of 

mine-laying and/or retrieving operations 

scheduled to be carried on in the area, 

and during such published periods of 

operation, fishing or other aquatic 

activities are forbidden in the area. No 

vessel will be denied passage through 

the area at any time during either minelaying or retrieving operations. 

(3) The Explosives-Handling Berth 

(Naval) described in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section is reserved for the exclusive 

use of naval vessels and except in cases 

of emergency no other vessel shall 

anchor therein without the permission 

of local naval authorities, obtained 

through the Captain of the Port, U.S. 

Coast Guard, Norfolk, Virginia. There 

shall be no restriction on the movement 

of vessels through the ExplosiveHandling Berth. 

(4) Vessels shall not be anchored, nor 

shall persons in the water approach 

within 300 yards of the perimeter of the 

Explosives-Handling Berth (Naval) 

when that berth is occupied by a vessel 

handling explosives. 

(5) All persons and all vessels are 

forbidden to enter the prohibited areas 

described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) 

of this section without prior permission 

of the enforcing agency. 

(6) The regulations of this section 

shall be enforced by the Commander, 

Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, 

Virginia, and such agencies as he/she 

may designate. 

Dated: October 1, 2012. 

James R. Hannon, 

Chief, Operations and Regulatory Directorate 

of Civil Works. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24994 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0553; FRL–9738–9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans for Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina; 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove revisions to the State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina 

submitted on September 23, 2009, 

October 6, 2009, and September 18, 

2009, respectively. EPA is approving the 

determinations, contained in those 

submittals, that the existing SIPs for 

Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina 

are adequate to meet the obligation 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to address 

interstate transport requirements with 

regard to the 2006 24-hour particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, 

the interstate transport requirements 

contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the CAA prohibit a state’s emissions 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state. EPA is approving the States’ 

determinations that their existing SIPs 

satisfy this requirement and conclusion 

that additional control measures are not 

necessary under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because emissions from 

Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina 

do not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. EPA is also 

disapproving the SIP submissions from 

Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina 

to the extent that they rely on the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Because 

CAIR does not address the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, it cannot be relied upon to 

satisfy any requirements related to that 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

November 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0553. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 61725 

1The rule establishing the revised PM2.5 NAAQS 

was signed by the Administrator and publically 

disseminated on September 21, 2006. Because EPA 

did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP submittals, these submittals 

were due on September 21, 2009, three years from 

the September 21, 2006, signature date pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On September 21, 2006, EPA revised 

the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to submit to EPA SIPs that 

provide for the ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS within 3 years 

after promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe.1 Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require these submissions to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA thus 

refers to these submissions as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. States were 

required to submit such SIPs to EPA no 

later than September 21, 2009, for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. SIPs must 

address the requirements of 110(a)(2), as 

applicable. 

On September 23, 2009, October 6, 

2009, and September 18, 2009, Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina, 

respectively, provided EPA with 

infrastructure SIP submissions 

certifying that the provisions in their 

current SIPs were adequate to address 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. On July 23, 2012, EPA 

proposed to partially approve Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina’s 

determination that their existing SIPs 

satisfy this requirement and to conclude 

that additional control measures are not 

necessary under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because emissions from 

these states do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

state. Additionally, in the same proposal 

EPA proposed to partially disapprove 

Florida, Mississippi and South 

Carolina’s determination that their 

existing SIPs satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to the extent that these 

states relied upon CAIR to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements in their 

infrastructure submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, since CAIR did not 

address that NAAQS. See EPA’s July 23, 

2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 

43018 for more detail. EPA received no 

adverse comments on this proposal. 

EPA is taking final action to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

revisions to the SIPs for Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina 

submitted on September 23, 2009, 

October 6, 2009, and September 18, 

2009 respectively. EPA is approving the 

States’ determinations that the existing 

SIPs of Florida, Mississippi, and South 

Carolina have adequate provisions to 

satisfy the obligation under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address 

interstate transport requirements with 

regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. This conclusion is based on air 

quality modeling originally conducted 

to quantify each individual state’s 

contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

during the rulemaking process for the 

Transport Rule (also known as the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR). 

This modeling is described in a 

technical support document which is in 

the docket for this rulemaking, Docket 

ID No., EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0553. 

This air quality modeling demonstrates 

that emissions from the states of Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina do not 

contribute more than one percent of the 

NAAQS to any downwind areas with 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. For this reason, as explained in 

the proposal, 77 FR 43021, EPA 

concludes that these states do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in another state. 

The recent opinion vacating the 

Transport Rule, EME Homer City 

Generation v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. 

Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our 

conclusion that the existing SIPs for 

these states adequately address this 

requirement, and our rationale 

supporting this conclusion remains the 

same. Nothing in the Homer City 

opinion suggests that the air quality 

modeling on which our July 23, 2012 

proposal relied was flawed or invalid 

for any reason. In addition, nothing in 

that opinion undermines or calls into 

question our proposed conclusion that, 

because emissions from Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina do not 

contribute more than one percent of the 

NAAQS to any downwind area with 

nonattainment or maintenance 

problems, these states do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in another 

state. As EPA explained in the proposal, 

77 FR 43022, this action does not rely 

on any requirements of the Transport 

Rule or emission reductions associated 

with that rule to support its conclusion 

that these three states have met their 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additionally, EPA is partially 

disapproving the SIP submissions from 

Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina 

to the extent they rely on CAIR to meet 

the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

explained in our July 23, 2012, 

proposal, 77 FR 43021, a state may not 

rely on CAIR to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect 

to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR 

addressed only the 1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and did not address 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any 

requirements related to that NAAQS. 

Today’s partial disapproval will not 

trigger any further action, or a Federal 

Implementation Plan, for these States 

because today’s action does not identify 

any deficiency in the SIPs. Thus, no 

further action will be required on the 

part of Florida, Mississippi, or South 

Carolina as a result of the partial 

disapproval because the SIPs 

themselves are not deficient with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

infrastructure submissions from Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina dated 

September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009 

and September 18, 2009, respectively, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Today’s partial disapproval 

will not trigger a FIP for these States. 

See EPA’s July 23, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking at 77 FR 43018 for more 

detail. In this action, EPA is only 

addressing the SIP revisions respecting 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revisions 

pertaining to the remainder of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M), except for sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(I) 

nonattainment area requirements, are 

being addressed in separate actions. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

partially approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and partially 

disapproves state law because it does 

not meet federal requirements. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 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 for Florida and 

Mississippi as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Further, EPA has 

determined that this final rule does not 

have tribal implications for South 

Carolina as specified by Executive Order 

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

because there are no ‘‘substantial direct 

effects’’ on an Indian Tribe as a result 

of this action. The Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation is located within the 

South Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte nonattainment area. Pursuant 

to the Catawba Indian Claims 

Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16– 

120, ‘‘all state and local environmental 

laws and regulations apply to the 

Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation 

and are fully enforceable by all relevant 

state and local agencies and 

authorities.’’ Thus, the South Carolina 

SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation. 

EPA has also preliminarily determined 

that these revisions will not impose any 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 10, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 61727 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register notice Explanation 

*******

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

9/23/2009 10/11/2012 [Insert citation of publication].EPA partially disapproved this SIP submission to 

the extent that it relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Subpart Z—Mississippi 

■ 3. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.

Mississippi .................. 10/6/2009 10/11/2012 [Insert citation of publication].EPA partially disapproved this SIP submission 

to the extent that it relied on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 4. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) EPA-approved South Carolina 

non-regulatory provisions. 

Provision State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

9/18/2009 10/11/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

EPA partially disapproved this SIP submission to the extent 

that it relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24897 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

RIN 0648–BA64 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Vessel Monitoring Systems 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date for VMS 

requirements in Atlantic HMS fisheries. 

SUMMARY: As of January 1, 2013, all 

vessels participating in Atlantic HMS 

fisheries that are subject to VMS 

requirements, including vessels with 

pelagic longline gear on board, vessels 

with bottom longline gear on board in 

the vicinity of the mid-Atlantic closed 

area (between 33° N and 36°30′ N) from 

January 1 to July 31, and vessels with 

shark gillnet gear on board fishing 

between November 15 and April 15, 

must have an Enhanced Mobile 

Transmitting Unit (E–MTU) installed by 

a qualified marine electrician and must 

provide hail in/hail out declarations 

specifying target species, gear possessed 

onboard, and location and timing of 

landing. These requirements were 

originally effective March 1, 2011, 

consistent with a December 2, 2011 final 

rule. On February 29, 2012, NMFS 

provided notice that HMS vessels could 

use either old MTUs or new E–MTUs 

without providing hail in/hail out 

declarations specifying target species, 

gear possessed onboard, and location 

and timing of landing. However, no new 

installations of MTUs were permitted, 

all installations of E–MTUs were 

required to be done by a qualified 

marine electrician, and vessels were to 

provide hourly position reports using 

VMS units starting two hours prior to 

leaving port and at all times away from 

port. 

DATES: As of January 1, 2013, all vessels 

participating in Atlantic HMS fisheries 

that are subject to VMS requirements, 

including vessels with pelagic longline 

gear on board, vessels with bottom 

longline gear on board in the vicinity of 

the mid-Atlantic closed area (between 

33° N and 36°30′ N) from January 1 to 

July 31, and vessels with shark gillnet 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES