65874 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

and Monitoring Provisions’’ that was 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

August 8, 2005 (70 FR 45608). The 60- 

day comment period in the proposal 

ended October 8, 2005. The comment 

period is being reopened for two weeks, 

from November 2–16, 2005. A public 

commenter requested that the comment 

period be reopened to allow them to 

prepare their response since they are a 

leading vendor of predictive emission 

monitoring systems and are significantly 

impacted by the rule. The intended 

effect of this action is to allow the 

affected public sufficient time to review 

and comment on the proposed action. 

DATES: Comments: The comment period 

is reopened for two weeks, from 

November 2–16, 2005. Comments must 

be received during this two week 

period. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. You may submit 

comments electronically, by mail, by 

facsimile, or through hand delivery/ 

courier. To ensure proper receipt by 

EPA, identify the appropriate docket 

identification number in the subject line 

on the first page of your comment. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ The EPA is not required 

to consider these late comments. 

However, late comments may be 

considered if time permits. 

1. Electronically. If you submit an 

electronic comment as prescribed 

below, EPA recommends that you 

include your name, mailing address, 

and an e-mail address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment. Also include this contact 

information on the outside of any disk 

or CD ROM you submit and in any cover 

letter accompanying the disk or CD 

ROM. This ensures that you can be 

identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. The EPA’s policy is that 

EPA will not edit your comment, and 

any identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. 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. 

i. EDOCKET. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to submit 

comments to EPA electronically is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Go directly to EDOCKET at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. To access EPA’s electronic 

public docket from the EPA Internet 

Home Page, select ‘‘Information 

Sources,’’ ‘‘Dockets,’’ and ‘‘EDOCKET.’’

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ and 

then key in Docket ID No. OAR–2003–

0074. The system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, e-mail address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

ii. http://www.regulations.gov. 

Electronic comments may also be sent 

through the federal wide eRulemaking 

Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. 

iii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rdocket@epamail.gov, Attention: Docket 

ID No. OAR–2003–0074. In contrast to 

EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s email system is not an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to the Docket without 

going through EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s e-mail system 

automatically captures your e-mail 

address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

iv. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic 

submissions will be accepted in 

WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption. 

2. By Mail. Send duplicate copies of 

your comments to: ‘‘Performance 

Specification 16 for Predictive Emission 

Monitoring Systems,’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0074. 

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. 

Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket 

Centers, EPA West, Room 108, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. 

OAR–2003–0074. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation as identified 

in Unit I.B.1. 

4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments 

to: 202–566–1741, Attention: Docket ID. 

No. OAR–2003–0074. 

Docket. Docket No. OAR–2003–0074, 

contains information relevant to this 

rule. You can read and copy it between 

8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, (except for Federal 

holidays), at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 108, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., Washington, DC 20004; telephone 

(202) 566–1742. The docket office may 

charge a reasonable fee for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Foston Curtis, Emissions Measurement 

Center, Mail Code D205–02, Emissions, 

Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone (919) 541–1063; 

facsimile number (919) 541–0516; 

electronic mail address 

curtis.foston@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 05–21755 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 051017270–5270–01; I.D. 

093005B] 

RIN 0648–AT85 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Atlantic 

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; 

Proposed 2006 and 2007 Fishing 

Quotas for Ocean Quahogs 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes quotas for the 

ocean quahog fishery for 2006 and 2007. 

Specifications for the Atlantic surfclam 

and Maine ocean quahog fishery, which 

remain unchanged from the multi-year 

quota specifications, are reprinted here 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 65875 

for clarity. Regulations governing these 

fisheries require NMFS to publish the 

proposed specifications for the 2006 and 

2007 fishing years and seek public 

comment on such proposed measures. 

The intent of this action is to propose 

allowable harvest levels of ocean 

quahogs from the Exclusive Economic 

Zone. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, 

on December 1, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting 

documents, including the Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR) and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

are available from Daniel Furlong, 

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Room 

2115, Federal Building, 300 South New 

Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. A copy of 

the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ 

nero/regs/com.html. 

Written comments on the proposed 

specifications may be submitted by any 

of the following methods: 

• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. Mark on 

the outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments 

on Ocean Quahog Proposed 

Specifications.’’

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. 

• E-mail: 0648AT85@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the email 

the following document identifier: 

‘‘Comments on Quahog Proposed 

Specifications.’’

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9220. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 

Fisheries (FMP) requires that NMFS, in 

consultation with the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

specify quotas for surfclams and ocean 

quahogs on a 3-year basis, with an 

annual review, from a range that 

represents the optimum yield (OY) for 

each fishery. It is the policy of the 

Council that the levels selected allow 

sustainable fishing to continue at that 

level for at least 10 years for surfclams 

and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In 

addition to this constraint, the Council 

policy also considers the economic 

impacts of the quotas. Regulations 

implementing Amendment 10 to the 

FMP (63 FR 27481, May 19, 1998) added 

Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as 

mahogany quahogs) to the management 

unit, and provided that a small artisanal 

fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters 

north of 43 50’ N. lat. has an annual 

quota with an initial amount of 100,000 

Maine bushels (bu) (35,240 hectoliters 

(hL)) within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 

Maine bu (5,991 to 35,240 hL). As 

specified in Amendment 10, the Maine 

mahogany ocean quahog quota is 

allocated separately from the quota 

specified for the ocean quahog fishery. 

Regulations implementing Amendment 

13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970, December 

16, 2003) established the ability to set 

multi-year quotas. An evaluation, in the 

form of an annual quota 

recommendation paper, is conducted by 

the Council every year to determine if 

the multi-year quota specifications 

remains appropriate. The fishing quotas 

must be in compliance with overfishing 

definitions for each species. In 

proposing these quotas, the Council 

considered the available stock 

assessments, data reported by harvesters 

and processors, and other relevant 

information concerning exploitable 

biomass and spawning biomass, fishing 

mortality rates, stock recruitment, 

projected fishing effort and catches, and 

areas closed to fishing. 

In June 2005, the Council voted to 

recommend maintaining the 2005 quota 

of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for 

the ocean quahog fishery for 2006 and 

2007, which is a change from the 

existing specifications for these fishing 

years published in the Federal Register 

on January 12, 2005, (70 FR 2023). The 

Council recommended no change from 

the existing specifications for Atlantic 

surfclam and Maine ocean quahog for 

the 2006 and 2007 fishing years. 

The proposed quotas for the 2006–

2007 ocean quahog fishery are shown in 

the table below. The quotas for the 

Atlantic surfclam and Maine ocean 

quahog are re-stated in this table for 

clarity. The 2005 harvest level for ocean 

quahogs is proposed to be maintained 

for 2006–2007. The Atlantic surfclam 

and ocean quahog quotas are specified 

in standard bu of 53.24 L per bu, while 

the Maine mahogany ocean quahog 

quota is specified in ‘‘Maine’’ bu of 

35.24 L per bu. Because Maine ocean 

quahogs are the same species as ocean 

quahogs, both fisheries are assessed 

under the same ocean quahog 

overfishing definition. When the two 

quota amounts (ocean quahog and 

Maine ocean quahog) are added, the 

total allowable harvest is still lower 

than the level that would result in 

overfishing for the entire stock. 

PROPOSED 2006–2007 OCEAN QUAHOG1 QUOTAS AND RE-STATEMENT OF ATLANTIC SURFCLAM1 AND 

MAINE OCEAN QUAHOG QUOTAS 

2006 2007 

bu hL bu hL 

Ocean Quahogs2 5.333 2.840 5.333 2.840 

Surfclams2 3.400 1.810 3.400 1.810 

Maine Ocean Quahogs3 100,000 35,240 100,000 35,240 

1Numerical values are in millions except for Maine ocean quahogs 

21 bu = 1.88 cubic ft. = 53.24 liters 

31 bu = 1.2445 cubic ft. = 35.24 liters 

Ocean Quahogs 

The proposed 2006–2007 quotas for 

ocean quahogs reflect a decrease from 

the current 2006–2007 specifications. 

The current regulations specify an 

increase in the 2005 ocean quahog quota 

from 5.333 million bu (284 million L) to 

5.666 million bu (301.6 million L) in 

2006 and 6.000 million bu (319.4 

million L) in 2007. However, due to an 

unexpected surplus of ocean quahog 

product on the market, the planned 

increase in ocean quahog quota is no 

longer warranted. The assessment for 

ocean quahogs found that the current 

biomass is high, and the resource 

surveyed from southern New England to 

southern Virginia is not overfished and 

65876 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

overfishing is not occurring. When there 

are market surpluses a quota allocation 

owner could simply choose not to fish 

their quota allocation, however this 

would leave a surplus of individual 

transferrable quota shares on the market. 

Many individuals participate in this 

fishery by leasing their excess quota 

shares on an annual basis. When 

harvests are reduced in response to 

market demand fishery participants that 

depend on income from leasing their 

quota incur a financial loss. National 

Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires 

that management measures should, to 

the extent practicable, minimize adverse 

economic impacts on fishing 

communities. This action would reduce 

the amount of quota shares on the 

market ensuring the sustained 

participation of individuals dependent 

on the annual lease of ocean quahog 

quota shares. 

Classification 

This action is authorized by 50 CFR 

part 648 and has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, an IRFA has 

been prepared, which describes the 

economic impacts that this proposed 

rule, if adopted, would have on small 

entities. A description of the reasons 

why this action is being considered, as 

well as the objectives of and legal basis 

for this proposed rule is found in the 

preamble to this document. There are no 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. This 

action proposes to reduce the 2006 and 

2007 ocean quahog fishing quotas from 

those currently in place. This action was 

compared to four different quota 

alternatives for the 2006 and 2007 

fishing years. The other quota 

alternatives included reducing the 

ocean quahog quota to the minimum 

quota allowable under the FMP (4.000 

million bu (213 million L)) for 2006 and 

2007; a slight decrease from the 2005 

quota level to 5.000 million bu (266.18 

million L) for 2006 and 2007; no action 

that would maintain the incremental 

quota increase for 2006 (5.666 million 

bu (301.6 million L)) and 2007 (6.000 

million bu (319.4 million L)); and the 

maximum quota allowable under the 

FMP (6.000 million bu (319.4 million 

L)) for 2006 and 2007. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which this Proposed 

Rule Would Apply 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small commercial 

fishing entity as a firm with gross 

receipts not exceeding $3.5 million. In 

2004, a total of 29 vessels reported 

harvesting surfclams and/or ocean 

quahogs from Federal waters under an 

Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) 

system. Average 2004 gross income for 

ocean quahog harvesters was $789,748 

per vessel. Each vessel in this analysis 

is treated as a single entity for purposes 

of size determination and impact 

assessment. All 29 commercial fishing 

entities would fall under the SBA size 

standard for small commercial fishing 

entities. Additionally, there is a total of 

56 ocean quahog quota allocation 

owners as of August 22, 2005. An 

allocation owner may choose to fish or 

lease his or her quota allocation. 

Economic Impacts of this Proposed 

Action 

By foregoing the planned increase of 

ocean quahog quota shares on the 

market it is hoped that entities that 

depend on the sale or lease of quota 

shares will continue to be able to 

participate in the fishery. Leaving the 

quota at the 2005 harvest level of 5.333 

million bu (284 million L) it is not 

expected to constrain the fishery. In 

fact, the total 2005 harvest is not 

expected to exceed 3.000 million bu 

(159.72 million L). As of September 15, 

2005, only 2.1 million bu (111.80 

million L), which is just over 40 percent 

of the available quota, was harvested 

with only three months left in the 12- 

month fishing year. By not increasing 

the quota, companies that have access to 

steady product demand may be required 

to lease or buy quota to fulfill their 

needs. 

Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the 

Proposed Action 

The Council analyzed four ocean 

quahog quota alternatives in addition to 

the preferred alternative. The 

alternatives are as follows: the preferred 

alternative of maintaining the 2005 

quota level; an alternative with a 25–

percent (1.333 million bu (71 million L)) 

decrease; an alternative with the 2004 

status quo of 5.000 million bushels 

(266.18 million L); an alternative with a 

6.2–percent (0.333 million bu (17.73 

million L)) increase; and an alternative 

with an increase to the maximum 

allowable quota (6.000 million bu (319.4 

million L)). The minimum allowable 

quota specified in the current OY range 

is 4.000 million bu (212.94 million L) of 

ocean quahogs. Adoption of a 4.000 

million bu (212.94 million L) quota 

would represent a 25–percent decrease 

from the current quota. This alternative 

would take the most conservative 

approach to managing the fishery that is 

currently available to the Council, but 

would result in the fewest economic 

benefits available to the ocean quahog 

fishery because it would produce the 

fewest landings. The alternative to 

reduce the quota to 5.000 million bu 

(266.18 million L) would reduce the 

amount of available quota share and 

thus the overall quota to the 2004 level. 

This alternative is not preferred because 

the industry believes that a reduction in 

quota from 2005 would communicate 

shortages in supply or harvesting 

capacity to the market. The other 

alternatives all propose to increase the 

quota. These are not preferred as they 

would create a fishery-wide surplus of 

quota share that could prevent small 

fishing entities from leasing or selling 

their individual surplus quota share to 

other entities with access to a steady 

market. The Council concluded that 

while an increase is not warranted at 

this time they chose also to keep some 

flexibility in the quota so the industry 

would be able to react to an increase in 

product demand. However, the Council 

remains concerned that the industry 

does not currently have a market 

available to absorb a large increase in 

landings that quickly. Given this 

information, the Council and NMFS 

recommend maintaining the 2005 ocean 

quahog quota level for 2006 and 2007. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any new reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements. 

Therefore, the costs of compliance 

would remain unchanged. 

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

Dated: October 26, 2005. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21772 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S