55692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance in the AD Docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2010–0853; Directorate Identifier 2010– 

NM–116–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by October 

29, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to The Boeing 

Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

–800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, 

certificated in any category; as identified in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–27–1289, dated 

April 7, 2010. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27: Flight Controls. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports that the 

warning horn did not sound during the 

takeoff warning system test of the S132 ‘‘nose 

up stab takeoff warning switch.’’ The Federal 

Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to 

detect and correct a takeoff warning system 

switch failure, which could reduce the ability 

of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight 

and landing of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Test 

(g) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, test the stabilizer takeoff warning 

switches, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–27–1289, dated April 7, 

2010. Repeat the test at intervals not to 

exceed 750 flight hours. 

Replacement and Re-test 

(h) If any stabilizer takeoff warning switch 

fails the test required in paragraph (g) or (h) 

of this AD, replace the stabilizer takeoff 

warning switch with a new switch and test 

the new switch before further flight, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737– 

27–1289, dated April 7, 2010. Within 750 

flight hours after replacement of any switch, 

test the replaced switch, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–27–1289, dated April 7, 

2010, and repeat this test on the replaced 

switch thereafter at intervals not to exceed 

750 flight hours. 

Special Flight Permit 

(i) Special flight permits, as described in 

Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 

and 21.199), are not allowed. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Jeffrey 

W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and 

Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle 

ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

917–6472; fax (425) 917–6590. Information 

may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACOAMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 3, 2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22847 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 070726412–0071–01] 

RIN 0648–AV88 

Proposed Research Area Within the 

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), Department of Commerce 

(DOC). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 

proposing to create a research area 

within the Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary (GRNMS, or Sanctuary). A 

research area is a region specifically 

designed for conducting controlled 

scientific studies in the absence of 

certain human activities that could 

affect the results. NOAA proposes to 

prohibit fishing, diving, and stopping 

while transiting in the proposed 

research area. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 13, 2010. 

Dates for public hearings are: 

(1) October 19, 6–8 p.m., Richmond 

Hill City Center, 529 Cedar Street, 

Richmond Hill, GA. 

(2) October 20, 6–8 p.m., Bulloch 

County Courthouse, 30 N. Main Street, 

Statesboro, GA. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55693 

(3) October 21, 6–8 p.m., College of 

Coastal Georgia, Southeast Georgia 

Conference Center, 3700 Altama 

Avenue, Brunswick, GA. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AV88, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov (search for docket 

NOAA–NOS–2009–0103) 

• Mail: Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary, 10 Ocean Science Circle, 

Savannah, GA 31411, Attn: Dr. George 

Sedberry, Superintendent. 

Instructions: No comments will be 

posted for public viewing until after the 

comment period has closed. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit confidential 

business information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

ONMS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of 

the draft environmental impact 

statement and proposed rule can be 

downloaded or viewed on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov (search 

for docket #NOAA–NOS–2009–0103) or 

at http://graysreef.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Resource Protection Coordinator Becky 

Shortland at (912) 598–2381. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary 

NOAA designated GRNMS as the 

nation’s fourth national marine 

sanctuary in 1981 for the purposes of: 

protecting the quality of this unique and 

fragile ecological community; promoting 

scientific understanding of this live 

bottom ecosystem; and enhancing 

public awareness and wise use of this 

significant regional resource. GRNMS is 

located 16 miles offshore of Sapelo 

Island, Georgia, on an area of 

continental shelf stretching from Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida (referred to as the 

South Atlantic Bight). GRNMS protects 

16.68 square nautical miles of open 

ocean and submerged lands of 

particularly dense and nearshore 

patches of productive live bottom 

habitat. The sanctuary is influenced by 

complex ocean currents and serves as a 

mixing zone for temperate (colder 

water) and sub-tropical species. An 

estimated 180 species of fish, 

encompassing a wide variety of sizes, 

forms, and ecological roles, have been 

recorded at GRNMS. Loggerhead sea 

turtles, a threatened species, use 

GRNMS year-round for foraging and 

resting, and the highly endangered 

northern right whale is occasionally 

seen in Gray’s Reef. 

The sanctuary contains one of the 

largest nearshore live-bottom reefs in 

the southeastern United States. Within 

the sanctuary, rock outcroppings stand 

above the shifting sands. The series of 

rock ledges and sand expanses has 

produced a complex habitat of burrows, 

troughs, and overhangs that provide a 

solid base for the abundant sessile 

invertebrates to attach and grow. This 

topography supports an unusual 

assemblage of temperate and tropical 

marine flora and fauna. This flourishing 

ecosystem attracts numerous species of 

benthic and pelagic fish including 

mackerel, grouper, red snapper, black 

sea bass, angelfish, and a host of other 

fishes. Since GRNMS lies in a transition 

area between temperate and tropical 

waters, the composition of reef fish 

populations changes seasonally. 

B. Purpose and Need for Research Area 

In 2008, NOAA released a report on 

the condition of GRNMS providing a 

summary of the status of resources, 

pressures on those resources, current 

conditions and trends, and management 

responses to the pressures that threaten 

the integrity of the marine environment. 

Specifically, the document includes 

information on water quality, habitat, 

living resources, and maritime 

archaeological resources and the human 

activities that affect them. Overall, the 

resources protected by GRNMS appear 

to be in fair condition, as defined in the 

2008 GRNMS condition report. 

Emerging threats to the sanctuary 

include invasive species, contamination 

of organisms by waterborne chemicals 

from human coastal activities, climate 

change and ever increasing coastal 

populations and recreational use of the 

sanctuary. For a copy of the 2008 

GRNMS condition report, please visit 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/ 

condition/grnms/welcome.html. 

NOAA’s regulations for the sanctuary 

limit fishing gear in the sanctuary to rod 

and reel (which is used by the vast 

majority of users in the sanctuary), and 

handline. Despite these gear restrictions, 

fishing continues to impact the living 

marine resources and habitat of the 

sanctuary. Recreational fishing is the 

primary fishing activity and occurs 

throughout the sanctuary but tends to be 

concentrated in certain areas. 

Because fishing is allowed throughout 

the sanctuary, NOAA has limited 

options for gaining better management 

information on the effects it has on fish 

and invertebrate populations and their 

habitats. A research area would allow 

investigations to evaluate possible 

impacts from fishing—particularly 

bottom fishing—on the sanctuary’s 

natural resources by providing a zone 

relatively free of human activities and 

impacts that can be compared to the rest 

of the sanctuary. The research area 

would also allow researchers to more 

accurately determine the effects of 

natural events (e.g., hurricanes) and 

cycles (e.g. droughts) on the sanctuary. 

The research area could also serve as an 

important sentinel site to monitor and 

study impacts of climate change, such 

as ocean acidification, which can be 

better determined in the absence of 

additional human factors such as 

fishing. Sentinel sites are areas well 

suited to ensure sustained observations 

of environmental change, to track 

indicators of ecosystem integrity, and to 

provide early warning services. 

Currently the effects of subtle natural 

variability may be masked by the 

sometimes overwhelming effect of 

fishing. The ability to conduct these 

investigations in a marine environment 

free of human influences is critical to 

meet the resource protection and 

scientific research mandates of the 

GRNMS. 

To provide for comprehensive and 

coordinated conservation and 

management of natural resources of 

GRNMS as required by the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 

research that includes a control or 

research area where human impacts are 

limited is needed. There are currently 

no natural live-bottom areas in the 

South Atlantic Bight that have been set 

aside for scientific use. Because GRNMS 

is relatively shallow, it affords the 

opportunity to conduct experiments and 

make observations using SCUBA in a 

productive reef habitat that is relatively 

close to shore. The proximity of the 

sanctuary to coastal universities and 

marine research laboratories makes 

GRNMS a logical natural area that can 

be used to further understanding and 

management of these complex 

ecosystems. There is scientific 

agreement that without having an area 

of the naturally occurring live bottom 

devoted to research, it becomes very 

difficult to understand how these reefs 

function in the life history of many 

economically valuable species, and the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
55694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

effects of extractive uses on that 

productivity. NOAA believes the 

proposed action provides a balance 

between user concerns and the research 

opportunities that are emphasized in the 

sanctuary’s goals and objectives. 

C. Research Area Background 

The concept of a research (control) 

area within the sanctuary has been 

under discussion for many years. The 

idea was first raised by members of the 

public in 1999 during the early stages of 

the GRNMS management plan review 

process at public scoping meetings. The 

GRNMS advisory council set a target to 

increase the opportunity to distinguish 

scientifically between natural and 

human-induced change to species 

populations in the sanctuary (NMSP 

2006). As a means to reach this target, 

the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) 

formed a broad-based Research Area 

Working Group (RAWG) to consider the 

concept of a research area within the 

sanctuary. 

The RAWG consisted of 

representatives from research, academia, 

conservation groups, sport fishing and 

diving interests, education, commercial 

fishing, law enforcement and state and 

federal agency representatives. The 

RAWG employed a consensus-driven, 

constituent-based process. A Geographic 

Information System (GIS) tool was also 

developed by NOAA to analyze options 

RAWG members brought forward; this 

tool is described in more detail in the 

environmental impact statement 

supporting this action. 

The principle conclusion of the 

RAWG, which was ultimately adopted 

by the entire SAC, was that significant 

research questions exist at GRNMS that 

can only be addressed by establishing a 

research area. The final SAC 

recommendations to NOAA, presented 

in 2008, also included the unanimous 

recommendation that all fishing be 

prohibited in the research area. 

In the decision to recommend 

prohibition of all fishing in the research 

area, the RAWG took into consideration 

new information on the growing 

knowledge of the linkages between 

benthic and pelagic natural 

communities. The RAWG also 

considered methods used by sport 

fishermen to fish both coastal pelagic 

and bottom fish (reef) species at the 

same time. In addition, downriggers and 

planers, currently permitted in the 

sanctuary, allow anglers to fish the 

entire water column, including near the 

bottom. These gear types can impact 

benthic communities and allow catch of 

bottom fish, a primary marine resource 

to be studied in the research area. 

Therefore, allowing any fishing 

including trolling for pelagic fish 

species could significantly compromise 

the integrity and effectiveness of a 

research area. 

Law enforcement officials expressed 

concern that the enforcement of 

prohibitions on fishing would be more 

difficult if diving or stationary vessels 

were allowed to continue in the 

research area, due to the difficulty of 

determining the activities of a boat’s 

occupants from a distance or as officers 

approach a boat. The SAC also observed 

that any recreational diving activity in 

the research area would make law 

enforcement difficult and could 

undermine the validity of the research 

area. 

From 2004–2008, the RAWG and SAC 

also continued to evaluate criteria and 

boundaries utilizing the GIS tool and 

incorporating new information as it 

became available. Ultimately, four 

boundary scenarios were recommended 

as viable locations for a research area in 

GRNMS. These boundary scenarios and 

several activity restrictions became the 

focus of public scoping during March 

and April 2008. After consideration of 

public comments and deliberations by 

the RAWG, the sanctuary 

superintendent received final 

recommendations from the SAC in 

January 2009. The proposed action 

presented in this document are the 

direct result of the RAWG’s 

recommendations that were adopted by 

the SAC and provided to GRNMS 

superintendent, and comments received 

during the spring 2008 public scoping. 

Several alternatives to the proposed 

action are analyzed in the 

accompanying draft environmental 

impact statement (DEIS). 

E. South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council 

The action recommended to GRNMS 

by the SAC would close the research 

area to all fishing activity. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 304(a)(5) of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 

U.S.C. 1434(a)(5); NMSA), NOAA’s 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS) consulted with the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC or Council) to develop fishing 

regulations associated with this 

proposed research area. 

On March 4, 2009, the SAFMC passed 

a motion to: ‘‘Defer to Gray’s Reef NMS 

for rule-making in terms of the 

establishment of the Research Area.’’ On 

April 22, 2009, the Council’s decision to 

allow ONMS to draft the fishing 

regulations was formally communicated 

when the SAFMC sent a letter to the 

GRNMS Superintendent deferring 

fishing regulations for this action to the 

ONMS. 

II. Proposed Revisions to GRNMS 

Terms of Designation 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA 

requires that the terms of designation 

include the geographic area included 

within the Sanctuary; the characteristics 

of the area that give it conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, 

research, educational, or aesthetic value; 

and the types of activities subject to 

regulation by the Secretary to protect 

these characteristics. Section 304(a)(4) 

also specifies that the terms of 

designation may be modified only by 

the same procedures by which the 

original designation was made. To 

implement this action, NOAA proposes 

to modify the GRNMS terms of 

designation, which were most recently 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 12, 2006 (74 FR 60055), to read 

as follows (new text in bold and deleted 

text in brackets and italics): 

1. No change to Article 1, Designation 

and Effect 

2. No change to Article 2, Description 

of the Area 

3. No change to Article 3, 

Characteristics of the Area 

4. Article 4, Scope of Regulation, 

Section 1, Activities Subject to 

Regulation, is modified by: 

a. Modifying the 4th bullet of Section 

1 to read as follows: ‘‘Injuring, catching, 

harvesting, or collecting any marine 

organism or any part thereof, living or 

dead, or attempting any of these 

activities;, [ by any means except by use 

of rod and reel, and handline gear;]’’ 

b. Modifying the 6th bullet of Section 

1 as follows: ‘‘Using explosives, or 

devices that produce electric charges 

underwater; [and’’ 

c. Modifying the 7th bullet of Section 

1 as follows: ‘‘Moving, removing, 

injuring, or possessing a historical 

resource, or attempting to move, 

remove, injure, or possess a historical 

resource[.] , and’’ 

d. Adding the following at the end of 

Section 1: ‘‘8. Diving.’’ 

5. No Change to Article 5, Relation to 

Other Regulatory Programs 

6. No change to Article 6, Alteration 

of This Designation 

The revised terms of designation 

would read as follows: 

Revised Designation Document for the 

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

Article 1. Designation and Effect 

The Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary was designated on January 

16, 1981 (46 FR 7942). The Act 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55695 

issue such regulations as are necessary 

to implement the designation, including 

managing and protecting the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, archaeological, 

scientific, educational or aesthetic 

resources and qualities of a national 

marine sanctuary. Section 1 of Article 4 

of this Designation Document lists 

activities of the type that are presently 

being regulated or may need to be 

regulated in the future, in order to 

protect sanctuary resources and 

qualities. Listing in Section 1 does not 

mean a type of activity is currently 

regulated or would be regulated in the 

future. If a type of activity is not listed, 

however, it may not be regulated except 

on an emergency basis, unless section 1 

is amended to include the type of 

activity following the same procedures 

by which the original designation was 

made. Nothing in this Designation 

Document is intended to restrict 

activities that do not cause an adverse 

effect on the resources or qualities of the 

sanctuary or on sanctuary property or 

that do not pose a threat of harm to 

users of the sanctuary. 

Article 2. Description of the Area 

The sanctuary consists of an area of 

ocean waters and the submerged lands 

thereunder located 17.5 nautical miles 

due east of Sapelo Island, Georgia. The 

exact coordinates are defined by 

regulation (15 CFR 922.90). 

Article 3. Characteristics of the Area 

The sanctuary consists of submerged 

calcareous sandstone rock reefs with 

contiguous shallow-buried hard layer 

and soft sedimentary regime which 

supports rich and diverse marine plants, 

invertebrates, finfish, turtles, and 

occasional marine mammals in an 

otherwise sparsely populated expanse of 

ocean seabed. The area attracts multiple 

human uses, including recreational 

fishing and diving, scientific research, 

and educational activities. 

Article 4. Scope of Regulation 

Section 1. Activities Subject to 

Regulation 

The following activities are subject to 

regulation under the NMSA. Such 

regulation may include prohibitions to 

ensure the protection and management 

of the conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, scientific, 

educational, cultural, archaeological or 

aesthetic resources and qualities of the 

area. Because an activity is listed here 

does not mean that such activity is 

being or would be regulated. If an 

activity is listed, however, the activity 

can be regulated, after compliance with 

all applicable regulatory laws, without 

going through the designation 

procedures required by paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA (16 

U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b)). 

1. Dredging, drilling into, or otherwise 

altering the submerged lands of the 

sanctuary; 

2. Within the boundary of the 

sanctuary, discharging or depositing any 

material or other matter or constructing, 

placing, or abandoning any structure, 

material or other matter; or discharging 

or depositing any material or other 

matter outside the boundary of the 

sanctuary that subsequently enters the 

sanctuary and injures a sanctuary 

resource or quality; 

3. Vessel operations, including 

anchoring; 

4. Injuring, catching, harvesting, or 

collecting any marine organism or any 

part thereof, living or dead, or 

attempting any of these activities; 

5. Possessing fishing gear that is not 

allowed to be used in the sanctuary; 

6. Using explosives, or devices that 

produce electric charges underwater; 

7. Moving, removing, injuring, or 

possessing a historical resource, or 

attempting to move, remove, injure, or 

possess a historical resource; and 

8. Diving. 

Section 2. Emergency Regulation 

Where necessary to prevent or 

minimize the destruction of, loss of, or 

injury to a sanctuary resource or quality; 

or to minimize the imminent risk of 

such destruction, loss or injury, any 

activity, including any not listed in 

Section 1 of this Article, is subject to 

immediate temporary regulation, 

including prohibition. 

Article 5. Relation to Other Regulatory 

Programs 

Section 1. Defense Activities 

The regulation of activities listed in 

Article 4 shall not prohibit any 

Department of Defense activity that is 

essential for national defense or because 

of emergency. Such activities shall be 

consistent with the regulations to the 

maximum extent practical. 

Section 2. Other Programs 

All applicable regulatory programs 

will remain in effect, and all permits, 

licenses and other authorizations issued 

pursuant thereto shall be valid within 

the sanctuary unless authorizing any 

activity prohibited by a regulation 

implementing Article 4. 

Article 6. Alteration of This Designation 

The terms of designation, as defined 

under section 304(a) of the Act, may be 

modified only by the procedures 

outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

section 304 of the Act including public 

hearings, consultation with interested 

Federal, State, and local government 

agencies, and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, review by the 

appropriate congressional committees, 

and approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce or designee. 

[End of designation document] 

III. Summary of Proposed Revisions to 

the Sanctuary Regulations 

A. Establishment of a Research Area 

The proposed regulations would 

establish a research area within the 

GRNMS that would prohibit fishing, 

diving and stopping a vessel within the 

area. This area is referred to as the 

Southern Boundary Option. Please refer 

to the GRNMS Web site and the draft 

environmental impact statement 

supporting this rulemaking for more 

information and a map depicting the 

location of the proposed research area 

within the GRNMS. The research area, 

which would occupy the southern 

portion of the GRNMS, would be wholly 

within the boundary of the sanctuary 

and would not change its overall size. 

The total area that would be designated 

as a research area inside GRNMS would 

be 6.25 square nautical miles (see the 

Appendix for coordinates). 

According to boat sighting data from 

1999–2007, only 9.2 percent of boats 

sighted in the sanctuary visited or 

transited the area of the proposed 

research area, leading to the conclusion 

that this area is not as popular with 

sport fishermen and sport divers as the 

north-central portion of the sanctuary. 

NOAA believes the proposed action 

provides a balance between user 

concerns and the research opportunities 

that are emphasized in the sanctuary’s 

goals and objectives. 

B. Activities Prohibited Within the 

Research Area 

If adopted, the regulatory changes 

would prohibit: (1) Injuring, catching, 

harvesting, or collecting sanctuary 

resources (including by fishing); 

(2) diving within the research area; and 

(3) stopping a vessel in the research 

area. The proposed regulations would 

add prohibitions specific to the research 

area in addition to the existing 

prohibitions set out in 922.92, which 

apply throughout the Sanctuary. In the 

proposed research area, the following 

activities would be prohibited and thus 

unlawful for any person to conduct or 

cause to be conducted: Injuring, 

catching, harvesting, or collecting, or 

attempting to injure, catch, harvest, or 

collect, any marine organism, or any 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
55696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

part thereof, living or dead (there would 

be a rebuttable presumption that any 

marine organism or part thereof, living 

or dead, found in the possession of a 

person within the research area has 

been collected from the research area); 

possessing, carrying, or using any 

fishing gear or means for fishing unless 

such gear or means is stowed and not 

available for immediate use while on 

board a vessel transiting through the 

research area without interruption or for 

valid law enforcement purposes; diving; 

stopping a vessel when transiting the 

research area. 

C. Enforcement 

If adopted, the proposed regulations 

would be enforced by NOAA and other 

authorized agencies (i.e., United States 

Coast Guard, and Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources) in a coordinated and 

comprehensive way. Enforcement 

actions for an infraction would be 

prosecuted under the appropriate 

statutes or regulations governing that 

infraction. The prohibition against 

catching or harvesting marine organisms 

would include a rebuttable presumption 

that any marine organism or part thereof 

found in the possession of a person 

within the research area has been 

collected from the research area. 

D. Permitting 

If adopted, a research area in the 

southern portion of the sanctuary would 

provide researchers a valuable 

opportunity to discern between humaninduced and natural changes in the 

Gray’s Reef area. Researchers would be 

required to obtain permits to conduct 

activities related to research that would 

otherwise be prohibited by the 

regulations. 

The ONMS regulations, including the 

regulations for the GRNMS, allow 

NOAA to issue permits to conduct 

activities that would otherwise be 

prohibited by the regulations (15 CFR 

922 and 922.93). Most permits are 

issued by the Superintendent of the 

GRNMS. Requirements for filing permit 

applications are specified in ONMS 

regulations and the Office of 

Management and Budget-approved 

application guidelines (OMB control 

number 0648–0141). Criteria for 

reviewing permit applications are also 

contained in the ONMS regulations at 

15 CFR 922.93. In general, permits may 

be issued for activities related to 

scientific research, education, and 

management. 

IV. Classification 

A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

Section 301(b) of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1434) 

provides authority for comprehensive 

and coordinated conservation and 

management of national marine 

sanctuaries in coordination with other 

resource management authorities. 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires 

the procedures specified in section 304 

for designating a national marine 

sanctuary be followed for modifying any 

term of designation. This action 

proposes to revise the terms of 

designation (e.g., scope of regulations) 

for the GRNMS. Therefore, NOAA is 

required to comply with Section 304. In 

addition, Section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA 

requires that NOAA consult with the 

appropriate fishery management council 

on any action proposing to regulate 

fishing. As stated in the preamble above, 

NOAA has worked with the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

State of Georgia, and NOAA Fisheries 

Service on this issue and all necessary 

requirements have been completed. In 

accordance with Section 304, the 

appropriate documents are being 

submitted to the specified Congressional 

committees. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

In accordance with Section 304(a)(2) 

of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(2)), and 

the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 

42 U.S.C. 4321–4370(a)), a DEIS has 

been prepared for this proposed action. 

The DEIS contains a statement of the 

purpose and need for the project, 

description of proposed alternatives 

including the no action alternative, 

description of the affected environment, 

and evaluation and comparison of 

environmental consequences including 

cumulative impacts. The preferred 

alternative incorporates the creation of a 

research area in the Southern Option 

Boundary, and proposed prohibition of 

fishing, diving, and stopping a vessel 

while transiting through the research 

area. Copies of the DEIS are available 

upon request at the address and Web 

site listed in the ADDRESSES section of 

this rule. 

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

if the proposed regulations are 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in section 

3(f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of the Order, an 

assessment of the potential costs and 

benefits of the regulatory action must be 

prepared and submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget. This proposed 

rule has been determined to be not 

significant within the meaning of E.O. 

12866. 

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

All of the proposed actions would 

occur in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

beyond state jurisdiction. There are no 

federalism implications as that term is 

used in E.O. 13132. The changes will 

not preempt State law, but will simply 

complement existing State authorities. 

In keeping with the intent of the Order, 

NOAA consulted with a number of 

entities within the region, the State of 

Georgia, and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council which 

participated in development of the 

research area. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In accordance with the requirements 

of section 603(a) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 603(a)), 

NOAA has prepared an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

describing the impact of the proposed 

action on small businesses. Section 

603(b) (5 U.S.C. 603(b)) requires that 

each IRFA contain a description of the 

reasons the action is being considered, 

a succinct statement of the objectives of, 

and legal basis for, the action, a 

description of and, where feasible, an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the proposed action will 

apply, a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed action, including an estimate 

of the classes of small entities which 

would be subject to the requirement and 

the type of professional skills necessary 

for preparation of the report or record, 

and an identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with the proposed action. 

In addition, section 603(c) (5 U.S.C. 

603(c)) requires that each IRFA contain 

a description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed action 

which accomplish the stated objectives 

of applicable statutes and which 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed action on small 

entities. A statement of why NOAA is 

considering this action and the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule is contained in the 

preamble section for the proposed rule 

and is not repeated here. The analysis 

conducted to meet the remaining 

requirements under the RFA follows. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55697 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

The Small Business Administration 

has established thresholds on the 

designation of businesses as ‘‘small 

entities.’’ A fish-harvesting business is 

considered a ‘‘small’’ business if it has 

annual receipts not in excess of 

$3.5 million (13 CFR 121.201). Sports 

and recreation businesses and scenic 

and sightseeing transportation 

businesses are considered ‘‘small’’ 

businesses if they have annual receipts 

not in excess of $6 million (13 CFR 

121.201). According to these limits, 

each of the businesses listed below are 

considered small entities. All analyses 

are based on the most recently updated 

and best available information. 

In 2002, a survey of charter fishing 

boat owners/operators was completed. 

This survey identified 15 charter boats 

that utilize GRNMS as one of their 

fishing locations. It was estimated that 

their 2001 total gross revenue was 

$1,029,000 and their total operating 

expenses was $582,000 with total profit 

of $447,000. Converting these values to 

2008 dollars using the consumer price 

index results in gross revenue of 

$1,251,264, total operating expenses of 

$707,712, and total profit of $543,552. 

The survey found that approximately 

40 percent of their fishing activity took 

place in GRNMS. 

The economic impact of the five 

alternatives considered for this action, 

and further described in the DEIS, can 

be estimated by combining results from 

the 2002 survey with boat location 

analysis completed in 2008. The results 

of this analysis are summarized in Table 

1. The five alternatives contain a no 

action alternative (i.e., no designation of 

a research area) and four alternatives 

distinguished by different locations 

within the sanctuary and by varying 

sizes. The Southern Boundary Option 

(preferred) impacts 9 percent of 

recreational fishing resulting in impacts 

of $46K to total gross revenue and $20K 

to total profit. The Optimal Scientific 

Boundary Option impacts 67 percent of 

recreational fishing resulting in impacts 

of $335K to total gross revenue and 

$146K to total profit. The Minimal User 

Impact Boundary Option impacts 

15 percent of recreational fishing 

resulting in impacts of $75K to total 

gross revenue and $32K to total profit. 

The Compromise Boundary Option 

impacts 35 percent of recreational 

fishing resulting in impacts of $175K to 

total gross revenue and $76K to total 

profit. 

This analysis assumes that all 

economic value associated with the 

areas closed is lost. Any factor that 

could mitigate or off-set the level of 

impact is not addressed. The estimated 

impacts are thought of as ‘‘maximum 

potential losses’’ because impacted 

businesses may take action to at least 

mitigate or off-set most losses (i.e., by 

conducting charter operations 

somewhere nearby). 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO RECREATIONAL CHARTER FISHING BUSINESSES BY ALTERNATIVE, IN 2008 $ 

Alternative Percent 

impact 

Total impact to 

gross revenue 

Total impact to 

profit 

No Action ............................................................................................................................................. 0 ........................ ........................

Southern Boundary Options (preferred) .............................................................................................. 9 46,047 20,003 

Optimal Scientific Boundary Option ..................................................................................................... 67 335,339 145,672 

Minimal User Impact Boundary Option ............................................................................................... 15 75,076 32,613 

Compromise Boundary Option ............................................................................................................ 35 175,177 76,097 

No economic impact is expected to 

result to recreational charter diving 

businesses because there appear to be 

none currently operating within the 

sanctuary. In September 2007, in-person 

interviews were conducted with all 

businesses and organizations offering 

scuba diving trips along the Georgia 

coast. Four charter scuba operations and 

one scuba diving club were identified 

and interviewed. The interviews 

gathered information that included 

operating profiles, preferred diving 

locations and methods, detailed 

business data (revenue and costs), and 

general opinions of the current state of 

scuba diving and spearfishing off the 

Georgia coast. None of the businesses 

offer scuba diving trips to GRNMS. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which 

has been approved by OMB under 

control number 0648–0141. The public 

reporting burden for national marine 

sanctuary permits is estimated to 

average 1 hour per response, including 

the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. 

Nationwide, NOAA issues 

approximately 200 national marine 

sanctuary permits each year. Of this 

amount, three permits are active for 

research activities within the GRNMS. 

Even though this proposed rule may 

result in a few additional permits 

applications for scientific research at 

GRNMS, this rule would not 

appreciably change the average annual 

number of respondents or the reporting 

burden for this information 

requirement. Therefore, NOAA has 

determined that the proposed 

regulations do not necessitate a 

modification to its information 

collection approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Send comments regarding this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NOAA (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

(202) 395–7285. Notwithstanding any 

other provision of the law, no person is 

required to respond to, nor shall any 

person be subject to a penalty for failure 

to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coastal zone, Education, 

Environmental protection, Marine 

resources, Natural resources, Penalties, 

Recreation and recreation areas, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research. 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

Holly Bamford, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 

Management. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, 15 CFR part 922 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
55698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for Part 922 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 

2. In § 922.92, revise the section 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 922.92 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities—Sanctuary-wide. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 922.93, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 922.93 Permit procedures and criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.92(a)(1) through 

(a)(10) and § 922.94 if conducted in 

accordance within the scope, purpose, 

manner, terms and conditions of a 

permit issued under this section and 

§ 922.48. 

* * * * * 

4. Add § 922.94 to Subpart I to read 

as follows: 

§ 922.94 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities—Research area. 

In addition to the prohibitions set out 

in § 922.92, which apply throughout the 

Sanctuary, the following activities are 

prohibited and thus unlawful for any 

person to conduct or cause to be 

conducted within the research area 

described in Appendix A to this 

subpart. The exceptions described in 

§ 922.92(a) and (b) also apply to the 

prohibitions in this section: 

(a)(1)(i) Injuring, catching, harvesting, 

or collecting, or attempting to injure, 

catch, harvest, or collect, any marine 

organism, or any part thereof, living or 

dead. 

(ii) There shall be a rebuttable 

presumption that any marine organism 

or part thereof referenced in this 

paragraph found in the possession of a 

person within the research area has 

been collected from the research area. 

(2) Using any fishing gear or means 

for fishing, or possessing, or carrying 

any fishing gear or means for fishing 

unless such gear or means is stowed and 

not available for immediate use while 

on board a vessel transiting through the 

research area without interruption or for 

valid law enforcement purposes. 

(3) Diving. 

(4) Stopping a vessel in the research 

area. 

(b) [Reserved] 

5. Add Appendix A to Subpart I to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart I of Part 922— 

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

Research Area Boundary Coordinates 

[Coordinates listed in this Appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983.] 

The research area boundary is defined by 

the coordinates provided in Table 1 and the 

following textual description. The research 

area boundary extends from Point 1, the 

southwest corner of the sanctuary, to Point 2 

along a straight line following the western 

boundary of the Sanctuary. It then extends 

along a straight line from Point 2 to Point 3, 

which is on the eastern boundary of GRNMS. 

The boundary then follows the eastern 

boundary line of the sanctuary southward 

until it intersects the line of the southern 

boundary of GRNMS at Point 4, the 

southeastern corner of the sanctuary. The last 

straight line is defined by connecting Point 

4 and Point 5, along the southern boundary 

of the GRNMS. 

TABLE 1—COORDINATES FOR THE

RESEARCH AREA

Point 

ID 

Latitude 

(north) 

Longitude 

(west) 

1 ........ 31.36250 N ........ ¥80.92111 W 

2 ........ 31.38444 N ........ ¥80.92111 W 

3 ........ 31.38444 N ........ ¥80.82806 W 

4 ........ 31.36250 N ........ ¥80.82806 W 

5 ........ 31.36250 N ........ ¥80.92111 W 

[FR Doc. 2010–22567 Filed 9–10–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 4 

RIN 3038–AC46 

Commodity Pool Operations: Relief 

From Compliance With Certain 

Disclosure, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Registered CPOs of Commodity Pools 

Listed for Trading on a National 

Securities Exchange; CPO Registration 

Exemption for Certain Independent 

Directors or Trustees of These 

Commodity Pools; Correction 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

missing e-mail address in a proposed 

rule published in the Federal Register 

of September 9, 2010, regarding relief 

from certain disclosure, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements that 

Commission staff previously has issued 

on a case-by-case basis to commodity 

pool operators (CPOs). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Stawick, 202–418–5071. 

Correction 

In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010–22395, 

beginning on page 54794 in the issue of 

September 9, 2010, make the following 

correction. In the ADDRESSES section, 

add the e-mail address 

etfcpoexemptcomment@cftc.gov in the 

place of ‘‘[email address TBD]’’. 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22906 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–142800–09] 

RIN 1545–BI96 

Guidance Regarding Deferred 

Discharge of Indebtedness Income of 

Corporations and Deferred Original 

Issue Discount Deductions; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed 

rulemaking by cross-reference to 

temporary regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking by cross-reference to 

temporary regulations (REG–142800–09) 

that was published in the Federal 

Register on Friday, August 13, 2010 (75 

FR 49428) primarily affecting C 

corporations regarding the acceleration 

of deferred discharge of indebtedness 

(COD) income (deferred COD income) 

and deferred original issue discount 

(OID) deductions (deferred OID 

deductions) under section 108(i)(5)(D), 

and the calculation of earnings and 

profits as a result of an election under 

section 108(i). In addition, these 

regulations provide rules applicable to 

all taxpayers regarding deferred OID 

deductions under section 108(i) as a 

result of a reacquisition of an applicable 

debt instrument by an issuer or related 

party. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Robert M. Rhyne, (202) 622–7790 and 

Rubin B. Ranat, (202) 622–7530 (not 

toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS