        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 120813333-2647-01]
        RIN 0648-BC28
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 17 to the Salmon Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 17 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP). Amendment 17, which was transmitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on November 5, 2012, to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, revises the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) for Quillayute fall coho, revises the FMP to correct typographical errors, updates reporting measures to reflect new technology, and updates or removes other obsolete or unnecessary language. The Northwest Regional Administrator has determined that the actions of Amendment 17 have all either been previously analyzed in a NEPA document or qualify for categorical exclusion (CE) from further NEPA analysis under NAO 216-6. NMFS also proposes minor updates to regulations unrelated to Amendment 17.

          DATES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before January 8, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0192, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0192 in the search box. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Comment Now” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070 or to Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736 Attn: Peggy Mundy, or 562-980-4047 Attn: Heidi Taylor.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that they are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Information relevant to this proposed rule, which includes a CE, a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available for public review during business hours at the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280, and are posted on its Web site (www.pcouncil.org). These documents are also linked on the NMFS Northwest Region Web site (www.nwr.noaa.gov). Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the Council.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323, or Heidi Taylor at 562-980-4039.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In 2011, NMFS partially approved Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP. Amendment 16 established status determination criteria (SDC), and other management metrics, for stocks managed under the Salmon FMP. Regulatory changes to implement the approved portions of Amendment 16 were made effective in a Final Rule (76 FR 81851, December 29, 2011). In a letter to the Council, dated December 11, 2011, NMFS detailed the disapproval of one SDC, the proposed maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) for Quillayute fall coho, and recommended that the Council submit an FMP amendment to address this item. In the course of reviewing Amendment 16, a variety of other, unconnected, issues were identified as needing revision in the FMP, largely to correct typographical errors, update notification and reporting measures to reflect new technology, and respond to a regulatory procedure issue in the schedule for annual management measures. However, these were identified after the Council had transmitted Amendment 16 to NMFS for approval. Amendment 17 has been developed to address the Quillayute fall coho MFMT and 14 other issues.

        The Council transmitted the amendment to NMFS on November 5, 2012. NMFS published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (77 FR 67327, November 9, 2012) to notify the public of the availability of the amendment and invite comments.
        This proposed rule identifies changes to the regulations under 50 CFR 660 subpart H to implement Amendment 17. The Council has deemed the proposed regulations to be necessary and appropriate as required by section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). This proposed rule also updates regulations under the same subpart, unrelated to Amendment 17, to remove obsolete text and update terminology.
        Components of Amendment 17
        The issues addressed by Amendment 17 are described below, in the order in which they affect the FMP.
        FMP Chapter 3—Conservation

        Amendment 17 Issue #1. Quillayute fall coho has an undefined MFMT, as shown in FMP table 3-1. This occurred because NMFS disapproved of the MFMT recommended by the Council under Amendment 16. Under Amendment 16, the Council recommended adopting an MFMT of 0.65 for all Washington Coast coho, to be consistent with the maximum exploitation rate allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty 2002 Southern Coho Management Plan. However, the Council had already accepted the Scientific and Statistical Committee approved estimate of 0.59 as the best estimate of FMSY for Quillayute fall coho, as presented in Appendix E of the Amendment 16 Environmental Assessment. Because MFMT cannot exceed FMSY, that element of Amendment 16 was not approved and therefore, MFMT is currently undefined for Quillayute fall coho in the FMP. Amendment 17 adopts 0.59 for the value of MFMT for Quillayute fall coho.
        Amendment 17 Issues #2 and #3. Amendment 17 corrects typographic errors for six Chinook salmon stocks listed in FMP Table 3-1, including erroneous inclusion in the Far North Migrating Coastal Chinook stock complex of two Columbia River Chinook stocks (Columbia River Upper River Bright Fall and Columbia Upper River Summer), and erroneous MFMT values for four stocks (Smith River, Southern Oregon, Central and Northern Oregon, and Quillayute Spring/Summer).
        FMP Chapter 5—Harvest
        Amendment 17 Issue #4. A description of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Chinook salmon is corrected to include federal ESA listing of two stocks.
        Amendment 17 Issue #5. The description of methodology to estimate abundance for Oregon Production Index (OPI) coho is updated to reflect recent changes in scientific methodology.
        Amendment 17 Issue #6. The discussion of management considerations for coho salmon north of Cape Falcon is updated to reflect recent consideration of impacts to two coho stocks.
        Amendment 17 Issue #7. The description of impacts to pink salmon from the ocean fishery is updated to reflect recent analyses of exploitation rate for pink salmon, conducted since the Council adopted Amendment 16.
        FMP Chapter 6—Measures To Manage the Harvest
        Amendment 17 Issue #9. The discussion of minimum size limits is updated to better describe recent trends in how these management measures are used.
        Amendment 17 Issue #10. The terminology for mark-selective fisheries is updated.
        FMP Chapter 7—Data Needs, Data Collection Methods, and Reporting Requirements
        Amendment 17 Issues #11 and #12. Amendment 17 updates technology used to collect and report data from the fishery.
        FMP Chapter 9—Schedule and Procedures for Preseason Modification of Regulations

        Amendment 17 Issue #8. Amendment 17 removes mention of a public comment period after final management measures are published in the Federal Register. Annual management measures for the salmon fishery are published in the Federal Register as a final rule; public comment periods are not applied to final rules. The public has an opportunity to comment throughout the Council's process of setting annual management measures, which includes two Council meetings and public hearings held in Washington, Oregon, and California. The Council publishes a notice in the Federal Register each December that details the process for setting the next year's annual management measures and solicits comments. The Council's notice provides the schedule for Council meetings and public hearings, as well as the schedule of availability of planning documents, including Preseason Report II which contains the salmon management alternatives the Council adopts in March for further consideration at its April meeting where it adopts a final recommendation for the fishing season. The Council's notice informs the public of how to request copies of the preseason planning documents, how to view the documents online, and how to submit comments to the Council by mail, fax, email, or the Federal Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. All comments received are reviewed by both the Council and NMFS.
        FMP Chapter 10—Inseason Management Actions and Procedures
        Amendment 17 Issues #13 and #14. The language regarding notification and procedures for inseason actions is updated to reflect current technology and policies.
        FMP Chapter 11—Schedule and Procedures for FMP Amendment and Emergency Regulations
        Amendment 17 Issue #15. The procedures for FMP amendment and emergency regulations are updated to be consistent with the MSA.
        Changes to Regulations

        This proposed rule includes changes to the existing regulations at 50 CFR 660.401 et seq., to implement Amendment 17, and to make additional updates. These are described below.
        • Definitions (§ 660.402)
        The definition of “Dressed, head-off length” of salmon is updated to remove reference to Figure 3 which no longer appears in the regulations. This is a general correction, not a component of Amendment 17.
        • Exempted Fishing (§ 660.406)
        The reference to “Regional Director” is updated to the current term “Regional Administrator.” This is a general correction, not a component of Amendment 17.
        • Annual Actions (§ 660.408)
        The references to “Regional Director” are updated to the current term “Regional Administrator,” and the word Chinook is capitalized. These are general corrections, not components of Amendment 17.
        • Notification and Publication Procedures (§ 660.411)
        Language providing for a public comment period after an action is effective is removed., and information on availability of data is updated.
        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 17, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Northwest Regional Administrator has determined that the actions of Amendment 17 have all either been previously analyzed in a NEPA document or qualify for categorical exclusion from further NEPA analysis under NAO 216-6.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and Classification sections of this proposed rule. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The IRFA is expected to provide a: (1) Description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; (2) succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; (3) description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (4) description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. The IRFA is also to expected to contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
        Consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as: (1) Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; and (3) using performance rather than design standards; and (4) exempting from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, such small entities.

        The reasons for why this action is being considered and the statement of objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule are discussed above in the SUMMARY and Classification sections of this proposed rule. The number of small entities that are affected is discussed below along with the other IRFA requirements.
        The commercial entities directly regulated by the Pacific Council's Fishery Management Plan are non-tribal commercial trollers, tribal commercial trollers, and charterboats. During 2011, the most recent year for which NMFS has data, these fleets consisted of estimated 802 non-tribal trollers, 40 to 50 tribal trollers, and 438-495 charterboats. Accordingly, NMFS estimates this rule, if implemented, will impact approximately 1,300 small entities involved in the fishery.
        Based on Pacific Coast Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) data, a total of 802 non-tribal vessels participated in the West Coast commercial salmon fishery in 2011. This figure is 25 percent more than participated in 2010 (642), two-and-a-half times the number that participated in 2009 (313), and three-and-a-half times the number participating in 2008 (221). Total 2011 ex-vessel value of the Council-managed non-Indian commercial salmon fishery was $9.2 million, an increase of 26 percent over the prior year (adjusted for inflation). Ex-vessel value was nearly six times above its 2009 level ($1.6 million) and 85 percent lower than the 1979 through 1990 inflation-adjusted average of $60.7 million, and 41 percent above the recent five-year (2006-2010) inflation-adjusted average of $6.5 million. In 2011, the coastwide average inflation-adjusted ex-vessel value of salmon landings increased slightly compared to 2010, to $10,500 per non-tribal vessel (approximately 385 of these trollers account for 90% of the revenues for an average revenue of $22,000). Treaty Indian commercial fisheries off Washington operate under regulations established by the Council. While some of the treaty Indian harvest is for ceremonial and subsistence purposes, the vast majority of the catch is sold commercially. Commercial treaty Indian fisheries provide food to consumers and generate income in local and state economies through expenditures on harvesting, processing, and marketing of the catch. According to a Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission representative, the tribal fleet consists of 40 to 50 trollers. For 2011 the preliminary ex-vessel value of Chinook and coho landed in the treaty Indian ocean troll fishery was $1.7 million, compared with inflation-adjusted ex-vessel values of $1.37 million in 2010 and $1.0 million in 2009 (values based on PacFIN data). During 2011, the tribal troll harvest was worth $1.7 million exvessel, implying that the average revenue per tribal troller ranges from $34,000 to $42,500.
        A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” entity by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small entity is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.5 million. All of the businesses that would be affected by this action are considered small under SBA guidance. Average 2011 tribal and non-tribal vessel revenues are approximately $13,000 per vessel. Charterboats participating in the recreational salmon fishery in 2000 had average revenues ranging from $7,000 to $131,000, depending on vessel size class (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission study). These figures remain low, and NMFS has no information suggesting that these vessels have received annual revenues since 2000 such that they should be considered “large” entities under the RFA. As these average revenues are far below SBA's thresholds for small entities, NMFS has determined that all of these entities are small entities under SBA's definitions.

        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action. As the proposed regulations are administrative in nature, there are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any of the significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. NMFS estimates that this rule will affect approximately 1,300 small entities. Under the RFA, an agency does not need to conduct an IRFA and/or Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), if an agency can certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulations being proposed are administrative in nature. Consequently, NMFS believes that this rule does not meet any of the tests of having a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial number” of small entities, nor does NMFS believe that this rule will place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to large entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA. Through the rulemaking process associated with this action, we are requesting comments on this conclusion.
        The proposed rule is administrative in nature and does not affect ESA listed species. However, NMFS has issued a number of ESA biological opinions that address the impacts of the Council managed salmon fisheries on listed salmonids as follows: March 8, 1996 (Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook and sockeye), April 28, 1999 (Oregon Coast natural coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California coastal coho, Central California coastal coho), April 28, 2000 (Central Valley spring Chinook), April 27, 2001 (Hood Canal summer chum 4(d) limit), April 30, 2004 (Upper Willamette Chinook, Upper Columbia spring Chinook, Lake Ozette sockeye, Columbia River chum), April 30, 2004 Puget Sound Chinook, June 13, 2005 (California coastal Chinook), April 28, 2008 (Lower Columbia River natural coho), and April 30, 2010 (Sacramento River winter Chinook, and listed Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio), and April 26, 2012 (Lower Columbia River Chinook). NMFS reiterates its consultation standards for all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species in their annual Guidance letter to the Council. In 2009, NMFS consulted on the effects of fishing under the Salmon FMP on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment (SRKW) and concluded the salmon fisheries were not likely to jeopardize SRKW (biological opinion dated May 5, 2009).
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: December 14, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.

          2. In § 660.402, revise the definition for “Dressed, head-off length of salmon” to read as follows:

            § 660.402
            Definitions.

              Dressed, head-off length of salmon means the shortest distance between the midpoint of the clavicle arch and the fork of the tail, measured along the lateral line while the fish is lying on its side, without resort to any force or mutilation of the fish other than removal of the head, gills, and entrails.

            3. In § 660.406, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

            § 660.406
            Exempted fishing.

            (c) Each vessel participating in any exempted fishery recommended by the Council and allowed by NMFS is subject to all provisions of this subpart, except those portions which relate to the purpose and nature of the exempted fishery. These exceptions will be specified in a permit issued by the Regional Administrator to each vessel participating in the exempted fishery and that permit must be carried aboard each participating vessel.

            4. In § 660.408, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(vii) and (d)(2)(v) to read as follows:

            § 660.408
            Annual actions.

            (d)  * * *
            (1)  * * *
            (vii) Other inseason provisions. Any increase or decrease in the recreational or commercial allowable ocean harvest resulting from an inseason restructuring of a fishery or other inseason management action does not require reallocation of the overall non-treaty allowable ocean harvest north of Cape Falcon between the recreational and commercial fisheries. Inseason redistribution of subarea quotas within the recreational fishery or the distribution of allowable coho catch transfers from the commercial fishery among subareas may deviate from the preseason distribution. Inseason management actions may be taken by the Regional Administrator to assure meeting the primary objective of achieving all-species fisheries without imposing Chinook restrictions in each of the recreational subareas north of Cape Falcon. Such actions might include, but are not limited to: Closure from 0 to 3, 0 to 6, 3 to 200, or 5 to 200 nm from shore; closure from a point extending due west from Tatoosh Island for 5 nm, then south to a point due west of Umatilla Reef Buoy, then due east to shore; closure from North Head at the Columbia River mouth north to Leadbetter Point; change in species that may be landed; or other actions as prescribed in the annual management measures.

            (2)  * * *
            (v) Inseason reallocation. No later than August 15 each year, the Salmon Technical Team will estimate the number of coho salmon needed to complete the recreational seasons. Any coho salmon allocated to the recreational fishery that are not needed to complete the recreational seasons will be reallocated to the commercial fishery. Once reallocation has taken place, the remaining recreational quota will change to a harvest guideline. If the harvest guideline for the recreational fishery is projected to be reached on or before Labor Day, the Regional Administrator may allow the recreational fishery to continue through the Labor Day weekend only if there is no significant danger of impacting the allocation of another fishery or of failing to meet an escapement goal.

            5. In § 660.411, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

            § 660.411
            Notification and publication procedures.

            (b) Public comment. If time allows, NMFS will invite public comment prior to the effective date of any action published in the Federal Register.

            (c) Availability of data. The Regional Administrator will compile in aggregate form all data and other information relevant to the action being taken and will make them available for public review upon request, contact information will be published annually in the Federal Register and announced on the telephone hotline. For actions affecting fisheries occurring primarily or exclusively in the fishery management area seaward of California, information relevant to the action also will be made available upon request by the Southwest Region, NMFS.

      [FR Doc. 2012-30598 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 70
        [KY-JEFF-T5-2002-01b; FRL-7144-1]
        Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program Revisions; Jefferson County (KY)

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposes approval of revisions to the operating permit program of the Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District in Kentucky. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving revisions to the County's operating permit program as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. An explanation for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by March 25, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this action should be addressed to César Zapata, Air Permits Section, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Copies of the Jefferson County submittals and other supporting documentation relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal business hours at EPA Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          César Zapata, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9139 or zapata.cesar@epa.gov/.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the final rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: January 31, 2002.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 02-3767 Filed 2-20-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 001005281-0281-01; I.D. 082900C]
        RIN 0648-AN85
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 2000-2001 Catch Specifications for Gulf Group King Mackerel

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the framework procedure for adjusting management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP), NMFS proposes, for Gulf group king mackerel, to reduce the total allowable catch (TAC), reinstate a 2-fish per person daily bag limit for captain and crew of for-hire vessels (charter vessels and headboats), and revise the commercial trip limit applicable within the Florida east coast subzone (Miami-Dade County, FL through Volusia County, FL).  The intended effect of this proposed rule is to protect the Gulf group king mackerel stock from overfishing while still allowing catches by the commercial and recreational fisheries.  In addition, NMFS proposes a minor change to correct a cross-reference.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern standard time, on November 24, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Dr. Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
          Comments on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule should be directed to Rod Dalton, Southeast Regional Office, at the above address.
          Requests for copies of the environmental assessment and regulatory impact review supporting this action should be sent to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL,  33619-2266, telephone: 813-228-2815, fax:  813-225-7015, e-mail:  gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Steve Branstetter, telephone:  727-570-5305, fax:  727-570-5583, e-mail:  Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic resources are regulated under the FMP.  The FMP was prepared jointly by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and was approved by NMFS and implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        In accordance with the FMP’s framework procedure, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) submitted to the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, a regulatory amendment that contained recommendations for changes in the catch specifications for Gulf migratory group king mackerel.  The recommended changes are within the scope of the management measures that may be adjusted under the framework procedure, as specified in 50 CFR 622.48.
        Background
        Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Gulf Group King Mackerel

        In setting TAC, the Gulf Council considered the comments of its Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP), Socioeconomic Panel, Scientific and Statistical Committee, Mackerel Advisory Panel, public testimony, and legal requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act.  The MSAP concluded that there is only a 33-percent chance that the stock is undergoing overfishing, and only a 35-percent chance the stock is overfished.  Currently, the FMP’s target for optimum yield (OY) for this stock is a fishing mortality rate that would produce a 30-percent static spawning potential ratio (F30% static SPR).  Based on an F30% static SPR, the MSAP calculated a range of allowable biological catch (ABC) of 8.2 to 12.8 million lb (3.7 to 5.8 million kg).  The Gulf Council chose the mid-point of the ABC range (10.2 million lb (4.6 million kg)), which has a 50-percent chance of not exceeding the fishing mortality that would allow the stock to reach the OY target (an F > F30% static SPR).   This TAC represents a slight reduction from the existing TAC of 10.6 million lb (4.8 million kg).
        The Gulf Council considers the TAC reduction from 10.6 million lb (4.8 million kg) to 10.2 million lb (4.6 million kg) sufficient to allow continued rebuilding of the Gulf group king mackerel stock while minimizing the social and economic impacts of the TAC reduction.  Additionally, the Gulf Council recognized that benefits of reduced fishing mortality on the stock are accruing from the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery and the recent increase in the minimum size limit to 24 inches (61.0 cm) fork length.
        Bag Limit for Captains and Crews of For-Hire Vessels

        The recreational sector annually exceeded its allocation between the 1986-1987 and 1996-1997 fishing years.  In early 1998, preliminary information for the 1997-1998 fishing year indicated that the recreational sector had again exceeded its allocation, even though the TAC had been increased to 10.6 million lb (4.8 million kg).  In an effort to bring the recreational catch within the allocation, the Gulf Council proposed in 1998, and NMFS implemented in 1999, a zero-fish bag limit of Gulf group king mackerel for captains and crews of for-hire vessels.  Updated and final information on the 1997-1998 fishing year indicated that the recreational sector did not exceed its 7.21 million lb (3.27 million kg) allocation during the 1997-1998 fishing year, as had been previously reported.  Subsequently, the recreational sector did not exceed its allocation during the 1998-1999 fishing year, and although the 2000 stock assessment was conducted prior to the end of the 1999-2000 fishing year, projections indicated that the recreational sector again would not exceed its allocation.
        Based on the results of the NMFS 2000 stock assessment, which indicated that the health of the stock of Gulf group king mackerel is continuing to improve, and that the recreational sector is maintaining harvest within its allocation of TAC, the Gulf Council concluded that it was unnecessary to continue efforts to constrain the recreational harvest through the use of a zero-fish bag limit of Gulf group king mackerel for captains and crews of for-hire vessels.
        Flexible Trip Limit Schedule for the Atlantic Sub-zone
        The commercial fishery participants in the Florida east coast subzone of the Eastern Zone have asked for conservative measures regarding their trip limits, so that they are assured a steady harvest of fish for the entire season.  However, the fishery has fallen short of meeting its quota for Gulf group king mackerel in all but 2 of the last 10 years.  The trip limit appears to be one factor restricting the opportunity to harvest the quota.  The South Atlantic Council has proposed a more flexible trip limit system whereby the commercial trip limit would increase from 50 to 75 fish on February 1, if less than 75 percent of the annual quota has been taken.  This action is intended to allow fishermen a greater opportunity to meet their quota, while maintaining stability in the fishery for the majority of the season.
        Change Proposed by NMFS
        In § 622.44, paragraph (d)(4)(i) would be revised to correct an incorrect cross reference “paragraph (e)(1)” should read “paragraph (d)(1)”.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as follows:

          The proposed rule would change the catch specifications for Gulf group king mackerel by setting total allowable catch, establish a 2-fish per person per day bag limit for the captain and crew of for-hire vessels, and establish a flexible trip limit for the East Coast subzone of the Eastern Zone (Miami-Dade through Volusia Counties, Florida) to 75 fish if the quota is not 75 percent filled as of February 1.
          The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides the statutory basis for the rule.  The rule would contribute to the attainment of three of the eight basic objectives of the FMP, namely to stabilize yield at MSY, to provide a flexible management system, and to optimize the economic and social benefits of the coastal migratory pelagic fisheries.
          One action would reduce the TAC for Gulf group king mackerel from 10.6 million lb (4.63 million kg) to 10.2 million lb (4.81 million kg).  Another action would increase the bag limit for the captain and crew of for-hire vessels harvesting Gulf group king mackerel from zero to two fish per person per day.  The final action would revise the trip limit for Gulf group king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone of the Eastern Zone (Miami-Dade through Volusia Counties, Florida).  The revision would replace the current fixed trip limit of 50 fish that applies for the entire season with a system whereby the trip limit will increase to 75 fish on February 1 if 75 percent of the area quota has not been harvested as of February 1 of any given year.
          In the Gulf area, 1,440 commercial vessels have permits to fish for king mackerel.  The size of these vessels ranges from an average of 29 ft (8.8 m) in Alabama to 41 ft (12.5 m) in Texas.  They report an average of about $15,000 in gross sales of all species of fish, but the gross revenues are extremely variable with sales as low as $300 and ranging above $200,000.  Profits are similarly variable, and the range is from a loss of about $25,000 to profits approaching $200,000.  The vessels at the low and high end of profits can be considered as “outliers”, and there are only a small, but unknown number of vessels operating at the extremes of the profit range.  It should also be noted that these vessels are not totally dependent upon king mackerel sales, and king mackerel sales account for about 33 percent of total sales.  There are 1,113 for-hire vessels that have permits allowing the customers to harvest king mackerel.  Most of the craft are traditional charter boats.  They have an average length of 39 ft (11.9 m), generate average sales of about $69,000, and have returns over variable costs of about $15,000.  All the commercial and for-hire harvesting units are classified as representing small business entities.  The total number of small entities is somewhat less than the implied total of 2,553 because some firms own more than one commercial or for-hire vessel.
          The action to reduce the TAC will result in a maximum reduction in commercial catches of 128,000 lb (58,060 kg) valued at $149,000 or about $103 for the average vessel.  Since the average vessel generates about $15,000 in sales from all species of fish, the loss translates into an overall loss of less than one percent of sales and profits.  It is noted that the revenues of the vessels show considerable variability, so some vessels are undoubtedly impacted to a larger degree than shown by the averages.  However, as was noted earlier, king mackerel sales account for 33 percent of total sales, indicating that these vessels participate in other fisheries, especially because the king mackerel fishery is seasonal and fishing ceases due to the commercial quota being reached in one or more sub-zones.  The effect of the lower commercial quota would be evidenced by a slightly earlier closure of the commercial mackerel fishery in those years when the quota is reached.  At that point, the affected vessels would switch to their alternate fisheries.  In the western Gulf of Mexico, where the quota is most often met, one of the main alternate fisheries is yellowfin tuna, a species not under quota.  Because of this historical fishing behavior, the short term effect of the slightly reduced quota will be mitigated.  In addition, the commercial quota is not always taken, but is taken in some years, including the most recent fishing year.  Nonetheless, for the reasons outlined, even if the maximum loss of $103 per vessel in terms of king mackerel sales occur, it is unlikely that vessels will be negatively impacted to the extent that they have to cease fishing.
          The action to allow a 2-fish bag limit for the captain and crew of for-hire vessels will provide benefits to the for-hire operations.  Particularly in the area of the Florida Keys, the sale of king mackerel by the for-hire vessels adds to overall vessel and/or crew income.  It is estimated that the positive impact will amount to a 2.6 to 4.3 percent increase in gross revenues for the for-hire vessels.  The recreational sector is not under a strict quota such that the fishery is closed when the recreational allocation is taken.  In addition, the recreational allocation, even under a slightly reduced TAC circumstance, will not likely be taken.  Therefore, the expectation of an overall increase in catches by the for-hire sector will have no offsetting negative impacts.

          The action to allow for an increase in the trip limit for those commercial fishermen operating in the Florida east coast subzone, if 75 percent of their quota is not taken by February 1, could increase their catches by a small but unknown amount.  Since this particular group of commercial fishermen does not generally take their quota, they stand to benefit from the more generous trip limit.  However, overall mackerel catches by all fishermen combined will not increase.  This result would be expected because although there are a number of different quotas for king mackerel, the instances where any particular group exceeds its allocation are becoming rare.  The monitoring system has been improved, and fishing under various quotas will cease because of the enhanced ability of fishery managers to monitor and close the relevant areas.  Hence, this accounts for the most likely outcome whereby the somewhat enhanced trip limits for the east coast sub-zone fishermen slightly enhances their incomes but with no change in overall revenues from king mackerel for all king mackerel fishermen combined.
          The criteria used to determine the possibility of a significant impact included disproportionality and profitability. As described earlier, although it is recognized that the small entities have varying revenues and profits, all the impacted entities are deemed to be small so there are no differential small versus large impacts.  Since the analysis shows that revenues, and profits, for the commercial small entities will decline by less than 1 percent, the economic impacts on small entities are deemed to be not significant.  Some small entities, including the for-hire firms and those commercial fishermen who harvest king mackerel in the east coast of Florida, will be positively impacted to a small degree.  Also, per the earlier discussion, all the entities to be impacted are classified as small, so a significant number will be negatively impacted by the reduction in TAC, albeit by an amount that is not significant.

        Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.  NMFS prepared an RIR and copies are available (see ADDRESSES).

        The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations.  To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule.  Such comments should be sent to the Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: October 16, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1.  The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

          2.  In § 622.39, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.39
            Bag and possession limits.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (ii) Gulf migratory group king mackerel--2.

          3.  In § 622.42, paragraph (c)(1)(i) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.42
            Quotas.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Gulf migratory group.  The quota for the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel is 3.26 million lb (1.48 million kg).  The Gulf migratory group is divided into eastern and western zones separated by 87°31'06'' W. long., which is a line directly south from the Alabama/Florida boundary.  Quotas for the eastern and western zones are as follows:
            (A) Eastern zone—2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg), which is further divided into quotas as follows:
            (1) Florida east coast subzone—1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg).
            (2) Florida west coast subzone. (i) Southern—1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg), which is further divided into a quota of 520,312 lb (236,010 kg) for vessels fishing with hook-and-line and a quota of 520,312 lb (236,010 kg) for vessels fishing with run-around gillnets.
            (ii) Northern—168,750 lb (76,544 kg).
            (3) Description of Florida subzones.  The Florida east coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone north of 25°20.4' N. lat., which is a line directly east from the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL, boundary.  The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone south and west of 25°20.4' N. lat.  The Florida west coast subzone is further divided into southern and northern subzones.  From November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that extends south and west from 25°20.4' N. lat. to 26°19.8' N. lat., a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary (i.e., the area off Collier and Monroe Counties).  From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that is between 26°19.8' N. lat. and 25°48' N. lat., which is a line directly west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL, boundary (i.e., off Collier County). The northern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that is between 26°19.8' N. lat. and 87°31'06'' W. long., which is a line directly south from the Alabama/Florida boundary.
            (B) Western zone—1.01 million lb (0.46 million kg).

          4.  In § 622.44, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (d)(4)(i) are revised to read as follows:

            § 622.44
            Commercial trip limits.

            (a) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (i) Eastern zone—Florida east coast subzone. In the Florida east coast subzone, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board at any time or landed in a day from a vessel with a commercial permit for king mackerel as required under § 622.4(a)(2)(iii) as follows:
            (A) From November 1 through January 31--not to exceed 50 fish.
            (B) Beginning on February 1 and continuing through March 31—
            (1) If 75 percent or more of the Florida east coast subzone quota as specified in § 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(1) has been taken—not to exceed 50 fish.
            (2) If less than 75 percent of the Florida east coast subzone quota as specified in § 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(1) has been taken—not to exceed 75 fish.

            (d) * * *
            (4) * * *
            (i) May not possess red snapper in or from the Gulf in excess of the appropriate vessel trip limit, as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 00-27076 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 679 and 680
        [I.D. 082504A]
        RIN 0648-AS47
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Voluntary Three-pie Cooperative Program; Allocation of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of amendments to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to approve the Voluntary Three-Pie Cooperative Program (Program). The Program is necessary to allocate specified Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. This Program will be implemented by Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for BSAI King and Tanner Crabs (FMP). Additionally, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 19 to the FMP for Secretarial review, which represents minor changes necessary to implement the Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:

        • Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
        • Hand delivery to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
        • FAX to 907-586-7557;
        • E-mail to KTC18-NOA-0648-AS47@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: 18 19 NOA. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; or
        • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

        Copies of Amendments 18 and 19 and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/eis/default.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228 or gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.
        In January 2004, the U.S. Congress amended section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-199, section 801), by adding paragraph (j). As amended, section 313(j)(1) requires the Secretary to approve, by January 1, 2005, the Voluntary Three-Pie Cooperative Program (Program), as it was approved by the Council between June 2002 and April 2003, and all trailing amendments, including those reported to Congress on May 6, 2003. The Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal community interests. The Program, as it will be implemented by Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP, is described below.
        Voluntary Three-Pie Cooperative Program - Amendment 18
        The Council developed the Program over a 6-year period to fit the specific dynamics and needs of the BSAI crab fisheries. The Program is a limited access system that balances the interests of several groups that depend on these fisheries. The Program will address conservation and management issues associated with the current derby fishery and will reduce bycatch and associated discard mortality. The Program is also designed to improve the safety of crab fishermen by ending the race for fish. Share allocations to harvesters and processors, together with incentives to participate in fishery cooperatives, are intended to increase efficiencies, provide economic stability, and facilitate compensated reduction of excess capacities in the harvesting and processing sectors. Community interests are protected by Community Development Quota (CDQ) allocations and regional landing and processing requirements, as well as by several community protection measures.

        The Program encompasses the following BSAI crab fisheries: Bristol Bay red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus), Western Aleutian Islands (Adak) golden king crab (Lithodes aequispinus) - West of 174° W., Eastern Aleutian Islands (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab - East of 174° W., Western Aleutian Islands (Adak) red king crab - West of 179° W., Pribilof Islands blue king crab (P. platypus) and red king crab, St. Matthew Island blue king crab, Bering Sea snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio), and Bering Sea Tanner crab (C. bairdi). In this document, the phrase “crab fisheries” refers to these fisheries, unless otherwise specified.
        Harvest Sector
        Qualified harvesters would be allocated quota share (QS) in each crab fishery. To receive a QS allocation, a harvester must hold a valid, permanent, fully transferable license limitation program (LLP) license endorsed for that crab fishery. Quota share represents an exclusive but revokable privilege that provides the QS holder with an annual allocation to harvest a specific percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) from a fishery. The annual allocations of TACs, in pounds, are referred to as individual fishing quotas (IFQs). Using LLP licenses for defining eligibility in the Program would maintain current fishery participation. A harvester's allocation of QS for a fishery would be based on the landings made by his or her vessel in that fishery. Specifically, each allocation is the harvester's average annual portion of the total qualified catch during a specific qualifying period. Qualifying periods were selected to balance historical and recent participation. Different periods were selected for different fisheries to accommodate closures and other circumstances in the fisheries in recent years.
        Quota share would be designated as either catcher vessel (CV) shares or catcher/processor (C/P) shares, depending on whether the vessel processed the qualifying harvests on board. In addition, catcher vessel QS would be designated by landing region. Catcher vessel IFQ would be issued in two classes. Crabs harvested with class A IFQ would require delivery to a processor holding unused processing quota. Class A IFQ harvests also would be subject to a regional delivery requirement. Under this regional requirement, harvests would be delivered either in a North or in a South region (in most fisheries). Crabs harvested with class B IFQ could be delivered to any processor (except C/Ps operating as C/Ps) and would not be regionally designated. Harvests in excess of IFQ would be forfeited in all cases. Class B IFQs are intended to provide ex-vessel price negotiating leverage to harvesters. For each region of each fishery, the allocation of Class B IFQ would be 10 percent of the total allocation of IFQ to the CV sector.

        Transfer of quota share and IFQ , either by sale or lease, would be allowed, subject to limits including caps on the amount of shares a person may hold or use. Leasing would mean the use of IFQs on a vessel in which the holder of the underlying QS holds less than a 10 percent ownership interest or on which the underlying QS holder is not present. To be eligible to receive transferred QS or IFQ, a person would be required to be a U.S. citizen with at least 150 days of sea time in any U.S. commercial fishery. A corporate entity would be eligible to receive transferred QS or IFQ only if it were at least 20 percent owned by a U.S. citizen with at least 150 days of sea time in any U.S. commercial fishery. Initial recipients of QS, CDQ groups, and community entities would be exempt from these transfer eligibility criteria.
        Separate caps would be imposed to limit the amount of QS and IFQs a person could hold and to limit the use of IFQs onboard a vessel. These caps are intended to prevent negative impacts from what can be described as excessive consolidation of shares. Excessive share holdings are prohibited by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Different caps are chosen for the different fisheries because fleet characteristics and dependence differ across fisheries. Separate caps on QS holdings are established for CDQ groups, which represent rural western Alaska communities. Processor holdings of harvest shares would also be limited by caps on vertical integration. Quota share holders could retain and use initial allocations of QS above the caps.
        Captains Shares (C Shares)
        To protect their interests in the fisheries, qualifying captains would be allocated 3 percent of the qualifying catch history as C shares. These shares are intended to provide long term benefits to captains and crew. The allocation to captains would be based on the same qualifying years and computational method used for quota share allocations to LLP holders. To ensure that C shares benefit at-sea participants in the fisheries, the IFQ derived from C shares could be used only when the C share holder is on board the vessel.
        To be eligible to receive an allocation, an individual would be required to have historic and recent participation. Historic participation would be demonstrated by at least one landing in each of three of the qualifying years. Recent participation would be demonstrated by at least one landing in two of the three most recent seasons before June 10, 2002, except for the fisheries that were closed in this period. For these fisheries (Adak red king crab, the Pribilof Islands red and blue king crab, the St. Matthew Island blue king crab, and the Tanner crab fisheries), recent participation would be demonstrated by at least one landing in two of the three most recent seasons preceding June 10, 2002, in the snow crab, Bristol Bay red king crab, or one of the Aleutian Islands golden king crab fisheries. The recent participation requirement would be waived for captains who died in fishing-related incidents if the captain's estate applies for QS.
        C shares would be required to be delivered to shore-based or floating processors for processing. During the first 3 years a fishery is open after implementation, C shares would not be subject to specific delivery requirements. After 3 years, C shares would be subject to the Class A IFQ/Class B IFQ distinction with commensurate regional delivery requirements unless the Council determines, after review, not to apply those designations.
        To be eligible to receive transferred C shares, a person would be required to be a U.S. citizen with at least 150 days sea time in a U.S. commercial fishery in a harvest capacity. In addition, the person would be required to be an “active participant” in the BSAI crab fisheries, demonstrated by a landing in a crab fishery during the 365 days before the transfer application. Evidence of participation could be either a State of Alaska fish ticket, an affidavit from the vessel owner, or other verifiable evidence.
        Leasing of C shares in each fishery would be permitted in the first three seasons a fishery is prosecuted after implementation of the Program. After the first three seasons the fishery is prosecuted, leasing would be permitted only in the case of a documented hardship (such as a medical hardship or loss of vessel) for the term of the hardship, subject to a maximum of 2 years over a 10-year period.
        Individual C share use and holdings would be capped at the same level as the vessel use caps applicable to QS. Initial allocations of C shares in excess of the cap could be retained. C shares would not be considered in determining a vessel's compliance with the vessel use caps on QS. Landings with C shares would be subject to the IFQ fee program.
        C/P captains would be allocated C/P C shares that include a harvesting and on-board processing privilege. Harvests with C/P C shares also could be delivered to shore-based or floating processors.
        Processing Sector
        A processing privilege, analogous to the harvesting privilege allocated to harvesters, would be allocated to processors. Qualified processors would be allocated processor quota share (PQS) in each crab fishery. PQS represent an exclusive but revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a specific portion of the annual TAC from a fishery. An annual allocation of PQS is referred to as IPQ and expressed in pounds of crab. IPQs would be issued for 90 percent of the allocated harvests, corresponding to the 90-percent allocation of Class A IFQ. Processor privileges would not apply to the remaining 10 percent of the TAC allocated as Class B IFQ. IPQs would be regionally designated for processing in a North or a South region (corresponding to the regional designation of the Class A IFQ).
        PQS allocations would be based on processing history during a specified qualifying period for each fishery. A processor's allocation in a fishery would equal its share of all qualified pounds of crab processed in the qualifying period (i.e., pounds processed by the processor divided by pounds processed by all qualified processors). Processor shares would be transferable, including the leasing of IPQs and the sale of PQS, subject to caps and to community protection measures. IPQs could be used without transfer at any facility or plant operated by a processor. New processors could enter the fishery by purchasing PQS or IPQ or by purchasing crab harvested with Class B IFQ or crab harvested by CDQ groups.
        Processors would be limited to holding 30 percent of the PQS issued for a fishery, except that initial allocations of shares above this limit could be retained and used. In addition, in the snow crab fishery, no processor would be permitted to use or hold in excess of 60 percent of the IPQs issued for the Northern region.
        Catcher/Processors
        C/Ps have a unique position in the Program because they participate in both the harvest and processing sectors. Persons who caught and processed crab on the same vessel would be allocated C/P QS. These shares would represent a harvest privilege and an on-board processing privilege. To be eligible for C/P shares, a person would be required to hold a permanent fully transferable C/P LLP license. In addition, a person must have processed crab on board the C/P in either 1998 or 1999. Persons meeting these qualification requirements would be allocated C/P QS in accordance with the allocation rules for harvest shares for all qualified catch that was processed on board. Catcher/Processor QS would not have regional designations.

        Regionalization
        The regional designation of QS is intended to preserve the historic geographic distribution of landings in the fisheries. Communities in the Pribilof Islands are the prime beneficiaries of this regionalization provision. Two regional designations would be created in most fisheries. The North region would be all areas in the Bering Sea north of 56°20′ N latitude. The South region would be all other areas. Catcher vessel QS, Class A IFQ, PQS, and IPQ would be regionally designated. Crab harvested with regionally designated IFQ would be required to be delivered to a processor in the designated region. Likewise, a processor with regionally designated shares would be required to accept delivery of and process crab in the designated region. Catcher vessel QS and PQS would be designated based on the location of the activity that gave rise to the allocation. For example, qualified catch delivered in a region would result in CV QS designated for that region.
        The Program has two exceptions to the North/South regional designations. In the western Aleutian Islands (Adak) golden king crab fishery, 50 percent of the CV QS and PQS would be designated as western shares to be delivered west of 174° W. longitude. The remaining 50 percent of the Class A IFQ allocation would have no regional designation and would not be subject to a regional delivery requirement. This designation would be applied to all allocations regardless of the historic location of landings in the fishery. A second exception is the Bering Sea Tanner crab fishery, which would have no regional designation. This fishery is anticipated to be conducted primarily as a concurrent fishery with the regionalized Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea snow crab fisheries, making the regional designation of Tanner crab landings unnecessary.
        Cooperatives
        Harvesters may form voluntary cooperatives associated with one or more processors holding PQS. A minimum membership of four unique CV QS holders would be required for cooperative formation. The cooperative would receive the sum of the annual IFQ allocations of its members in the applicable crab fisheries. A cooperative would be required to submit annually a cooperative agreement to NMFS before NMFS would set aside the cooperative's IFQ allocation for its exclusive use. Cooperative members would be allowed to leave a cooperative at any time after one season. Departing members would retain their QS, but a departing member's IFQ would remain with the cooperative for the duration of the cooperative's IFQ permit. Vessels on which cooperative shares were fished would not be subject to use caps. IFQ could also be transferred between cooperatives, subject to NMFS' approval.
        Only processors that hold IPQ could associate with a cooperative. Processors that associate with cooperatives would not be members of the cooperatives but would remain independent. A cooperative would not be bound to deliver its harvests to an associated processor, provided that the cooperative complies with the delivery requirements associated with the harvest and processing shares. Processors that do not hold IPQ would not be able to associate with a cooperative.
        Binding Arbitration
        BSAI crab fisheries have a history of contentious price negotiations. Harvesters have often acted collectively to negotiate an ex-vessel price with processors, at times delaying fishing to pressure price concessions from processors. Participants in both sectors are interested in ending that practice, but are concerned that market power could be altered by the rationalization of the fisheries. The Program would create a system with a one-to-one relationship of harvest and processing shares that would limit the pool of persons with whom a QS holder may transact. The concern is most acute for the last QS holders from each sector to commit their shares because of the one-to-one relationship of IPQ to Class A IFQ. The last Class A IFQ holder to contract deliveries will have a single IPQ holder to contract with, effectively limiting any ability to use other processor markets for negotiating leverage. To ensure fair price negotiations, the Program includes a provision for binding arbitration to resolve price disputes between harvesters and processors.
        The system of binding arbitration would apply to IPQ, Class A IFQ, and C shares when those shares are subject to IPQ landing requirements. Under the system, the arbitrator would establish a finding that preserves the historic division of revenues while considering other relevant factors, including current ex-vessel prices, location and timing of deliveries, and vessel safety.
        The arbitration process would begin pre-season with a market report for each fishery prepared by an independent market analyst and the establishment of a non-binding fleet wide benchmark price by an arbitrator who has consulted with both fleet representatives and processors. Information provided by the sectors would be historical in nature. In determining this benchmark price, the arbitrator would consider the highest arbitrated price that applied to at least 7 percent of the IPQ in the fishery in the preceding year. This non-binding price is intended to help guide price negotiations and inform later arbitration proceedings. After a negotiating period, a Class A IFQ holder could initiate a single arbitration proceeding with one or more IPQ holders before the fishing season. Proceedings may be initiated by one or more IFQ holders prior to the season after committing to deliver crab to the IPQ holder. For a brief period of time prior to the commencement of hearings, an IFQ holder could join the proceeding by unilaterally committing deliveries to the IPQ holder.
        The arbitration would be in a last best (or final) offer format. The IPQ holder would submit a single offer. Each IFQ holder could submit an offer, or a cooperative could submit a collective offer. For each IFQ holder or cooperative, the arbitrator would select between the IFQ holder's (or cooperative's) offer and the IPQ holder's offer. An IFQ holder with uncommited IFQ may opt-in to any contract that results from a competitive arbitration by accepting all terms of the arbitration decision (assuming that the IPQ holder held adequate shares to accept the deliveries).
        Community Protection Measures
        The Program includes several provisions intended to protect communities from adverse impacts that could result from the Program. Communities would be defined as boroughs, if an organized borough exists, or as first or second class cities, if no organized borough exists. Communities eligible for the community protection measures would be those with 3 percent or more of the qualified landings in any crab fishery included in the Program. Based on these criteria, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the eligible crab communities are as follows: Adak, Akutan, Dutch Harbor, Kodiak, King Cove, False Pass, St. George, St. Paul, and Port Moeller.

          “Cooling off” provision. During the first two years of fishing under the Program, any PQS based on processing history from an eligible community could not be transferred from that community.

          “Cooling off” provision exemptions. Three exemptions exist to the cooling off provision. Tanner crab PQS would be exempt from the “cooling off” provision because that fishery is expected to be a concurrent fishery with the Bristol Bay red king crab and snow crab fisheries. Western Aleutian Islands red king crab PQS would also be exempt from the “cooling off” provision because that fishery was closed for several years leading up to development of the Program. Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab PQS would also be exempt from the “cooling off” provision because the West regionalization landing requirements are inconsistent with the historic distribution of landings that would be established by the “cooling off” provision.

          Individual processing quota caps. IPQ caps would be established to limit the annual issuance of IPQs in seasons when the TAC exceeds a threshold amount. When the Bristol Bay red king crab TAC is greater than 20 million pounds, IPQs would not be issued for the amount of the TAC in excess of 20 million pounds. When the snow crab TAC is greater than 175 million pounds, IPQs would not be issued for the amount of the TAC in excess of 175 million pounds. Under these circumstances, Class A IFQ issued in excess of these thresholds would not be subject to the IPQ landing requirements but would be subject to the regional landing requirements.

          Sea time waiver. Sea time eligibility requirements for the purchase of QS would be waived for CDQ groups and community entities in eligible communities, allowing those communities to build and maintain local interests in harvesting. CDQ groups and community entities would be eligible to purchase PQS. CDQ groups and community entities would not be permitted to purchase C shares.

          Right of first refusal for processor quota share. Eligible communities would have a right of first refusal on the transfer of PQS and IPQ originating from processing history in the community if the transfer would result in relocation of the shares outside the community. Adak would not be eligible for the right of first refusal provision because Adak would receive a direct allocation of western Aleutian Islands golden king crab. The right of first refusal would be granted to CDQ groups in CDQ communities. In addition, eligible communities in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) north of 56°20′ would have a right of first refusal on the transfer of PQS and IPQ from communities in the GOA with less than 3 percent of the qualified landings in any crab fishery included in the Program.
        Community Development Quota Program and Community Allocations

          Community development quota program. The CDQ program would be broadened to include the eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery and the western Aleutian Islands red king crab fishery. In addition, the CDQ allocations in all crab fisheries covered by the Program would be increased from 7.5 to 10 percent of the TAC. The increase would not apply in the Norton Sound crab fisheries, which are excluded from the Program. CDQ groups would be required to deliver at least 25 percent of their allocation to shore based processors. The CDQ allocations would be managed independently from the Program and would not be subject to the Program's share designations and landing requirements.

          Community purchase. Any non-CDQ community in which 3 percent or more of any crab fishery was processed could form a non-profit entity to receive QS, IFQ, PQ and IPQ transfers on behalf of the community.

          Adak allocation. An allocation of 10 percent of the TAC of western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery would be made to the community of Adak. The allocation to Adak would be made to a nonprofit entity representing the community, with a board of directors elected by the community. Oversight of the use of the allocation for “fisheries related purposes” would be deferred to the State of Alaska under the FMP. NMFS would have no direct role in oversight of the use of this allocation. The State of Alaska would provide an implementation review to the Council to ensure that the benefits derived from the allocation accrue to the community and achieve the goals of the fisheries development plan. This allocation would not be part of the crab IFQ fisheries, but would be managed as a separate commercial fishery by the State of Alaska in a manner similar to management of the crab CDQ fisheries.
        Crew Loan Program
        To aid captains and crew in purchasing QS, a low interest loan program (similar to the loan program under the halibut and sablefish IFQ program) would be created. This program would be funded by 25 percent of the cost recovery fees required by section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Loan money would be accessible only to active participants and could be used to purchase either C shares or QS. Quota share purchased with loan money would be subject to all use and leasing restrictions applicable to C shares for the term of the loan.
        Protections for Participants in Other Fisheries
        The Program would affect the fishing patterns of current participants and could allow BSAI crab fishermen to increase participation in other fisheries. To protect participants in GOA groundfish fisheries, restrictions would apply to vessels that participate in the snow crab fishery. The restrictions, also called sideboards, would restrict a vessel's harvests to its historic harvests in all GOA groundfish fisheries (except the sablefish fishery). Vessels with less than 100,000 pounds of total snow crab harvests and more than 500 metric tons (mt) of total Pacific cod harvests in the GOA during the qualifying years would be exempt from the restrictions. In addition, vessels with less than 50 mt of total groundfish landings in the GOA during the qualifying period would be prohibited from harvesting Pacific cod from the GOA. Restrictions would be applied to vessels but also would restrict harvests made using a groundfish LLP license derived from the history of a vessel so restricted, even if that LLP license is used on another vessel.
        Additional Program Elements

          Annual reports and Program review. NMFS, in conjunction with the State of Alaska, would produce annual reports on the Program. Eighteen months after implementation of the Program, the Council would review the processor quota share and binding arbitration components. After 3 years, the Council would conduct a preliminary review of the Program. A full review of the Program would be undertaken at the first Council meeting in the fifth year after implementation. These reviews are intended to objectively measure the success of the Program in achieving the goals and objectives specified in the Council's problem statement and the Magnuson-Stevens Act standards. These reviews would examine the impacts of the Program on vessel owners, captains, crew, processors, and communities, and include an assessment of options to mitigate negative impacts. Additional reviews would be conducted every 5 years.

          Data collection. The Program includes a comprehensive socio-economic data collection program to aid the Council and NMFS in assessing the success of the Program and developing amendments necessary to mitigate any unintended consequences. Cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data would be collected regularly from the harvesting and processing sectors. The data would be used to study the economic and social impacts of the Program on harvesters, processors, and communities. Participation in the data collection program would be mandatory for all participants in the fisheries.

          Monitoring and enforcement. NMFS and the State of Alaska would coordinate monitoring and enforcement of this Program. Harvesting and processing activity would need to be monitored for compliance with the implementing regulations. Methods for catch accounting and catch monitoring plans for cooperatives would generate data to provide accurate and reliable estimates of the total catch and landings to manage quota share accounts, prevent overages of IFQ and IPQ, and determine regionalization requirements. Monitoring would include landed catch weight and species composition, bycatch, and deadloss to estimate total fishery removals.

          Cost Recovery. NMFS would establish a cost recovery fee system, required by section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to recover actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of the Program. The crab cost recovery fee would be paid in equal shares by the harvesting and processing sectors and would be based on the ex-vessel value of all crab harvested under the Program, including CDQ crab and Adak crab. NMFS also would enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of Alaska to use IFQ cost recovery funds in State management and observer programs for BSAI crab fisheries. The crab cost recovery fee is prohibited from exceeding 3 percent of the annual ex-vessel value. However, the collection of up to 133 percent of the actual costs of management and enforcement under the Program would be authorized, which would provide for up to 100 percent of management costs after allocation of 25 percent of the cost recovery fees to the loan program.
        Amendment 19
        The amended Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Council the authority to recommend to the Secretary subsequent amendments to the Program and provides the Secretary with the discretion to approve these amendments by January 1, 2005. In June 2004, the Council reviewed the public comments received on the Draft EIS and determined that changes to the Program were warranted. The Council recommended changes to three components of the Program: binding arbitration, cooperative sideboard management, and program review. These changes are contained in Amendment 19 to the FMP.
        The first change would limit information sharing among participants involved in binding arbitration to minimize the exposure of these participants to antitrust liability. The second change would remove a provision that directs cooperatives to limit their aggregate Pacific cod catch in both federal and state waters because this provision is not practical or enforceable. Thus, groundfish sideboards in the GOA would be managed by NMFS through fleet-wide sideboard directed fishing closures for federal waters and the parallel fishery in state waters.
        The Council also directed its staff to prepare an analysis of captain share (C share) landings for consideration by the Council 18 months after fishing begins under the Program. The purpose of the analysis is to examine landings patterns of C shares to determine whether the distribution of landings among processors and communities of C shares differs from the distribution of landings of the general harvest share pool. After receiving the analysis, the Council will consider whether to remove the 90/10 Class A/Class B split from C shares, which is scheduled to take effect 3 years after fishing under the Program begins.
        An EIS was prepared for Amendments 18 and 19 that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES). The EIS contains as appendices the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Social Impact Assessment prepared for this action.
        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendments 18 and 19 through the end of the comment period stated (see DATES). All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendments will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the close of business on the last day of the comment period. NMFS will publish the proposed regulations to implement Amendments 18 and 19 in October 2004.

          Dated: August 26, 2004.
          Allen D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-19971 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0150-201009(b); FRL-9138-8]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Tennessee; Visibility Impairment Prevention for Federal Class I Areas; Removal of Federally Promulgated Provisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to remedy an inadvertent omission in the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding visibility in 40 CFR 52.2234. EPA approved Tennessee's visibility rules addressing new source review on July 18, 1996, and a plan addressing monitoring and reporting of visibility on July 2, 1997. EPA's approval of these rules neglected to remove the previous federally promulgated provisions from the Federal Implementation Plan contained in 40 CFR 52.2234. EPA is proposing to correct this omission in this rulemaking. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before May 21, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0150 by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
          4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0150,” 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.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Nacosta C. Ward, 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. Ms. Ward may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9140 or by electronic mail address at http://ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

          Dated: April 1, 2010.
          Beverly H. Banister,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2010-8936 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P