        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 192
        [Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0009]
        RIN 2137-AE71
        Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has made a safety recommendation to PHMSA that excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves. In response to that recommendation, PHMSA is seeking public comment on several issues relating to the expanded use of excess flow valves (EFVs) in gas distribution systems. PHMSA is also interested in seeking comment from gas distribution system operators on their experiences using EFVs, particularly from a cost-benefit perspective.

          DATES:
          Persons interested in submitting written comments on this ANPRM must do so by February 18, 2012. PHMSA will consider late filed comments so far as practicable.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA-2011-0009 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.

          • Mail: Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Docket Management System, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

          Note:
          Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Privacy Act Statement

        Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mike Israni, by telephone at (202) 366-4571, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-1, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        Congress authorized Federal regulation of gas pipeline facilities and PHMSA has statutory authority to prescribe safety standards and practices for gas pipeline facilities. That authorization is codified in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that are administered by the DOT, PHMSA.
        On October 24, 1992, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Act (PSA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508). Section 104 of the PSA (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 60110) stated, in relevant part:
        (1) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall issue regulations prescribing the circumstances, if any, under which operators of natural gas distribution systems must install excess flow valves in such systems. In prescribing such circumstances, the Secretary shall consider—
        (A) The system design pressure and the system operating pressure;
        (B) The types of customers to which the distribution system supplies natural gas, including hospitals, schools, and commercial enterprises;
        (C) The technical feasibility and cost of the installation of such valves;
        (D) The public safety benefits of the installation of such valves;
        (E) The location of customer meters; and
        (F) Such other factors as the Secretary determines to be relevant.
        Section 104 further stated, in relevant part:
        (2) Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall issue regulations requiring operators of natural gas distribution systems to notify, in writing, their customers with lines in which excess flow valves are not required by law, but can be installed in accordance with the performance standards developed under paragraph (4)—
        (A) Of the availability of excess flow valves for installation in such systems,
        (B) Of any safety benefits to be derived from the installation, and
        (C) Of any costs associated with the installation.
        Such regulations shall provide that, except in circumstances under which the installation is required under paragraph (1), excess flow valves shall be installed at the request of a customer if the customer will pay all costs associated with the installation.
        Finally, section 104 stated, in relevant part:
        (3) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall develop standards for the performance of excess flow valves used to protect lines in natural gas distribution systems. Such standards shall be incorporated into any regulations issued by the Secretary under this subsection. All installations of excess flow valves shall be made in accordance with such standards.
        On June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31449), PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), issued a final rule on the installation of EFVs in single-family-residence service lines. RSPA determined that the mandatory installation of EFVs was not justified under any circumstances, primarily because the costs of such a requirement far exceeded the benefits. RSPA also adopted a standard for the performance and installation of EFVs in single-family-residence service lines (codified at 49 CFR 192.381). In a later final rule, dated February 3, 1998 (63 FR 5464), RSPA adopted a requirement that written notice about the availability of EFVs be provided to customers with single-family-residence service lines that operate at or above 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), and that those customers be further advised that the operator would install an EFV at the customer's expense.
        Part 192 of the PSR in combination with measures mandated in the Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) and continual monitoring of leaks has increased pipeline safety significantly in recent years. PHMSA continues to review the way pipelines are regulated and adopt strategies to improve pipeline safety. Programs such as damage prevention, public awareness, and operator qualifications have enhanced pipeline safety. Unfortunately, on rare occasions, the layers of protection fail and the results can have serious consequences.
        On July 7, 1998, a natural gas explosion occurred at a single family residence in South Riding, Virginia, killing one person and injuring three others. NTSB investigated the incident and determined that the cause of the explosion was a service line failure. NTSB further concluded that an EFV would have cut off the flow of gas in the service line and prevented the explosion. Citing that conclusion, on June 22, 2001, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-01-2 (SR P-01-2). SR P-01-2 recommended “that excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves.”
        On December 29, 2006, Congress enacted the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-468). Section 9 of the PIPES Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60109(e)) stated that “[n]ot later than December 31, 2007, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall prescribe minimum standards for integrity management programs for distribution pipelines.” Section 9 further stated that those:
        [M]inimum standards shall include a requirement for an operator of a natural gas distribution system to install an excess flow valve on each single family residence service line connected to such system if—
        (i) The service line is installed or entirely replaced after June 1, 2008;
        (ii) The service line operates continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less than 10 pounds per square inch gauge;

        (iii) The service line is not connected to a gas stream with respect to which the operator has had prior experience with contaminants the presence of which could interfere with the operation of an excess flow valve;
        (iv) The installation of an excess flow valve on the service line is not likely to cause loss of service to the residence or interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as purging liquids from the service line; and
        (v) An excess flow valve meeting performance standards developed under section 60110(e) of title 49, United States Code, is commercially available to the operator, as determined by the Secretary.
        On December 4, 2009, (74 FR 63934) PHMSA issued a final rule with minimum standards for distribution pipeline integrity management. Those standards included a mandatory installation requirement for EFVs (codified at 49 CFR 192.383):
        (b) Installation required. An EFV installation must comply with the performance standards in § 192.381. The operator must install an EFV on any new or replaced service line serving a single-family residence after February 12, 2010, unless one or more of the following conditions is present:
        (1) The service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or greater throughout the year;
        (2) The operator has prior experience with contaminants in the gas stream that could interfere with the EFV's operation or cause loss of service to a residence;
        (3) An EFV could interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as blowing liquids from the line; or
        (4) An EFV meeting performance standards in § 192.381 is not commercially available to the operator.
        A requirement that operators report the number of installed EFVs on annual basis was also included in that regulation.
        In Section 9 of the PIPES Act, Congress mandated that EFVs be installed on service lines serving single family residences. Other kinds of service lines, including those that serve branched single family residences, apartment buildings, other multi-residential dwellings, commercial properties, or industrial facilities, are not subject to that statutory mandate, even though such lines are susceptible to the same risks as single-family-residence service lines. Though Congress has not expressly mandated the use of EFVs to applications other than single-family residences, PHMSA has broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102 to prescribe safety standards requiring that EFVs be installed on those lines in appropriate cases. Operators of gas distribution systems can also expand the use of EFVs to applications other than service lines for single family residences as part of their broader obligation to develop and implement an integrity management program (49 CFR part 192 subpart B).
        II. Interim Evaluation: Response to NTSB Recommendation To Use EFVs in Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One Single Family Residence

        In June and August of 2009, PHMSA held public meetings on NTSB's recommendation in SR P-01-2 to expand the use of EFVs. The meeting participants included the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM), natural gas distribution operators, trade associations, manufacturers, and the Pipeline Safety Trust. As a result of these meetings, PHMSA issued a report titled, “Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess Flow Valves in Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One Single Family Residence” (Interim Evaluation) (available in Docket No.: PHMSA-2011-0009 at http://www.regulations.gov.). The Interim Evaluation incorporates input from the meeting participants and addresses issues related to the installation of EFVs on branched service lines serving more than one single family residence, multi-family residential dwellings such as apartments, commercial services and industrial applications on systems which operate above 10 psig where outside force damage could occur to a DOT regulated service. The report provides background on NTSB's recommendations and PHMSA's regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives targeted at reducing the occurrence of failures on service lines. The Interim Evaluation also describes the characteristics of U.S. distribution systems, EFVs' safety function to mitigate the consequences of an incident, industry's operating experience, the technical challenges, and the commercial availability of EFVs for installation in services other than single family residences. The report explores alternatives (e.g., curb valves) to the installation of an EFV and discusses the information that is needed to develop an economic analysis. The report also considers the need for adoption and enhancement of EFV technical standards or guidelines.
        Curb valves, essentially a service valve, often are installed close to the main for larger services which serve public buildings such as schools, churches, commercial buildings, as well as services with indoor residential meters. The location and operability of these valves in an emergency are relevant in terms of their use as a viable alternative to EFVs.
        III. Expanded Use of EFVs
        In recent years, PHMSA has expanded regulatory requirements aimed at reducing the risk of pipeline incidents. These measures have in large part been directed to lowering the likelihood of failures by preventing damage to pipelines. EFVs do not prevent accidents but do mitigate the consequences of incidents by greatly reducing the amount of gas released to the atmosphere when significant damage occurs. EFVs help mitigate the potential consequences of a high rate, high volume gas release. Where installed, EFVs are complementary to damage prevention programs and other pipeline safety efforts that focus on preventing accidents caused by outside forces. The following reasons have been identified for expanding the use of EFVs to additional classes of service:
        • Likelihood of EFV mitigating the consequences of an incident: Based on incident report information submitted to PHMSA, during March 2004-December 2009, approximately 148 out of a total of 914 incidents (16%) were located on a service or meter/regulator set and potentially severe enough to trigger an EFV if one were present. These incidents were reported as leaks with a puncture, rupture, or a catastrophic failure.
        • Likelihood of an incident occurring on a service line other than a single family residence: Of the 148 incidents deemed to be candidates for prevention by an EFV in the report, 87 (59%) were serving customers other than single family residences. Service lines serving other than a single-family residence represent approximately 30% of new and replaced natural gas service lines. Therefore, there is a much greater probability that failure of a service line other than a single family residence will result in an incident.
        • Limitations to the Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Efforts to Prevent an Incident: The frequency of service line incidents caused by excavation damage has decreased, but there has not been a corresponding reduction in consequences, (i.e., in terms of fatalities, injuries, fires, explosion or property damage). Furthermore, one-third of the incidents in which an EFV might have mitigated the consequences and for which the cause was listed as excavation damage occurred after a One-Call notification. While incidents occur less frequently when a One-Call notification is placed, the One-Call notification system does not eliminate incidents. PHMSA's evaluation found that the pipeline was marked in 80% of incidents where the operator received prior notification. Such incidents could be the result of unmapped facilities, un-locatable facilities, mismarked pipelines, excavators that fail to call in, excavators that are exempt from one-call requirements and do not call in, inadequate depth-of-cover, etc.

        • Difficulty in Preventing Incidents Caused by Natural Forces and Other Outside Forces: Of the incidents that were candidates for EFV mitigation and where EFVs are not currently required, almost 8% were caused by natural forces and 25% were caused by other, non-excavation outside forces. Operators have less ability to prevent incidents from occurring due to these causes than from excavation damage.
        • Views of the NASFM and the IAFCs: The associations' position on the installation of EFVs is that uncontrolled gas leaks pose a significant hazard to firefighters, emergency responders, and the public. According to these associations, the presence of an EFV can be a critical factor in suppressing a gas leak at the scene of an incident, where a first responder's ability to control gas flow is limited and dependent on the arrival of gas company personnel. While not frequently activated, an EFV is a critical tool in the event of a large volume release.
        • Commercial Availability of EFVs for Other Applications: The EFV device is relatively simple and experience demonstrates that they operate reliably when sized appropriately for operating conditions. The principles of operation remain the same as sizes become larger and trip points are increased. EFVs are currently manufactured for the vast majority of services.

        PHMSA has identified several situations where the installation of an EFV may not be technically practicable. These technical challenges are described in detail in Section 9 of the Interim Evaluation, “Technical Challenges Associated with Use of EFVs in Non-Single Family Residence Service.” In these situations, the installation of a readily-accessible curb valve and box might serve a similar safety function to an EFV. Although not instantaneous, a curb valve could facilitate the manual shut-off of natural gas service in an emergency and provide an alternative solution to an EFV. However, use of curb valves requires consideration of additional factors such as:
        • EFVs shut-off the flow of gas instantaneously when the gas flow exceeds design limits. Curb valves must be manually closed. The incident may have already occurred before the curb valve can be closed.
        • When the service is very short, the curb valve may be too close to a burning building to be safely operated.
        • Curb valves can be used to shut-off the flow of gas under any flow conditions. EFVs are intended to shut-off the flow of gas when there has been a catastrophic failure to the service or its appurtenances. In situations when less severe damage occurs, an incident may be prevented by closing the curb valve to stop the flow of gas.

        PHMSA has identified several issues related to the costs and benefits associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be considered when performing the economic analysis (See Section 10 of the Interim Evaluation “Economic Analysis Considerations”). The expected benefits are preventing or reducing incident consequences. The magnitude of the expected benefits is believed to be dependent on the estimated number of incidents impacted and incident consequences avoided if an EFV or curb valve had been installed on a service. The primary incident consequences that would be reduced are deaths, injuries, and property damage. Additional benefits would be an expected reduction in the number of fires, explosions, and evacuations occurring at incidents, and the quantity of gas lost during incidents. Since the subset of incidents whose consequences potentially could have been mitigated if an EFV was installed versus those that potentially could have been mitigated by a curb valve is different, the magnitude of the expected benefits will also be different.1

            1 Data found at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/PSI.html.

        Expected costs include the installation and maintenance of the EFV or curb valve. Installation costs include material, labor, design, supply chain management, and training. For EFVs, maintenance costs include the cost of analyzing the cause of failure and the cost of replacing an EFV and any other associated costs. Possible EFV failures include false closure (closed when not intended), failure to close (did not close when service was severely damaged), and failure to reset (EFV did not reset after service was put back in operation). Operators may also need to replace EFVs when a customer's load increases above the capacity of the currently installed EFV. For curb valves, maintenance costs include periodically inspecting the curb valve to ensure it is operational and inspecting the box to ensure it is free of debris. Curb boxes may also require adjusting after surface condition occurrences such as road resurfacing or landscaping.

        PHMSA has identified several potential areas in which enhanced or expanded technical standards and guidance for the performance, operation, installation, identification, and testing of EFVs could be valuable regardless of whether PHMSA decides to expand the classes of services requiring an EFV (See Section 4, “Technical Standards and Guidelines for EFVs” of the Interim Evaluation). Currently, § 192.381 requires operators to use EFVs which are manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry specification or to the manufacturer's written specification.
        While not incorporated by reference into the pipeline safety regulations, there are three technical standards that address the specification, manufacturing, and testing of EFVs. These standards are:
        i. “Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006—Design, Performance & Test.” 2

            2 Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006 “Design, Performance & Test” http://www.mss-hq.org/Store/index.cfm.

        ii. “ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04—Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves.” 3

            3 American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F1802-04 “Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves” http://www.astm.org/.

        iii. “ASTM International (ASTM) F2138-01—Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service.” 4

            4 American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F2138 “Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service” http://www.astm.org/.

        These standards may not be applicable to all sizes and pressure ratings of EFVs that would be needed if they were mandated for use in applications other than single family residences and would likely need to be expanded to cover other sizes and pressure ratings. A number of factors affect the performance and reliability of EFVs such as: installation location, configuration, selection, sizing, identification, installation method, and operation. ASTM International (ASTM) F2138 “Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service” addresses some of these factors at a high level, but not in depth.

        These standards may need to be expanded to better address the selection, installation, and performance testing of EFVs for a variety of design considerations and service line configurations. Operating conditions and system configurations under which EFVs are not compatible or potentially not advisable may need to be identified and integrated into the guidelines. PHMSA's recommended approach is to select and size EFVs with a trip point less than, but closest to, the gas flow rate of a full service line pipe break.

        If these standards and guidance are enhanced or developed, PHMSA may consider if they are adequate to be incorporated by reference into the Pipeline Safety Regulations. Incorporating standards by reference provides PHMSA a mechanism to ensure that any changes to the standards do not lessen public safety. Lastly, the Interim Evaluation identifies areas where additional data is needed to further review EFV issues and to perform a cost-benefit analysis.

        PHMSA will consider all comments received from the ANPRM plus any additional information available, and will finalize the Interim Evaluation after publication of this ANPRM. The Interim Evaluation, which was peer reviewed by PHMSA, NTSB and representatives of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, IAFC, NASFM, natural gas distribution operators, trade associations and the Pipeline Safety Trust will document the basis for any PHMSA decision and response to NTSB with respect to the EFV issue.
        IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        Although not mandated by Congress, PHMSA, in a direct response to the NTSB recommendation P-01-2, seeks public comment regarding the technical challenges, and the potential costs and the potential benefits of any expanded requirement to use EFVs in applications other than service lines serving single family residences. PHMSA additionally seeks comment as to whether to establish and/or adopt technical standards or guidance for the performance, specification, manufacturing, testing, installation, identification, and operation of EFVs. Specifically, PHMSA is asking for comment on the following issues:
        1. Technical Challenges—Operators have identified technical challenges to installing EFVs on services other than single family residences. These challenges include (1) the effect of changing gas usage patterns; (2) snap loads; (3) business-critical gas supply applications; (4) system configuration; (5) pressure ratings; and (6) size of commercially available EFVs.
        a. Does Section 9 “Technical Challenges Associated with Use of EFVs in Non-Single Family Residence Service” fully and accurately explain the technical challenges of EFVs in these other applications?
        b. Are there additional technical challenges, obstacles to implementation, or reliability issues that should be considered for these other applications?
        c. What are the technical challenges to installing and maintaining a curb valve when an EFV is not technically feasible?
        d. What are the limitations to using a curb valve to stop the flow of gas during emergency situations where EFVs are not technically feasible?
        e. What additional cases may exist where the installation of EFVs may not be feasible or practical other than those listed in Section 10.3.1, “Feasibility/Practicality”?
        2. Economic Analysis Considerations (Potential Costs and Benefits)—In addition, PHMSA requests commenters to provide information and supporting data related to: the potential costs of modifying the existing regulatory requirements pursuant to the commenters suggestions; the potential quantifiable safety and societal benefits of modifying the existing regulatory requirements; the potential impacts on small business of modifying the existing regulatory requirements; and the potential environmental impacts of modifying the existing requirements.
        The economic analysis of installation of EFVs on services other than single family residences involves challenges related to quantification and monetization of costs and/or benefits including distributional affects. It is important as part of the economic analysis to consider both benefits and costs that are distributed among sub-populations of particular concern so that decision makers can properly consider them along with the effects on economic efficiency. Therefore, it will be important to consider input from a variety of stakeholders. OMB A-4 (titled “REGULATORY ANALYSIS”) provides additional information about benefit-cost analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses. Any cost benefit analysis prepared in response to this ANPRM will be consistent with the guidance outlined in OMB Circular A-4, and any related policies.

        a. Categories of Services To Be Considered—If the requirement for EFVs were expanded to other categories of services, would the classification described in Section 10.3.2, “Categories of Services” in the Interim Report be practicable to implement? If not, why not?

        b. Cost Factors—Are there any other issues related to costs associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be considered when performing the benefit-cost analysis, other than those listed in Section 10.4, “Defining Cost Factors” of the Interim Report?
        c. Who should be expected to pay for the installation and maintenance of EFV or other alternative and why?
        d. Are there any opportunity costs associated with the installation of EFVs? Does there have to be a particular time of day when installation occurs? If so, why? How long does installation take?
        e. Benefits Factors:

        i. Are there any other issues related to benefits associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be considered when performing the benefit-cost analysis, other than those listed in Section 10.5 “Defining Benefit Factors” of the Interim Report?

        ii. Is the method used in Section 2.3.3, “PHMSA Evaluation of Data Related to Incidents on Services,” of the Interim Report appropriate to quantify the expected number of incidents or the consequences averted, and to evaluate the risks of such incident occurring? Do the parameters used to evaluate incidents for the likelihood of prevention by an EFV (i.e. location of the leak (incidents on service lines), reported cause of the leak (leaks due to damage), maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the system (>10 PSIG),additional information about the leak's characteristics (large leaks and ruptures) and classification of customer (customers other than stand-alone service line serving a single family residence)) satisfactorily allow a conclusion to be made?

        3. Technical Standards and Guidance for EFVs—OMB Circular A-119 “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” directs Federal agencies to utilize voluntary standards both domestic and international, whenever feasible and consistent with law and regulation. The current DOT regulation applicable to excess flow valve standards is 49 CFR 192.381 which requires excess flow valves to be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry specification or to the manufacturer's written specification but does not prescribe a specification. Without a standard prescribing EFV specification, the possibility exists that EFVs could be installed that do not meet currently accepted specifications.

        4. Additionally, a number of factors affect the performance and reliability of EFVs such as installation location, configuration, selection, sizing, or installation method. PHMSA has determined that current industry standards do not address these factors in detail. PHMSA therefore requests comment on industry standards to determine the need and availability of consensus standards for EFV utilization.
        a. Should PHMSA incorporate by reference the following technical standards? If not, why not?
        b. Are there any alternatives to the standards listed below?
        i. “Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006—Design, Performance & Test.” 5

            5 Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006 “Design, Performance & Test”  http://www.mss-hq.org/Store/index.cfm.

        ii. “ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04—Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves.” 6

            6 American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F1802-04 “Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves” http://www.astm.org/.

        iii. “ASTM International (ASTM) F2138-01—Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service.” 7

            7 American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F2138 “Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service”http://www.astm.org/.

        c. Are guidelines or technical standards needed for developing and if so, why?:
        i. A standard approach to sizing, specifying, performance testing, and installing EFVs for a variety of design considerations and service line configurations.
        ii. Criteria for identifying operating conditions and system configurations under which EFVs are not compatible or potentially not advisable.
        In addition, PHMSA requests commenters to provide information and supporting data related to:
        • The potential costs of modifying the existing regulatory requirements pursuant to the commenter's suggestions.
        • The potential quantifiable safety and societal benefits of modifying the existing regulatory requirements.
        • The potential impacts on small businesses of modifying the existing regulatory requirements.
        • The potential environmental impacts of modifying the existing regulatory requirements.
        V. Regulatory Notices
        A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” We therefore request comments, including specific data if possible, concerning the costs and benefits of revising the pipeline safety regulations to accommodate any of the changes suggested in this ANPRM.
        B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. PHMSA is inviting comments on the effect a possible rulemaking adopting any of the amendments discussed in this document may have on the relationship between National Government and the States.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. If your business or organization is a small entity and if adoption of any of the amendments discussed in this ANPRM could have a significant economic impact on your operations, please submit a comment to explain how and to what extent your business or organization could be affected.
        D. National Environmental Policy Act
        The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of Federal actions and to prepare a detailed statement analyzing whether the action significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Interested parties are invited to address the potential environmental impacts of this ANPRM. PHMSA is particularly interested in comments about compliance measures that would provide greater benefit to the human environment or alternative actions the agency could take that would provide beneficial environmental impacts.
        E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Indian Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that “significantly or uniquely affect” Indian communities and that impose “substantial and direct compliance costs” on such communities. PHMSA invites Indian Tribal governments to provide comments on any aspect of this ANPRM that may affect Indian communities.
        F. Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under 5 CFR part 1320, PHMSA analyzes the paperwork burdens of any information collection required by a rulemaking. PHMSA invites comment on the need for collection of information and the associated paperwork burdens, if any.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2011.
          Jeffrey D. Wiese,
          Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 2011-30330 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 110711384-1398-01]
        RIN 0648-XA470
        Western Pacific Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; 2011-12 Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specification; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to specify a quota (annual catch target, ACT) of 325,000 lb (147,418 kg) of Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2011-12 fishing year, based on a proposed annual catch limit (ACL) of 346,000 lb (156,943 kg). When the fishery is projected to reach the quota, NMFS would close, as an accountability measure, the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed specifications and fishery closure support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 18, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed specification, identified by 0648-XA470, may be sent to either of the following addresses:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: Mail written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted to one of the two addresses to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. 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 may 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 or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that describes the impact on the human environment that would result from this proposed action. Based on the EA, NMFS prepared a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. Copies of the EA and FONSI are available from http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-944-2108.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii is managed under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (Hawaii FEP), developed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 3 to the Hawaii FEP established a process for the Council and NMFS to specify annual catch limits and accountability measures; that process is codified at 50 CFR 665.4 (76 FR 37285, June 27, 2011). The regulations require NMFS to specify an ACL for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council. The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernus).
        The Council's recommendation of an ACL of 346,000 lb (156,943 kg) considers the most recent bottomfish stock assessment, risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, recommendations from its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and input from the public. The proposed ACL is based on a 2010 stock assessment that indicated that the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish were not overfished and not subject to overfishing. The proposed ACL is associated with less than a 41 percent probability of overfishing the Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI.
        Management uncertainty, influenced by unreported recreational landings, accuracy of commercial catch reporting, weather influences on the fishing activity and productivity, monitoring and forecasting capabilities, and mortality of recreational catch discards associated with high-grading, could cause the fishery to exceed the ACL. Accordingly, the Council recommended a quota (annual catch target, ACT) of 325,000 lb (147,418 kg), about six percent (21,000 lb or 9,525 kg) lower than the ACL, to provide a sufficient buffer to ensure that the fishery does not exceed the ACL.

        If the quota (ACT) is projected to be reached before August 31 (the end of the fishing year), NMFS will close the non-commercial and commercial fisheries for Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters through August 31. When NMFS closes Federal waters to fishing for Deep 7 bottomfish, State of Hawaii law allows the State to adopt a complementary closure of the Deep 7 fishery in State waters. During a closure for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish in the MHI, except as otherwise authorized by law. Specifically, fishing for, and the resultant possession or sale of, Deep 7 bottomfish by vessels legally registered to Pacific Remote Island Area bottomfish fishing permits, and conducted in compliance with all other laws and regulations, are not affected by the closure. There is no prohibition on fishing for or selling other non-Deep 7 bottomfish species throughout the year.
        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed ACL and quota (ACT) and will announce the final specifications prior to the scheduled reopening of the fishery on September 1, 2011. The fishery will continue until August 31, 2012, unless the fishery is closed earlier because the quota is reached. Regardless of the final ACL and quota, all other management measures will continue to apply in the MHI bottomfish fishery.
        To be considered, comments on these proposed specifications must be received by August 18, 2011, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Hawaii FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.

          “The proposed action would specify the annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measures (AM) for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the non-commercial and commercial fisheries for 2011-12. In the 2010-11 fishing year (September 1, 2010, through March 12, 2011), 475 vessels engaged in the commercial harvest of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. The 2010-11 average gross revenue per vessel was $3,347, based on an average price of $5.93 per pound, and harvest of 268,089 lb (121,603 kg). In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing or household income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing and other income-generating activities by individual operations across the year has not been examined. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels in the current fishery are small entities under the Small Business Administration definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.

          Assuming an average price of $5.93 per lb and 475 participating vessels, the proposed 2011-12 ACL of 346,000 lb (156,943 kg) is expected to yield $2,051,780 in total revenue, or an average of $4,319 in revenue per vessel, compared to $3,347 per vessel realized in the 2010-11 fishery. Even though there would be a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, affected by this specification, there would be no significantly adverse economic impact to individual vessels resulting from the implementation of this specification. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), NMFS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action is exempt from review under the procedures of E.O. 12866.

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

          Dated: July 28, 2011.
           Eric C. Schwaab,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-19665 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 170710645-7645-01]
        RIN 0648-BH03
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex; Framework Adjustment 4

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We propose regulations submitted by the New England Fishery Management Council in Framework Adjustment 4 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. We are proposing to de-couple the skate wing and bait inseason trip limit adjustments to better control the catch of bait skate and to provide a more consistent supply of skate bait to the lobster fishery. This action also clarifies that in-season possession limits may be removed when necessary to help harvest the fisheries total allowable landings. This action is needed to allow the fishery to more effectively harvest its optimum yield.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by November 6, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0099, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2017-0099, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Skate Framework 4.”

            Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. 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, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Northeast Skate Complex Framework Adjustment 4 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, a preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and economic analysis. Copies of the Framework 4 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or http://www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9182.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the New England Fishery Management Council and implemented in 2003, manages a complex of seven skate species (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skate) off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts. Skates are harvested and managed in two different fisheries: one for food (the wing fishery) and one for lobster bait (the bait fishery). Fishery specific allocations, called total allowable landings (TALs), are set through biennial specifications. Additional information on the skate fisheries can be found online at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/skate/index.html.

        While the wing and bait fisheries have several differing management measures, such as possession limits, the management measures for the two fisheries are closely related. Generally, the bait fishery operates under an exemption from the wing fishery possession limits. The bait fishery is managed under a 3-season fishing year: Season 1 is May 1 through August 31; Season 2 is September 1 through October 31; and, Season 3 is November 1 through April 30. When the bait fishery reaches a TAL threshold trigger of 90 percent of a season's TAL, an in-season accountability measure for the bait fishery removes the exemption to the wing-fishery possession limit. When this happens, the exemption is removed and the bait fishery possession limit reverts to the substantially lower wing possession limit. Additional information on previous and current skate management measures can be reviewed through the Council's Web site at http://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/skates.

        The linked accountability measures for these fisheries recently became problematic, during fishing year 2016 (Figure 1). Framework Adjustment 3 included a 23-percent reduction in the TAL for fishing years 2016-2017. Because of the reduced allocation, the skate bait TAL threshold trigger was reached twice, requiring us to implement incidental possession limits in Season 2 (81 FR 71641; October 18, 2016) and Season 3 (82 FR 8364; January 25, 2017). The first time, the bait fishery possession limit was reduced from 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per trip to the standard skate wing possession limit (9,307 lb or 4,222 kg). The second time, however, the bait possession limit was reduced simultaneously with the wing possession limit because the wing fishery had reached its TAL threshold trigger of 85 percent. This adjustment, to an incidental possession limit of 1,135 lb (515 kg) per trip, effectively closed the skate bait fishery. This closure had substantial negative impacts on the lobster fishery due to the lack of available bait.
        In response to the closure, the Council developed Framework 4 to reduce the likelihood of a lengthy in-season closure while ensuring bait landings do not exceed the TAL.
        Proposed Measures

        This action proposes several measures designed to de-couple the skate wing and bait in-season possession limit accountability measures, control catch, and potentially provide a more consistent bait supply to the lobster fishery. Generally, these changes are intended to slow fishing effort and catch to prevent or reduce the need for a lengthy fishery closure while still allowing the fishery to catch its TAL. Figure 2 shows how in-season accountability measures would be implemented if Framework 4 were approved. We are proposing the following measures, as recommended by the Council.
        1. Reduce the Season 3 Bait Skate Possession Limit
        This measure would reduce the Season 3 (November through April) possession limit from 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) to 12,000 lb (5,443 kg). Because Season 3 is the longest season in the bait fishery (6 months), reducing the trip limit should slow the catch rate and lessen the chance of closing the fishery.
        2. Reduce the Season 3 Bait Skate TAL Threshold Trigger
        This measure would change the Season 3 TAL threshold trigger at which the incidental possession limit would become effective. Similar to the proposed trip limit reduction, dropping the TAL threshold trigger from 90 to 80 percent means that the incidental possession limit would be enacted sooner, which would slow catch rates and diminish the likelihood of closing the fishery.
        3. Establish a Separate Bait Skate Incidental Possession Limit
        As previously explained (and detailed in Figure 1), the current regulations link the bait skate incidental possession limit to the skate wing fishery possession limit. Currently, the bait skate incidental possession limit is equivalent to the skate wing possession limit. This action proposes to de-couple the in-season accountability measures for the two fisheries and establish an 8,000-lb (3,629-kg) incidental possession limit whenever the skate bait fishery is projected to reach a seasonal threshold trigger.
        Once implemented, an incidental possession limit could be removed and the standard trip limit reinstated if catch projections indicate the TAL will not be harvested and removing the limits are not expected to result in exceeding the TAL.
        4. Implement a Bait Skate Fishery Closure When the TAL Is Harvested
        This measure would close the bait fishery when 100 percent of the bait TAL is projected to be harvested. Currently, there is no measure to close the fishery; the incidental possession limits for the bait fishery are linked to the wing fishery. Adding this measure would better ensure that the skate bait fishery does not exceed its TAL.
        5. Removal of Incidental Possession Limit if Necessary To Achieve TAL
        This action would also clarify, under the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, regulations pertaining to in-season possession limit reductions (incidental possession limits) in the skate fishery. If NMFS determines that an in-season possession limit reduction could prohibit the skate bait fishery from achieving its annual TAL, NMFS may remove the in-season reduction and reinstate the standard seasonal possession limit. A similar action was taken during fishing year 2016 (82 FR 13564, March 14, 2017) and language is proposed at 50 CFR 648.322(f) to better clarify the regulations to be consistent with the intent of the Council.

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP20OC17.000

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, Framework 4, 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.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule would have on small entities, including small businesses, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in Framework 4 and its accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble of this proposed rule.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The proposed modifications to skate bait fishery effort controls would impact vessels that hold Federal open access commercial skate permits that participate in the skate fishery or affiliated groups that hold multiple open access commercial skate permits that participate in the skate fishery. Within the skate bait fishery, the majority of affiliate groups consist of a single permit-holder, or 71 vessels in fishing year 2015. Four vessels belong to affiliated groups that hold two or more permits.
        For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The Council's analysis indicates the maximum number of small fishing entities that may be affected by this action is 69 (71 vessels), based on 2015 data. During fishing year 2015, only 69 affiliated groups landed any amount of skate for bait. At the permit level, every skate landing permit is defined as a small business according to size standards (the top five vessels have total revenues between 600 thousand and 1.9 million dollars in 2015).
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with any state regulations or other federal laws.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The Council considered revising the skate bait threshold trigger, reduced possession limit, and closure independently, but elected to include all of the measures into a single action. The Council was concerned that independently, the measures would not restrict catch enough and leave the fishery at risk of a substantial closure with accompanying economic impacts. Incorporating all of the measures proposed accomplishes the goals and objectives of the FMP and minimizes the economic impact on small entities. Retaining the status quo management measures would not slow catch and would result in the fishery having a higher likelihood of closing for an extended period, resulting in greater profit losses to industry.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: October 16, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.322, revise paragraphs (c) through (e) and add paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:

          § 648.322
           Skate allocation, possession, and landing provisions.

          (c) Bait Letter of Authorization (LOA). A skate vessel owner or operator under this part may request and receive from the Regional Administrator an exemption from the skate wing possession limit restrictions for a minimum of 7 consecutive days, provided that when the vessel is fishing pursuant to the terms of authorization at least the following requirements and conditions are met:
          (1) The vessel owner or operator obtains and retains onboard the vessel a valid LOA. LOAs are available upon request from the Regional Administrator.
          (2) The vessel owner or operator fishes for, possesses, or lands skates only for use as bait.
          (3) The vessel owner or operator possesses or lands no more than 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) of whole skates per trip during Seasons 1 or 2 and no more than 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) of whole skates per trip during Season 3.
          (4) The vessel owner or operator possesses or lands only whole skates less than 23 inches (58.42 cm) total length, and does not possess or land any skate wings or whole skates greater than 23 inches (58.42 cm) total length.
          (5) Vessels that choose to possess or land skate wings during the participation period of this letter of authorization must comply with possession limit restrictions under paragraph (b) of this section for all skates or skate parts on board. Vessels possessing skate wings in compliance with the possession limit restrictions under paragraph (b) may fish for, possess, or land skates for uses other than bait.

          (6) The vessel owner or operator complies with the transfer at sea requirements at § 648.13(h).

          (d) In-season adjustment of skate bait possession limits. When the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the skate bait fishery seasonal quota has been landed in Seasons 1 or 2, or 80 percent of the annual skate bait fishery TAL has been landed, the Regional Administrator shall, through a notice in the Federal Register consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, reduce the skate bait trip limit to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of whole skates for the remainder of the quota period, unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent attainment of the seasonal quota or annual TAL.
          (e) In-season closure of skate bait fishery. When the Regional Administrator projects that 100 percent of the skate bait fishery TAL will be landed, the Regional Administrator shall, through a notice in the Federal Register consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, close the skate bait fishery, unless such a closure would be expected to prevent attainment of the annual TAL. During a skate bait fishery closure all skate bait LOAs as described in paragraph (c) of this section are void. All skates harvested and landed during a skate bait fishery closure will be attributed towards the skate-wing TAL as described in this section.
          (f) Removal of in-season possession limit reductions. If it is determined that an in-season trip limit reduction as described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section could prohibit the skate bait fishery from achieving its annual TAL, the in-season reduction may be removed.
          (g) Prohibitions on possession of skates. A vessel fishing in the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit may not:
          (1) Retain, possess, or land barndoor or thorny skates taken in or from the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit.
          (2) Retain, possess, or land smooth skates taken in or from the GOM RMA described at § 648.80(a)(1)(i).

      [FR Doc. 2017-22719 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-BD40
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Availability of proposed fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted the Recreational Accountability Measures Omnibus Amendment incorporating a draft Environmental Assessment, for review by the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS is requesting comments from the public on the Recreational Accountability Measures Omnibus Amendment, which was developed by the Council to modify the accountability measures for the Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic bluefish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received on or before November 4, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          A draft environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the Recreational Accountability Measures (AM) Omnibus Amendment that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment, including the draft EA, are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. This document is also available online at http://www.mafmc.org.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified NOAA-NMFS-2013-0108, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0108, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Comments on Recreational Omnibus Amendment, NOAA-NMFS-2013-0108.
          • Mail and Hand Delivery: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Recreational Omnibus Amendment.”

            Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. 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, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9218; fax: (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        In 2011, the Council adopted, and NMFS implemented, an Omnibus Annual Catch Limit (ACL) and AM Amendment to establish AMs for the commercial and recreational fisheries that catch Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, golden tilefish, ocean quahog, and Atlantic surfclams. The AMs for the recreational fisheries included in-season closure authority for the Regional Administrator when landings were known to have reached the recreational harvest limit (RHL) and pound-for-pound payback of any overage. In 2012, the recreational black sea bass fishery significantly exceeded its RHL. The pound-for-pound payback requirement would drastically limit the recreational black sea bass fishery in fishing year 2014. As a result, the Council decided to review the recreational fishery AMs to determine if a different approach to recreational accountability would be more appropriate. Specifically, the Council wanted to develop AMs that took into account the status of the stock and the biological consequences, if any, resulting from a recreational sector overage.
        Proposed Measures

        The Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment proposes measures intended to respond to concerns that in-season closure and a pound-for-pound payback are not the most effective AMs for the recreational fisheries. First, the Council considered modifying the annual catch target (ACT) process to more formally consider incorporating uncertainty in recreational catch estimates; however, the Amendment proposes to maintain the existing ACT process. Second, the Amendment proposes to remove the in-season closure authority for recreational fisheries. Third, the Amendment proposes to use the 3-year moving average of the lower bound of the confidence interval of the recreational catch estimate to determine if an ACL has been exceeded. Fourth, measures are proposed that would result in a payback if (1) the stock is overfished (i.e., the most recent estimate of biomass (B) is below the threshold, or B/BMSY < 1/2), or under a rebuilding plan and the ACL was exceeded, or (2) if biomass is below the target, but above the threshold (i.e., 1/2< B/BMSY <1) and the acceptable biological catch (ABC) is exceeded. Otherwise, adjustments to the management measures would be used as an AM. In addition, measures are being proposed that would scale the amount of any payback to the stock status. The scale would work such that for stocks that are below the biomass threshold or under a rebuilding plan, payback would be equal to the full amount of the overage; for stocks that are above the biomass target, there would be no payback, regardless of the size of the overage. Stocks for which the biomass is in between the threshold and the target would have a payback amount equal to the product of the difference between recreational catch and the ACL and the payback coefficient. The payback coefficient would be equal to the difference between the biomass estimate and the target divided by one-half the biomass target. Finally, the Council considered reevaluating the catch limits after the fact to determine if, based on updated information, those catch limits were still appropriate. However, the Council determined that the necessary information and resources to support that type of reevaluation does not currently exist.

        Public comments on the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment and its incorporated documents may be submitted through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule to implement the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment will be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by November 4, 2013, whether specifically directed to the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment or the proposed rule for the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the Recreational AM Omnibus Amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: August 29, 2013.
          Kelly Denit,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-21479 Filed 9-3-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0707; FRL-8684-03-R7]
        Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Open Burning; Withdrawal

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing its proposed rule to approve Missouri's revisions to the state's open burning rule, as published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2020. By a letter to the EPA dated May 26, 2021, Missouri withdrew its request for approval of revisions to this rule in the state implementation plan (SIP).

          DATES:
          The proposed rule published on January 13, 2020 (85 FR 1794) is withdrawn as of July 26, 2021.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7697, or by email at vit.wendy@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Missouri has withdrawn the rule as stated in the letter dated May 26, 2021, which is included in the docket for this action. Because the EPA received adverse comments on its proposed rule, the EPA is publishing this notice of withdrawal to notify commenters that it no longer intends to take final action on the revisions proposed to 10 CSR 10-6.045 on January 13, 2020 at 85 FR 1794.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

          Dated: July 19, 2021.
          Edward H. Chu,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 2021-15736 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        RINs 0648-XG007, 0648-XF947
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Pelagic Longline Fishery Management and Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of rescheduled scoping meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 2, 2018, NMFS published a Notice of Intent with scoping meeting dates for upcoming rulemaking for pelagic longline bluefin tuna area-based and weak hook management. On March 5, 2018, NMFS published a Notice of Intent with scoping meeting dates for Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. In this notice, per a request from constituents in that area, NMFS reschedules the New Jersey meeting date and provides a new meeting location.

          DATES:
          The scoping meeting will now be held on April 11, 2018, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m..

          ADDRESSES:
          The scoping meeting will now be held in Little Egg Harbor, NJ, at the Little Egg Harbor Branch Library, 290 Mathistown Road, Little Egg Harbor, NJ 08087.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Guý DuBeck or Craig Cockrell by phone: 301-427-8503, or Jennifer Cudney by phone: 727-824-5399.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of HMS, including bluefin tuna and sharks, by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR 635.
        On March 2, 2018, NMFS published a Notice of Intent (83 FR 8969) with scoping meeting dates for pelagic longline bluefin tuna area-based and weak hook management. The notice announced a public process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues relating to the management of Atlantic HMS, with a focus on area-based management measures and weak hook management measures that were implemented to reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery. On March 5, 2018, NMFS published a Notice of Intent (83 FR 9255) with scoping meeting dates for Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This notice announced consideration of potential new management measures for shortfin mako sharks that could be implemented through rulemaking to address overfishing and to implement, as necessary and appropriate, measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) (ICCAT Recommendation 17-08) in response to the 2017 shortfin mako shark stock assessment.

        Due to a request to reschedule the meeting due to a conflict with another meeting for local constituents, NMFS is canceling the original scoping meeting that had been scheduled for April 12, 2018 in Manahawkin, NJ and changing it to another date and location. The scoping meeting in New Jersey is now scheduled for April 11, 2018, in Little Egg Harbor, NJ (see ADDRESSES and DATES).
        Because the rulemakings overlap for some gear types, the public scoping meeting being held in Little Egg Harbor, NJ will address the issues from the scoping documents for both the pelagic longline bluefin tuna area-based and weak hook management and Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. The shortfin mako shark management measure presentation will likely be given first unless polling of the audience indicates another approach is appropriate. After each presentation, public comment for that issue will be received. Meeting attendees interested in this issue are encouraged to show up at the beginning of the meeting to help determine the order of the presentations. The second presentation will not start any later than 6 p.m.

        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they may be asked to leave the hearing.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 16, 2018.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-05702 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P