        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 0808061074-81147-01]
        RIN 0648-AW66
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries; Purse Seine Prohibited Areas Around American Samoa

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would establish 75-nautical mile (nm) purse seine fishing prohibited areas in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around American Samoa. The proposed rule is intended to reduce catch competition between purse seine vessels and local trolling and longline fleets due to localized stock depletion by purse seine fishing, and minimize gear conflicts between the local longline fleet and domestic purse seine vessels. Currently, there are two 50 nm areas around American Samoa where large fishing vessels (50 ft and longer) are prohibited from fishing. The proposed rule would increase the distance from shore of these prohibited areas for U.S. purse seine vessels only.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by June 13, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send a comment on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-AW66, 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: Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            Instructions: You must send comments to one of the two addresses above 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 to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter 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 name and organization 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.

          In March 2011, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared Amendment 3 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP), which describes the issues this rule is intended to address. Amendment 3 also includes an environmental assessment (EA) of the action proposed in this rulemaking. Copies of Amendment 3 and the EA are available from http://www.regulations.gov or the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, http://www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Bailey, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2248.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Pelagic fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the Pelagics FEP. The Council prepared Amendment 3 to the Pelagics FEP to address their concerns over potential localized stock depletion, and catch competition between purse seine vessels and the local longline and trolling fleets in the American Samoa Archipelago. This proposed rule would implement the Council's recommendations.
        Because 2007 is the most recent year for which we have the most comprehensive information about purse seine activity in the EEZ around American Samoa, 2007 is used as the baseline year for analyzing the potential effects of this proposed rule. Although some more recent purse seine fishery information exists and more recent troll and longline fishery information beyond 2008 is available, the more recent information does not indicate that the areas fished, fishing effort, or landings differed substantially from those analyzed. Thus, inclusion of more recent information would not change the Council's analyses or management objectives. More recent troll and longline fishery information is included here for completeness.
        Local pelagic trolling vessels target skipjack and yellowfin tunas in EEZ waters around American Samoa. These vessels are usually small (about 30 ft (9 m) long), fiberglass or aluminum, outboard-powered, twin-hulled “alia.” Alias are not designed for traveling long distances from shore or holding large quantities of fish and are, therefore, limited to day trips in nearshore areas (less than 50 nm (93 km) from shore). From 1982 to 2008, an average of 25.5 metric tons (mt) (56,218 lb) of skipjack tuna and 11 mt (24,251 lb) of yellowfin tuna were caught annually by commercial trolling alia vessels in waters around American Samoa. These vessels may use other fishing methods, such as bottomfish fishing, during any given fishing trip.
        Local pelagic longline vessels target albacore in the waters around American Samoa. Longline vessels include alias and larger monohull vessels, and range in length from 25 ft (8 m) to over 90 ft (27 m). The smaller longline alias usually fish within 50 nm of shore, and large longline vessels (50 ft (15.2 m) and longer) travel throughout the EEZ around American Samoa and beyond to fish. Longline gear is deployed in the morning, left to fish, and brought back on board starting in the late afternoon extending into the following morning. The main line averages 40 nm (74 km) in length, is deployed horizontally with floats at the surface, and drifts with the current. Individual vessels usually set one line per day. In 2008, large longline vessels made over 4,500 sets, and landed over 3,500 mt (7,716,181 lb) of albacore, and over 150 mt (330,693 lb) of non-target skipjack tuna.
        In 2002, large vessel prohibited areas were established to prohibit large vessels from fishing in the EEZ within approximately 50 nm (93 km) around the islands of American Samoa (67 FR 4369, January 30, 2002). That measure was implemented to prevent gear interactions between small and large pelagic fishing vessels, and to reduce the chances of fish density and catch rate reductions within fishing grounds accessible to the small-scale troll and longline fleets. Reductions in fish density and catch rate could cause small vessels to travel farther to maintain catch rates, resulting in lost revenue due to increased expenses and possible safety-at-sea issues if vessels fish farther from port and for longer durations.
        Like the local troll vessels, purse seine vessels also target skipjack tuna. Purse seine vessels are much larger, more sophisticated and more efficient. Tunas, along with other animals, such as pelagic fishes and sea turtles, tend to congregate to naturally-occurring floating objects in the ocean, such as mats of flotsam, logs, or garbage, which fishermen refer to as “fish aggregating devices” (FADs). Roughly half of historical domestic purse seine sets in the WCPO are made on FADs. FADs can be natural, with or without artificial augmentation such as floats, markers, or electronics, or man-made. One purse seine vessel can deploy many FADs to drift around the ocean, until sufficient quantities of fish are accumulated to them. Purse seines are then deployed near or around the FADs. Purse seine vessels currently operating in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) range in length from 191 to 293 ft (58 to 98 m), with an average length of 225 ft (68 m) and an average gross registered tonnage of 1,341 mt. Fish carrying capacities range from approximately 800 to 1,500 mt (1.8 to 3.3 million lb) per vessel. Recent U.S. purse seine catches of skipjack tuna in the WCPO increased from 60,600 mt (133 million lb) in 2007 to 242,000 mt (533 million lb) in 2009.
        Purse seine fishing effort in American Samoa was sporadic from 1997 to 2007, with skipjack tuna catches ranging from zero to 152.2 mt (335,522 lb) and averaging 40.9 mt (90,125 lb) annually over this period. Catches of yellowfin tuna were smaller, ranging from zero to 20.8 mt (45,856 lb), and averaging 7.4 mt (16,314 lb) annually from 1997 to 2007. Conditions for purse seine fishing in EEZ waters around American Samoa are less favorable than other areas, and the average skipjack tuna catch per set is approximately 2.4 mt (5,308 lb). Most domestic purse seine fishing is conducted outside the EEZ around American Samoa, to the north and northwest.

        Nevertheless, the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission has closed the two major high seas pockets in the western and central Pacific Ocean to all purse seine fishing, and the Pacific Island Parties to the Nauru Agreement are reportedly imposing increasingly stringent measures on distant water fishing nations as a condition of licensing, including bans on high seas fishing in certain areas. Accordingly, the Council is concerned about possible impacts, such as localized fish stock depletion, on other pelagic fisheries if U.S. purse seine vessels were to increase their activity in the EEZ around American Samoa near areas traditionally fished by pelagic troll and longline vessels. Localized fish depletion occurs when a stock in a small area is reduced by the removal of large amounts of fish, thereby temporarily depleting the availability of the stock to fishing activity or other predators in that area. Research suggests that localized depletion may occur when purse seine fishing activity competes with small-scale fishing operations, triggering catch competition for a single resource in a limited area.
        While targeting skipjack tuna, particularly around fish aggregating devices, purse seine vessels also catch juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Bigeye tuna are currently subject to overfishing, and the harvest of juvenile bigeye by purse seines contributes to recruitment overfishing. The impacts from an increase in juvenile catch of bigeye tuna in the action area could eventually reduce the number of mature fish in the population, thereby decreasing the number of fish reproduced. This reduction could also decrease the future availability of adult fish for fisheries that target adult bigeye tuna.
        This proposed rule would create new prohibited areas only for purse seine vessels (see Fig. 1). Due to purse seine vessels' large skipjack tuna harvests, coupled with their inability to target only mature skipjack and potential impact on juvenile bigeye tuna, the Council is concerned that purse seine fishing in the EEZ around American Samoa has the potential to negatively impact the viability of American Samoa-based small-scale troll fishery. The proposed purse seine fishing prohibited areas are intended to reduce catch competition between purse seine vessels and the small-scale pelagic fleets, and provide some geographical separation between large longline and purse seine fishing sectors.
        Large-scale longline and purse seine gear may drift and interfere with fishing operations; therefore, this proposed rule would create additional 25 nm (46 km) areas of exclusion for purse seine fishing to minimize gear conflicts. This proposed rule would prohibit all purse seine fishing within 75 nm (139 km) of American Samoa. All other measures currently applicable to the purse seine fishery would remain unchanged, including, but not limited to, the existing 50-nm large vessel prohibited areas, vessel and gear marking requirements, reporting requirements, vessel monitoring system (VMS), and the use of safe sea turtle handling techniques.
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP29AP11.047

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

        This proposed rule is intended to further the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by ensuring the sustained participation of American Samoa's small troll and pelagic longline fishing fleets in the pelagic fisheries, along with the continued operations of the domestic purse seine fleet in the EEZ around American Samoa.
        NMFS notes that U.S. purse seine catches from the EEZ around American Samoa have been relatively small compared to the high seas and other areas. Accordingly, NMFS specifically invites public comments addressing whether the action is “necessary and appropriate” according to Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(a)(1) to accomplish its identified conservation and management objectives, and the state of the science supporting the action.
        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 the Pelagic FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council 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:
        “A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered and a statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for this rulemaking are found in the preamble to the proposed rule. There are no additional recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements. There are no rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
        This rule would affect U.S. purse seine vessels licensed under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. As of 2007, the last year when a complete data set was available, the fleet of U.S. purse seine vessels licensed under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty consisted of 21 vessels at the end of the 2007 calendar year, with only five of these vessels landing fish caught in the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa. By comparison, 37 U.S. purse seine vessels were licensed in the Pacific in 2008, 39 in 2009, and 37 in 2010. However, we have no information about the number of purse seiners that were active in the EEZ around American Samoa.
        NMFS internal data reflect that most or all of the businesses that operated the 21 vessels were large entities. The average 1998 gross revenue per purse seine vessel was $4.7 million, equivalent to $6.1 million in 2009 dollars. Therefore, most or all of the 38 purse seine licenses in 2009-10 were held by large entities. NMFS recognizes that newly-permitted vessels may experience lower revenues during the start-up period, and may constitute small entities under the RFA, but it is expected that the purse seine provisions of the rule will only affect large entities. However, it is possible that only one or a few of these fish harvesting businesses met the criteria of small entities; that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $4.0 million. Since it is not possible to determine with any certainty how many small purse seine entities, if any, landed fish in American Samoa in 2007, no attempt is made here to determine whether a substantial number of small entities would be impacted by the proposed rule. Instead, this certification is based on a finding that the proposed rule would not have significant economic impacts on affected entities.
        The proposed action is expected to benefit the local troll fleet by reducing the likelihood of catch competition and gear conflict. Because the proposed action is not expected to alter the current fishing practices of the troll fleet, it will not have a significant economic impact on the regulated entities.
        The proposed action would extend the prohibited fishing areas for U.S. purse seine vessels from 50 to 75 nautical miles (nm) from shore. In 2006, (no purse seine vessels caught fish in 2007), five U.S. purse seine vessels landed a total of 2.7 metric tons (mt) of skipjack tuna and 6.3 mt of yellowfin tuna harvested from inside the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa, yielding an average of 0.54 mt of skipjack tuna and 1.26 mt of yellowfin tuna per vessel. Furthermore, a total of 43,335 mt of skipjack tuna and 8,821 mt of yellowfin tuna (with some bigeye tuna mixed in) were landed in Pago Pago in 2007 by 11 U.S. vessels averaging 3,940 mt ($4.73 million) per vessel of skipjack tuna and 802 mt ($962,000) per vessel of yellowfin tuna. Thus, gross receipts for skipjack and yellowfin tunas from the entire EEZ, of which the proposed 25-nm extended area is a subset, represented only 0.01 percent of total skipjack tuna landings, and a potential average loss of $473 per vessel (based on a price of $1,200 per mt) if this proposed rule were to prevent those landings. For yellowfin tuna, gross receipts represented only 0.16 percent of total landings and this rule, if implemented, could reduce gross receipts by $1,540 per vessel, or by a miniscule amount, necessarily making gross receipts from the extended area also miniscule if this proposed rule were to prevent those landings. Therefore, gross receipts and potential losses as a result of this rule from the extended area are negligible (less than or equal to $473 for skipjack and $1,540 for yellowfin). Although NMFS used the best and most recent data available on EEZ catch for 2006, NMFS also looked at an 11-year window from 1997-2007 and chose the two years, 1999 and 2001, with the highest EEZ catch by species, as representative of catch levels for purposes of this analysis. In 2001, 152.19 mt ($182,628) of skipjack tuna (15 vessels) and for 1999, 20.8 mt ($24,960) of yellowfin tuna (10 vessels) were harvested from the EEZ. For skipjack tuna, these average annual landings would equate to 10.1 mt per vessel, and 2.1 mt per vessel for yellowfin tuna.
        Purse seine vessels are not likely to be negatively affected because approximately 19 percent of fishing effort (assuming an even effort distribution) would be displaced outside the proposed purse seine prohibited area to remaining open areas of the EEZ around American Samoa. Based on historical fishing effort, this means that under the proposed rule, 3.2 fishing days per year of effort that ordinarily would occur inside the proposed purse seine prohibited area could be displaced, and those purse seine vessels may incur more costs in terms of fuel and travel time. However, any impacts would be expected to be minimal due to historically low amounts of participation in the EEZ around American Samoa.
        Additionally, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Fishing activities for small trollers will not be altered under the proposed rule and these small entities may benefit from reduced catch competition and localized depletion. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, there will be no disproportionate effect on the profits, revenues, or costs on small entities relative to large entities.”
        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fishing, Purse seine.

          Dated: April 26, 2011.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC
          1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 665.800, add a definition of “Purse seine” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

            § 665.800
            Definitions.

              Purse seine means a floated and weighted encircling net that is closed by means of a drawstring threaded through rings attached to the bottom of the net.

            3. In § 665.802, add a new paragraph (n) to read as follows:

            § 665.802
            Prohibitions.

            (n) Use a purse seine to fish within a purse seine fishing prohibited area in violation of § 665.817, except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under § 665.17.

            4. In § 665.817, add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

            § 665.817
            American Samoa pelagic fishery area management.

            (d) Purse seine prohibited areas. Purse seine fishing is prohibited in the American Samoa purse seine prohibited areas as defined in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
            (1) Swains Island (AS-3). The purse seine fishing prohibited area around Swains Island consists of the waters of the EEZ around American Samoa enclosed by straight lines connecting the following coordinates:

                Point
                S. latitude
                W. longitude

                AS-3-A
                11°12′
                172°18′

                AS-3-B
                12°12′
                169°56′

                and from Point AS-3-A northward and southward along longitude 172°18′ W. until intersecting the U.S. EEZ boundary with Tokelau and Samoa, respectfully, and from Point AS-3-B northward along longitude 169°56′ W. until intersecting the U.S. EEZ boundary with Tokelau, and westward along latitude 12°12′ S. until intersecting the U.S. EEZ boundary with Samoa.

            (2) Tutuila Island, Manua Islands, and Rose Atoll (AS-4). The purse seine fishing prohibited area around Tutuila Island, the Manua Islands, and Rose Atoll consists of the waters of the EEZ around American Samoa enclosed by straight lines connecting the following coordinates:

                Point
                S. latitude
                W. longitude

                AS-4-A
                13°05′
                167°01′

                AS-4-B
                15° 36′
                167° 01′

                and from Point AS-4-A westward along latitude 13° 05' S. until intersecting the U.S. EEZ boundary with Samoa, and from Point AS-4-B westward along the latitude 15° 36' S. until intersecting the U.S. EEZ boundary with Samoa.

      [FR Doc. 2011-10451 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        41 CFR Part 102-36
        [FMR Case 2012-102-4; Docket No. 2012-0014; Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 3090-AJ30
        Federal Management Regulation; Disposal and Reporting of Federal Electronic Assets (FEA)

          AGENCY:
          Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Correction.

          SUMMARY:
          GSA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12681), regarding the disposal and reporting of Federal Electronic Assets (FEA). GSA is making a correction to the Supplementary Information section of the document.

          DATES:

            Effective: April 9, 2014.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For clarification of content, contact Mr. Robert Holcombe, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management (MA), at 202-501-3828 or by email at robert.holcombe@gsa.gov. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FMR Case 2012-102-4.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        GSA is making a correction to the Supplementary Information section in the proposed rule that was published on March 6, 2014. This correction clarifies that FEA may be sent to recyclers conforming to either of the two recycling standards identified in the proposed rule until GSA makes publically available the full list of criteria to be used to evaluate recycling standards.
        Correction
        In the FR Doc. 2014-04585 published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 12681, March 6, 2014, make the following correction to the Supplementary Information section. On page 12682, in the second column, in the first full paragraph, remove the last sentence, “Recyclers that conform to either of these two standards would be considered a “certified recycler” under the proposed rule.” and add “Recyclers that conform to either of these two standards will be considered a “certified recycler” until GSA makes publically available the full list of criteria, which will be developed.” in its place.

          Dated: April 3, 2014.
          Carolyn Austin-Diggs,
          Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, Office of Government-wide Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2014-07903 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-14-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 060906236-6236-01;  I.D. 083006B]
        RIN 0648-AU83
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Method For Measuring Net Mesh Size

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations governing how fishing net mesh size is measured in the Northeast.  This proposed change would increase the weight used to measure mesh larger than 120 mm (4.72 inches) in all fisheries.  The intent of this proposed rule is to ensure consistent and accurate measurements of fishing net mesh size.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on October 26, 2006

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          E-mail: MeshRegChange@noaa.gov

          Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          Mail:  Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.  Please write on the envelope:   Comments on Proposed Change to Mesh Measurement Regulations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9341, FAX (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, and state enforcement partners have recently issued a clarification of the method used in measuring fishing net mesh size.  This protocol closely follows the regulatory language, at 50 CFR Part 648, that a wedge-shaped net measurement gauge be allowed to settle under a specified weight, without shaking the net or pressing on the gauge to force it deeper into the mesh opening.  This clarification eliminated some of the variation in methods used previously by the various enforcement agencies and personnel.  However, the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) raised a concern that the twine bars of stiffer twines (especially those used in larger mesh) may not align properly under a load of 5 kg (11.02 lb), the specified force for all mesh sizes for many years.  This has led to an increase in citations for mesh-size violations on gear that had previously measured as legal.

        The Council has requested that the NMFS increase the weight to 8 kg (17.64 lb) for measuring the opening in mesh greater than 120 mm (4.72 inches).  The increased weight would produce a force consistent with the recommendations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) in the 2004 report Mesh Size Measurement Revisited, which were incorporated into ICES's new OMEGA (Objective Mesh Gauge) mesh measurement gauge.  The 5-kg weight would continue to be used to measure mesh smaller than 120 mm.  Other measurement systems require frequent calibration and/or are subject to loss of battery power.  The wedge gauge also has a long established case history in the Northeast.
        It is not expected that the increased weight would result in any de facto reduction in legal mesh size.  Scientific studies that determine the selectivity and retention of specific mesh sizes typically use a longitudinal measuring force such as the old ICES gauge or the new OMEGA gauge rather than the wedge.  The increased weight is not enough to significantly distort the mesh and would not result in the use of mesh smaller than that considered in previous analyses of environmental impacts.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is a minor technical addition, correction, or change to a management plan and is therefore categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or equivalent document under the National Environmental Policy Act.
        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.  This amendment would not change the minimum mesh size for any fishery or require any fishermen to purchase new gear.  The only economic impact of the proposed rule would be to law enforcement agencies to acquire the additional weights.  In addition, because this rule is expected to correct the increase in mesh size violations on gear that had previously measured legally, this rule may provide an economic benefit to fishermen.  As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  September 20, 2006.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 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 § 648.51, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.51
          Gear and crew restrictions.
          (a) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (ii) Measurement of mesh size. Mesh size is measured by using a wedge-shaped gauge having a taper of 2 cm (0.79 inches) in 8 cm (3.15 inches) and a thickness of 2.3 mm (0.09 inches), inserted into the meshes under a pressure or pull of 5 kg (11.02 lb) for mesh size less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) and under a pressure or pull of 8 kg (17.64 lb) for mesh size at, or greater than, 120 mm (4.72 inches). The mesh size is the average of the measurements of any series of 20 consecutive meshes for nets having 75 or more meshes, and 10 consecutive meshes for nets having fewer than 75 meshes. The mesh in the regulated portion of the net is measured at least five meshes away from the lacings running parallel to the long axis of the net.

        3. In § 648.80, paragraph (f)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.80
          NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

          (f) * * *
          (2) All other nets. With the exception of gillnets, mesh size is measured by a wedge-shaped gauge having a taper of 2 cm (0.79 inches) in 8 cm (3.15 inches), and a thickness of 2.3 mm (0.09 inches), inserted into the meshes under a pressure or pull of 5 kg (11.02 lb) for mesh size less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) and under a pressure or pull of 8 kg (17.64 lb) for mesh size at, or greater, than 120 mm (4.72 inches).

        4. In § 648.104, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.104
          Gear restrictions
          (a) * * *
          (2) Mesh size is measured by using a wedge-shaped gauge having a taper of 2 cm (0.79 inches) in 8 cm (3.15 inches), and a thickness of 2.3 mm (0.09 inches), inserted into the meshes under a pressure or pull of 5 kg (11.02 lb) for mesh size less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) and under a pressure or pull of 8 kg (17.64 lb) for mesh size at, or greater than, 120 mm (4.72 inches).  The mesh size is the average of the measurements of any series of 20 consecutive meshes for nets having 75 or more meshes, and 10 consecutive meshes for nets having fewer than 75 meshes.  The mesh in the regulated portion of the net is measured at least five meshes away from the lacings, running parallel to the long axis of the net.

      [FR Doc. 06-8187 Filed 9-25-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 69
        [WC Docket No. 05-25 and RM-10593; DA 15-1239]
        Wireline Competition Bureau Extends Comment and Reply Comment Deadlines in Business Data Services (Also Referred to as Special Access Services) Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment and reply deadlines.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau grants in part a request seeking an extension to the comment and reply comment deadlines in the business data services (also referred to as special access services) rulemaking proceeding, Special Access FNPRM.

          DATES:
          Comments may be filed on or before January 6, 2016, and reply comment comments may be filed by February 5, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joseph Price, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-1540 or Joseph.Price@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, WC Docket 05-25, RM-10593, DA 15-1239, released November 2, 2015. This document does not contain information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-93. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burdens[s] for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following Internet address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1102/DA-15-239A1.pdf. To request alternative formats for persons with disabilities (e.g. accessible format documents, sign language, interpreters, CARTS, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Background

        In Section IV.B of the FNPRM accompanying the Data Collection Order, adopted on December 11, 2012, the Commission sought comment on possible changes to its rules for the business data services provided by incumbent local exchange carriers in price cap areas. The Commission set the comment deadlines on this portion of the Special Access FNPRM, 78 FR 2600 (Jan. 11, 2013), several months beyond the document's release date to allow interested parties opportunity to review the data and information collected before filing comments. The Bureau has extended these deadlines, upon request and in consideration of oppositions filed in response to the request for extensions of time, to allow interested parties adequate time to access and review the data and information collected. Accordingly, the deadline for filing comments is extended to January 6, 2016, and the deadline for reply comments is extended to February 5, 2016.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Pamela Arluk,
          Chief, Pricing Policy Division.

      [FR Doc. 2015-29906 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044, FRL-9827-1]
        RIN 2060-AR62
        Reconsideration of Certain Startup/Shutdown Issues: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Reopening of Comment Period.

          SUMMARY:
          On November 30, 2012, the EPA published in the Federal Register the proposed rule, “Reconsideration of Certain New Source and Startup/Shutdown Issues: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units.” That proposal opened for reconsideration certain issues, including those related to startup and shutdown. On April 24, 2013, we finalized reconsideration of all the issues included in the proposed rule except those related to startup and shutdown. The EPA is reopening the public comment period for the proposed reconsideration to solicit additional input on specific issues raised during the initial public comment period related to the proposed revisions to the requirements and definitions related to periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA also requests comment on the additional technical analyses it conducted in response to public comments on this subject in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule is referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the New Source Performance Standards rule is referred to as the Utility NSPS.

          DATES:

            Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044 (NSPS action) or Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 (NESHAP/MATS action), by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-1741.
          • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
          • Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions. All submissions must include agency name and respective docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments will be posted without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For the NESHAP action: Mr. William Maxwell, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-5430; Fax number (919) 541-5450; Email address: maxwell.bill@epa.gov. For the NSPS action: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4003; Fax number (919) 541-5450; Email address: fellner.christian@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the final MATS and Utility NSPS (77 FR 9304). In the final MATS rule, the EPA included a work practice standard applicable during periods of startup and shutdown rather than finalizing the proposed requirement that sources comply with numerical limits during such periods. In the Utility NSPS, the EPA included the same work practice for particulate matter (PM) emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. The work practice standard was designed to minimize emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and PM during periods of startup and shutdown by requiring sources to maximize the use of clean fuels during such periods when electric utility steam generating unit (EGU) temperatures and air flow may not be sufficient to effectively engage certain air pollution control devices (APCD). Because the agency did not propose a work practice standard for periods of startup and shutdown, the EPA determined that it was appropriate to reconsider the startup and shutdown provisions to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the requirements.
        On November 30, 2012, the EPA published in the Federal Register the proposed rule, “Reconsideration of Certain New Source and Startup/Shutdown Issues: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units” (77 FR 71323). The November 30, 2012, action announced, among other things, reconsideration of certain new source standards for MATS and the requirements applicable during periods of startup and shutdown for MATS and the startup and shutdown provisions related to the PM standard in the Utility NSPS and proposed revisions to these identified provisions. The EPA also proposed certain technical corrections. On April 24, 2013, the EPA finalized reconsideration on all issues except those related to startup and shutdown (including related technical corrections) (78 FR 24073).

        During the comment period, the EPA received data and other information from industry about EGU startup, and the industry commenters recommended that the startup and shutdown provisions as proposed be further amended. The comments raised several significant issues regarding the definition of startup, the types of “clean fuels” that must be used during startup, the means by which non-mercury (Hg) emissions are calculated during periods of startup and shutdown (e.g., requests for the use of a default diluent cap and for the use of a default electrical production rate),1
           and the manner in which EGUs that share a common stack demonstrate compliance during periods of startup and shutdown. Given the significance of these comments, the EPA believes it is appropriate to request additional comment on these issues. Therefore, we are reopening the public comment period so that the public can review the industry-provided information and data and comment on the suggested revisions to the startup and shutdown provisions. We are only reopening for comment the startup and shutdown provisions in the MATS rule and the startup and shutdown provisions related to PM in the Utility NSPS. We are not seeking comment on any other issues and will not respond to comments outside the scope of this notice.

            1 In the May 3, 2011, proposed MATS rule (76 FR 25028), the EPA proposed default diluent gas values of 10 percent for oxygen or of the fuel-specific carbon dioxide concentration (obtained from a stoichiometric analysis of fuel combustion), as well as a default nominal electrical production rate of 5 percent of rated capacity to be used when calculating emissions rates during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA did not finalize the provision because the agency finalized a work practice standard for startup and shutdown periods instead of numerical emission limits. Commenters indicated that the EPA should have retained the proposed diluent cap because the rule requires monitoring during startup and shutdown periods when continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or sorbent traps are used to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards.

        In the November 2012 reconsideration proposal, the EPA proposed to revise the definitions of startup and shutdown to clarify the definitions and include a reference to making useful thermal energy. Specifically, in § 63.10042 we proposed to define the end of “startup” as being “. . .when the EGU generates electricity that is sold or used for any other purpose (including on site use), or the EGU makes useful thermal energy (such as heat or steam) for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. . .whichever is earlier.” 77 FR 71339. We also proposed several revisions to the finalized work practice standards. These revisions included the addition of certain synthetic natural gas, syngas, propane and ultra low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) to the list of clean fuels. Further, we proposed to require EGU source owners and operators, when firing coal, solid oil-derived fuel, or residual oil in the EGU during startup and shutdown, to vent emissions to the main stack(s) and operate all control devices necessary to meet the operating standards that apply at all other times under the final rule (with the exception of limestone injection in fluidized bed combustors (FBC) EGUs, dry scrubbers, selective non-catalytic reduction systems (SNCRs) and selective catalytic reduction systems (SCRs)).2
           Moreover, we proposed that owners and operators of EGUs would be responsible for starting limestone injection in FBC EGUs, dry scrubbers, SNCRs and SCRs as expeditiously as possible, but, in any case, when necessary to comply with other CAA standards applicable to the source that require operation of those control devices. Additionally, we proposed to revise the final rule's work practice standards to recognize constraints of certain EGUs and APCDs. The proposed revised standards would allow limestone injection to start after appropriate temperatures have been attained in FBC EGUs that inject limestone for acid gas control and allow SNCR, SCR and dry scrubber systems to start as soon as technically feasible after the appropriate temperature has been reached. With regard to integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) EGUs, we proposed two options for IGCC EGUs for the handling of syngas that is not fired in the combustion turbine: (1) Syngas must be flared, not vented; or (2) syngas must be routed to duct burners, which may need to be installed, and the flue gas from the duct burners must be routed to the heat recovery steam generator. 77 FR 71330-71331.

            2 Fluidized bed combustor (FBC) EGUs as a class include circulating fluidized bed (CFB) EGUs.

        The commenters' primary issue with the proposed standards for startup and shutdown concerned the definition of “startup” in the reconsideration notice (particularly with regard to the end of “startup”). Specifically, the commenters objected to the EPA's proposed definition which defined the end of startup to be “. . . when the EGU generates electricity that is sold or used for any other purpose (including on site use),” or “the EGU makes useful thermal energy (such as heat or steam) for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes,” whichever is earlier.” 77 FR 71339. As discussed below, the commenters advocated a different end point for startup. The EPA also received comments on the types of fuels considered “clean,” the required use of clean fuels throughout startup, the specifics of startup as related to IGCC EGUs, the use of diluent caps and sorbent trap monitoring during startup, and the application of the work practice standards to EGUs with a common stack. Below is a summary of some issues raised in the industry comments on which we are now requesting comment. The complete comments are contained in the MATS and Utility NSPS rulemaking dockets (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044, respectively).
        The commenters asked the EPA to define “startup” as the setting in operation of an affected source.3
           According to the commenters, this involves igniting fuel in the boiler, producing steam to begin generating electricity either before or after the primary fuel is added to the boiler and getting all of the APCDs operational to meet the applicable requirements. The commenters maintained that “startup” does not end “when any steam from the boiler is used to generate electricity for sale over the grid or for any other purpose” as the EPA proposed. The commenters asserted that an EGU remains in “startup” mode beyond the first generation of electricity because, according to the commenters, at that point in time many of the APCDs needed to comply with the requirements of this subpart may not be technically or safely capable of operation and those that are may be operating far from design conditions because the requisite temperature(s) and/or flow conditions have not been achieved. For example, the commenters expressed concern that operating electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) at temperatures less than the temperatures recommended by the manufacturer/supplier could create a safety risk.4

            3 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20257, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20271, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20277, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20279, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282.

            4 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20248, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20251, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20255, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20267, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20269, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20272, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20275, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20280, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20286, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20289, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20306, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20308.

        The commenters also stated that electricity generation may begin when the boiler's steam load is as low as 10 percent of nameplate capacity.5

           At this point, the commenters stated that startup fuel is still being burned, either alone or in combination with primary fuel, but many major components of the EGU (e.g., APCDs) may neither be online nor fully functioning. The commenters further noted that at many EGUs the boiler igniters have low capacity (e.g., 5 percent of the EGU capacity).6
           So, according to these commenters, the igniters as currently constructed may not be able to bring an EGU to flue gas temperatures at which APCD can be made operational. The commenters stated that this inability to use igniters alone to bring the EGU and APCD to the proper temperatures stems from a number of reasons, among which is the fact that some igniters offer only a low heating value and, thus, cannot serve a heating function well over long periods of time.7

           As noted above, the commenters asserted that some igniters may not have sufficient capacity (i.e., size) and were generally not designed to preheat the APCD without the co-firing of the primary fuel and, for this reason, the commenters maintained that some igniters may not be able to generate adequate heat to preheat the APCD even if they were operated for an “extended period of time.” 8

           Commenters also stated that certain EGU facilities do not have sufficient natural gas capacity to bring their EGUs up to the temperatures necessary to engage certain APCDs (e.g., because the natural gas burners or pipeline are currently too small).9

           The commenters maintained that, generally, the igniters (and warm-up guns in some cases) are used to begin to raise boiler pressure, supply steam to heat plant equipment (e.g., piping, steam turbine, pulverizers) and raise the furnace temperature to a point where the primary fuel can be burned. Therefore, the commenters asserted that the startup period involves (and in some cases must involve) co-firing of startup and primary fuels.10

            5 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20291.

            6 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20297.

            7 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20254.

            8 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20272.

            9 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20254 (“natural gas pipeline capacity has limited supply”), EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20269 (“lacks sufficient natural gas capacity for the unit to complete the startup process,” “units do not have easy access to natural gas due to distributional limitations”), EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20321 (“[a]dditional natural gas transmission capacity would also have to be constructed to increase delivery to the JEA units”).

            10 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20246, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20248, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20252, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20254, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20269, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20272, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20283, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20287, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20303, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20321.

        The commenters also stated that, in its proposal, the EPA did not adequately account for the operational differences among different types of EGUs. The commenters stated, for example, that the startup process for supercritical pulverized coal (PC) EGUs is different from that for subcritical EGUs.11
           The commenters stated that supercritical EGUs are designed to commence startup producing subcritical steam to the steam turbine, and then transition to supercritical operation at a certain point as steam production and electricity generation are increased. The commenters asserted that a supercritical EGU does not complete its startup until its transition from subcritical to supercritical operation is complete. The commenters recommended that the end of startup for supercritical EGUs should correspond with the point in time corresponding to 6 hours past the time when the EGU achieves supercritical mode of operation.12

            11 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20270, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20277, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20281, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282.

            12 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20281, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282.

        For subcritical EGUs, the commenters provided information reflecting the sequence of events during startup for two subcritical EGUs, stating that the baghouse, the activated carbon injection (ACI) and the SCR are not operational when the EGU goes online (i.e., connected to the grid). However, the comments indicate that the baghouse and the ACI controls are operational approximately 4 hours after the EGU reaches the 25-percent load point. The commenters stated that the SCR system is operational about 12 hours after the EGU goes online. The commenters requested that the end of startup be changed to be 4 hours after 25-percent load is first reached or 12 hours after first electricity generation, whichever occurs first.13
           The commenters explained that the 4-hour timeframe would provide for a transition period during which a facility phases out the supplemental fuel, shuts down a dedicated startup system (like a startup boiler feed pump, if applicable) and transitions to bring emission controls online safely and within the manufacturer's intended design capabilities. The commenters maintained that the 12-hour alternative definition would allow for situations where the startup sequence is delayed for unexpected reasons, but provided assurance that an EGU will not idle at low load.

            13 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20262, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20281, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282.

        Relative to FBC EGUs, the commenters stated that if limestone is added too early in the startup sequence, the flame could be extinguished. According to the commenters, FBC EGUs that inject limestone must reach a minimum bed temperature of approximately 1,500°F for the limestone to calcine, and, thus, become effective at reducing acid gases. The commenters stated that these EGUs often burn coal for about 45 minutes before limestone is added, and additional time is then required for the bed chemistry to stabilize. They stated that normally the bed is stable and up to temperature when approximately 40-percent load is reached. The commenters requested that the EPA apply the same definition of “startup” to FBC EGUs as was suggested for the other types of EGUs (i.e., 4 hours after 25-percent load is first achieved, or 12 hours after first electricity generation, whichever occurs first).14

            14 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282.

        The commenters also provided input on the types of fuels considered “clean,” the specifics of startup as related to IGCC EGUs, the use of diluent caps and sorbent trap monitoring during startup and the application of the work practice standards to EGUs with a common stack. The commenters suggested that the EPA should expand the proposed list of “clean fuels” to include biodiesel and other renewable fuels that meet the 40 CFR Part 80, subpart M, requirements and that biodiesel and other biofuels be among the clean fuels allowed.15
           The commenters stated that it is important that either flaring syngas or routing it to duct burners remain as options for IGCC EGUs and indicated that flaring should remain an option for routine startups and shutdowns of IGCC EGUs and as a viable option for non-routine events such as unit “trips” when the combustion turbine cannot combust syngas.16

            15 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20271, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20272, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20276, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20279, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20295, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20304, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044-5803.

            16 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20243, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20245, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20281, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20299.

        The commenters suggested that the EPA should reinstate the use of the diluent cap and/or provide for a diluent cap for non-mercury pollutants, as is allowed for Hg in Appendix A of subpart UUUUU. 77 FR 9606. Commenters believed the use of a diluent cap is appropriate when complying with a heat input-based emission standard because emissions must be reported during periods of startup and shutdown, and using the actual carbon dioxide or oxygen concentrations in the stack during startup and shutdown will, according to the commenters, grossly overstate emissions, as the initial (or final) concentrations during those periods are close to ambient levels.17
           Moreover, because EGU owners or operators who use CEMS, continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) or sorbent traps will be required to report emission rates during periods of startup and shutdown, some commenters recommended that a default electrical output rate (in terms of megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatt-hours (GWh)) be established for use during startup and shutdown periods.18
           According to the commenters, use of such a default electrical output rate would prevent EGU owners or operators from reporting infinite emissions, which is what the commenters state would occur when no (or zero) electrical output for these periods was placed in the denominator when performing these calculations. One commenter recommended that an EGU should not have to sample for Hg with sorbent traps until startup has ended because, unlike a CEMS, a sorbent trap system collects an integrated sample over an extended time period and does not provide real-time data.19
           Therefore, according to the commenter, it is not possible to separate the Hg compliance data from data collected during startup and shutdown periods. The commenter noted that although startup and shutdown events are generally short, if startup and shutdown emissions are included in the compliance calculations, this could potentially skew the results.

            17 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282.

            18 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20306.

            19 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20308.

        The final rule contains specific requirements for EGUs that use a common stack (see § 63.10010(a)(2) and (3)). Even with these requirements, some commenters asserted that the rule does not adequately account for startup and shutdown periods for individual EGUs. Some commenters stated that the proposed rule does not resolve how the startup and shutdown definitions and work practice provisions apply to EGUs that share a common stack. Several commenters acknowledged that the work practice standards would be applied separately on each EGU that shares a common stack, but they argued that the rule should provide that the numerical emission limits do not apply if even one EGU sharing the common stack is starting up or shutting down.20

            20 See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20256, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20277, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20281, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20282, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20294.

        The EPA requests comment on the information and data provided in the public comments regarding the startup and shutdown provisions and, in particular, the commenters' recommendations concerning the definition of “startup.” The EPA requests additional input on the following startup/shutdown-related issues that were raised by commenters on the proposed rule:
        • The use of default diluent gas cap values during periods of startup and shutdown;
        • How to calculate startup/shutdown emissions when multiple affected EGUs share a common stack; and
        • The use of a default electrical production rate value to calculate output-based emission limits during startup and shutdown hours where the electrical load is zero.
        In addition, the EPA requests comment on the additional technical analyses it conducted in response to the above comments concerning the end of startup. See “Assessment of startup period at coal-fired electric generating units” in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. In this analysis of EGUs, the EPA examined several indicators that can aid in assessing the time required to achieve operating benchmarks.
        Using these indicators, we found no significant difference in performance related to startup between the different groups assessed in this analysis. We believe these results could support defining the end of startup at coal-fired EGUs as occurring at 25 percent of nameplate capacity plus 3 hours or the start of electricity generation plus 6 hours, whichever comes first, and we are soliciting comment on the analysis.
        We are only reopening for comment the startup and shutdown issues described above. We are not seeking comment on any other issues and will not respond to comments submitted that are outside the scope of this notice.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 18, 2013.
          Gina McCarthy,
          Assistant Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2013-15146 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
        [Docket No. RSPA-98-4868; Notice 2]
        Notice of Public Meeting and Request for Comments

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting and request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces a public meeting and an opportunity to submit written comments on the safety regulation of gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines. Congress has directed RSPA to define “gathering line” for gas and hazardous liquid pipeline transportation and, if appropriate, define as “regulated gathering line” those rural gathering lines that, because of specific physical characteristics, should be regulated. The gas pipeline regulations do not clearly distinguish gathering lines from production facilities and transmission lines. This lack of clarity has caused many disputes between government and industry over whether the regulations cover particular pipelines. The current definition of hazardous liquid gathering has worked well. We will consider all public comments in developing future proposals on gathering lines.

          DATES:
          The public meeting will occur Wednesday, November 19, 2003, from 1 pm to 5 pm, and Thursday, November 20, 2003, from 8 am to 5 pm.

          ADDRESSES:

          The meeting will take place at the Omni Austin Hotel, 700 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, Texas 78701 (phone: 512-476-3700). If you want to make an oral presentation, please notify Janice Morgan by November 14, 2003, by phone (202-366-2392 ) or by e-mail (janice.morgan@rspa.dot.gov), and state the approximate length of your presentation. In addition, you may submit written comments to the docket by December 19, 2003. Late filed comments will be considered as far as practicable. You may submit written comments by mail or delivery to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. It is open from 10 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All written comments should identify the docket and notice numbers stated in the heading of this notice. Anyone wanting confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. You may also submit written comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the following Web address: http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Comment/Submissions” to begin.

            Privacy Act Information. Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

            General Information. You may contact the Dockets Facility by phone at (202) 366-9329 for copies of this notice or other material in the docket. All materials in this docket may be found electronically at http://dms.dot.gov/search. Once you reach this address, type in the last four digits of the docket number shown in the heading of this notice, and click on “search.” You will then be connected to all relevant information. General information about RSPA's programs may be obtained at this address: http://rspa.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405-954-7220 or by e-mail at dewitt_burdeaux@tsi.jccbi.gov regarding the subject matter of this notice.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

          Gas Gathering Line Definition. RSPA's gas pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR part 192 apply to pipelines used in the gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas, except gathering lines in rural locations and certain offshore pipelines (§ 192.1). As defined in § 192.3, “gathering line” means “a pipeline that transports gas from a current production facility to a transmission line or main.” Although Part 192 does not define “production facility,” it does define “transmission line” and “main.” However, under § 192.3, the definition of “transmission line” refers to a pipeline “other than a gathering line.” Also, the definition of “main” refers to a “distribution line,” which means a “pipeline other than a gathering or transmission line.”
        The absence of a production facility definition and the circular logic of the definitions of gathering line, transmission line, and distribution line have made it difficult to determine the beginning and end of gathering lines covered by part 192. It is also difficult to determine which pipelines are exempt from part 192 as rural gathering lines. Inspectors from RSPA's five regional offices have often disagreed with pipeline operators across the nation over whether pipelines are gathering or transmission lines. In 1986, RSPA asked the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), an association of state pipeline safety officials, for comments on the gathering line problem. Responses from NAPSR members showed that in the 30 states where gathering lines exist, there are at least 2,800 gathering operators and 111,000 miles of gathering lines (as interpreted by the states). NAPSR members from five states, with about 54 percent of gathering-line operators and 75 percent of the mileage, said they had disagreements with operators over classifying rural pipelines as gathering lines or transmission lines. Members from three of these States said the disagreements were too numerous to list. One NAPSR member recalled many disagreements with two major gas gathering and transmission pipeline operators over where a gathering line ends. Another NAPSR member related continuing disagreements over the classification of various segments of pipeline operated by one of the largest gas gathering line operators in the United States.
        The difficulty of identifying gas gathering lines not only affects government enforcement of the Part 192 safety standards, but it also affects other program areas. RSPA annually collects user fees from gas pipeline operators to recoup regulatory program costs. However, by law, these fees are only assessable for costs related to transmission lines. In addition, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355; Dec. 17, 2002) requires operators to provide to RSPA, certain geospatial data and other information for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System. However, gathering and distribution lines are specifically excluded from this requirement.
        Seeking to resolve the gas gathering line interpretive problem, RSPA proposed to amend the Part 192 gathering line definition (Docket PS-122; 56 FR 48505; Sept. 25, 1991).1
           However, because the public response was generally unfavorable; with industry commenters disputing the significance of the problem and alleging wholesale reclassification of lines, RSPA delayed final action pending the collection and consideration of further information. Meanwhile, Congress amended the pipeline safety law, directing RSPA to define the term “gathering line” for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, and define as “regulated gathering line” those rural gathering lines that, because of specific physical characteristics, should be regulated.2
           In furtherance of the proceeding begun in 1991 and the Congressional directive, RSPA opened an internet discussion of the gathering line issue, which focused on a definition offered by Gas Processors Association (Docket No. RSPA-98-4868; 64 FR 12147; Mar. 11, 1999). The discussion, which involved 100 participants, included a comprehensive treatment by the American Petroleum Institute for a coalition of trade associations.3

           However, RSPA and NAPSR were concerned that the coalition's suggested gathering line definition was based on certain “furthermost downstream” points that are subject to change. As a stopgap, while continuing to decide on a suitable alternative to the 1991 gathering line proposal, RSPA published an advisory bulletin interpreting the end of gas gathering based on court precedent and historical interpretation (ADB-02-06; 67 FR 64447; Oct. 18, 2002).4

            1 The proposal was: “Gathering line” means, except as provided in paragraph (4), any pipeline or part of a connected series of pipelines used to transport gas from a well or the first production facility where gas is separated from produced hydrocarbons, whichever is farther downstream, to an applicable endpoint described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) below:
          (1) The inlet of the first natural gas processing plant used to remove liquified petroleum gases or other natural gas liquids.
          (2) If there is no natural gas processing plant, the point where custody of the gas is transferred to others who transport it by pipeline to:
          (i) a distribution center;
          (ii) a gas storage facility; or
          (iii) an industrial consumer.
          (3) If there is no natural gas processing plant or point where custody of the gas is so transferred, the last point downstream where gas produced in the same production field or two adjacent production fields is commingled.
          (4) A gathering line does not include any part of a pipeline that transports gas downstream—
          (i) from the end points in (1), (2), or (3) in this Section;
          (ii) from a production facility, if no end point exists; or
          (iii) in any interstate transmission facility subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.).

            2 The specific provisions are in 49 U.S.C. 60101(b):
          Gathering Lines.—(1)(A) Not later than October 24, 1994, the Secretary shall prescribe standards defining the term “gathering line”. (B) In defining “gathering line” for gas, the Secretary—(i) shall consider functional and operational characteristics of the lines to be included in the definition; and (ii) is not bound by a classification the Commission establishes under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.). (2)(A) Not later than October 24, 1995, the Secretary, if appropriate, shall prescribe standards defining the term “regulated gathering line”. In defining the term, the Secretary shall consider factors such as location, length of line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and the composition of the transported gas or hazardous liquid, as appropriate, in deciding on the types of lines that functionally are gathering but should be regulated under this chapter because of specific physical characteristics. (B)(i) The Secretary also shall consider diameter when defining “regulated gathering line” for hazardous liquid. (ii) The definition of “regulated gathering line” for hazardous liquid may not include a crude oil gathering line that has a nominal diameter of not more than 6 inches, is operated at low pressure, and is located in a rural area that is not unusually sensitive to environmental damage.

            3 The coalition suggested the following definition of “gathering line”:
          (a) means any pipeline or part of a connected series of pipelines used to
          (1) transport gas from the furthermost downstream point in a production operation to the furthermost downstream of the following endpoints, with possible intermediate deliveries to other production operations, pipeline facilities, farm taps, or residential/commercial/industrial end users:
          (A) the inlet of the furthermost downstream natural gas processing plant, other than a natural gas processing plant located on a transmission line,
          (B) the outlet of the furthermost downstream gathering line gas treatment facility,
          (C) the furthermost downstream point where gas produced in the same production field or separate production fields is commingled,
          (D) the outlet of the furthermost downstream compressor station used to lower gathering line operating pressure to facilitate deliveries into the pipeline from production operations or to increase gathering line pressure for delivery to another pipeline, or
          (E) the connection to another pipeline downstream of:
          (i) the furthermost downstream endpoint identified in (A), (B), (C) or (D), or (in the absence of such endpoint)
          (ii) the furthermost downstream production operation; or
          (2) transport gas from a point other than in a production operation exclusively to points in or adjacent to one or more production operations or gathering facility sites for use as fuel, gas lift, or gas injection gas within those operations; and
          (b) does not include a natural gas processing plant.

            4 ADB-02-6:
          To: Owners and Operators of Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities.
          Subject: Standards for classifying natural gas gathering lines.
          Purpose: To inform operators of the standards OPS currently uses to classify natural gas gathering lines.
          Advisory: Standards for classification of natural gas gathering lines.
          Until OPS completes its rulemaking to better define natural gas gathering lines (Docket No. RSPA-98-4868), OPS will continue to classify lines according to the four-point standard established through court precedent and historical interpretation. OPS will also continue to classify lines that pose unique difficulties of classification on a case-by-case basis. In brief, in the most common situation, gathering begins at or near the well head. In most cases, the gathering process terminates at the outlet of a processing plant. A processing plant is defined by the extraction of heavy ends from the natural gas. If there is no upstream processing plant, the gathering process terminates at the outlet of a pipeline compressor. For the purposes of determining the termination point of the gas gathering process, OPS does not consider a well head compressor (field compressor) to be a pipeline compressor. If there is no processing plant or pipeline compressor, the point at which the gathering process ends is where two or more well pipleines converge. If none of these points applies, the gas gathering termination point is where there is a change in ownership of the pipeline. These points are determined on a case-by-case basis considering the location of the pipeline in relation to population density, major traffic areas, and environmentally sensitive areas. To summarize, OPS considers the termination of gas gathering to be:
          (1) The outlet of a processing plant that extracts heavy ends from the natural gas;
          (2) The outlet of a pipeline compressor (not including a well head compressor);
          (3) The point where two or more well pipelines converge; or
          (4) The point where there is a change in ownership of the pipeline.

          Hazardous Liquid Gathering Line Definition. RSPA's hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR part 195 apply to the transportation by pipeline of hazardous liquid (petroleum, petroleum products, and anhydrous ammonia) and carbon dioxide (in a supercritical state), except gathering lines in rural areas and certain other pipelines (§ 195.1). The term “gathering line” is defined in § 195.2 as “a pipeline 219.1 mm (85/8 in) or less nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a production facility.” Section 195.2 also defines “production facility” and “rural area” without reference to the gathering line definition. RSPA has had little difficulty applying these definitions to identify gathering lines subject to Part 195 or those excluded from Part 195 because of location in rural areas.
        Purpose of Meetings and Request for Comment
        RSPA, working with NAPSR, is continuing to assess the acceptability of the present definitions of gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines and related definitions for purposes of determining the beginning and end of gathering. We are particularly concerned about the impreciseness of the gas definition. We are inviting new public input to this process, which we hope will be informed by the history of previously proposed definitions and their shortcomings.
        We also are considering the need to establish safety regulations for onshore gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines in rural areas. While Congress initially exempted these lines from Federal regulation, it has granted RSPA authority to regulate rural gathering lines whose physical characteristics pose a special risk to the public. We are interested in receiving ideas on what situations would make it appropriate to regulate the safety of rural gathering lines, and what those regulations should be. Potential commenters should keep in mind that the pipeline industry's consensus standards in ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8 apply to rural gathering lines.
        As stated in more detail above, we invite interested persons to attend the public meetings and present oral or written statements about any of the topics discussed in this notice. Written statements not presented at the meeting may be submitted to the docket. If necessary, we may limit the time for oral presentations so that everyone who requests an opportunity to speak may do so. Those who do not request time for presentations may have an opportunity to speak as time allows.
        We are especially interested in receiving comments on the following:
        1. The point where gas production ends and gas gathering begins.
        2. The point where gas gathering ends and gas transmission or distribution begins.

        3. In defining “regulated gathering line,” whether we should consider factors besides those that Congress specified (see footnote 2). For example, should we consider population density (by census or house count), or for hazardous liquid lines, potential for environmental damage.
        4. Whether Part 195 should apply to rural gathering lines that operate at more than 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength, or that could adversely affect an “unusually sensitive area” as defined in § 195.6. (Note that certain crude oil gathering lines are, by law, exempt from safety regulation (see footnote 2)).
        5. If you recommend safety regulations for rural gas or hazardous liquid gathering lines, to which rural lines would the regulations apply and why, approximately how many miles would be covered by the regulations, and what would be the estimated cost per mile of complying with the regulations.
        6. The approximate mileage of rural gathering lines not now covered by Part 195.

        7. Whether safety regulations for gas or hazardous liquid rural gathering lines operating at low stress (e.g., 20 percent or less of specified minimum yield strength) or a specified pressure for plastic lines should be fewer and possibly less stringent than regulations for other rural gathering lines.
        There will be an open session for questions and answers before the close of the meeting. Additional meetings are being planned, and dates and places will be announced in future notices.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.53.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2003.
          Stacey L. Gerard,
          Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 03-27858 Filed 11-4-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P