        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0717; FRL-8501-6]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Approval of Construction Permit Waiver

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on May 1, 2007. The WDNR has submitted for approval into its SIP a revision which allows the State to issue a waiver to a source allowing it to commence construction prior to a construction permit being issued, in certain cases. This provision is only allowed for minor sources which meet specific criteria, and WDNR must follow established procedures to grant a waiver. In addition, the revision also contains changes to Wisconsin's fee provisions to allow a fee to be charged for the waiver. EPA is proposing to approve this revision because it is consistent with Federal regulations governing state permit programs.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0717, by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
          3. Fax: (312)886-5824.
          4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
          5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0717. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket 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 e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Susan Siepkowski, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-2654 before visiting the Region 5 office.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Siepkowski, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-2654, siepkowski.susan@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

          I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
          II. What Has Wisconsin Submitted?
          III. Does This Submittal Comply With Federal Regulations?
          IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

        I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        When submitting comments, remember to:

        1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. What Has Wisconsin Submitted?
        On May 1, 2007, WDNR submitted a SIP revision request to EPA for approval. The submittal requests that EPA approve the following revisions to WDNR's SIP: to renumber and amend NR 406.03, to amend NR 410.03(intro.) and to create NR 406.03(2) and NR 410.03(l)(bm). These changes would allow WDNR to issue a waiver to a source allowing it to commence construction prior to a construction permit being issued. These revisions also contain changes to Wisconsin's fee provisions to allow a fee to be charged for the waiver.
        The WDNR held two public hearings in August 2006 and the comment period for this rule closed on August 18, 2006. The WDNR proposed this rule revision to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board for adoption, and the Board approved the final rule on March 22, 2007.
        Wisconsin Rule NR 406 contains the requirements and procedures for construction permits. The revisions to NR 406.03 require the following conditions to be satisfied before the State may grant a source a waiver: (1) A complete construction permit application has been submitted for the source; (2) the source and the proposed project will result in the source remaining a true minor source (no synthetic minor or netting permits); (3) the waiver requests must demonstrate that undue hardship will result if the waiver is not granted. Undue hardship may result from adverse weather conditions, catastrophic damage of existing equipment, a substantial financial hardship that may preclude the project in its entirety, and other unique conditions; (4) the source is not located or to be located within 10 kilometers of a Class I area.
        The rule further states that a waiver does not obligate the WDNR to ultimately approve the project, or relieve the source from compliance with any applicable regulation. Finally, if a waiver is granted and the source proceeds with construction, the rule specifies that it is doing so at its own risk, and the source may not operate until the permit is issued. WDNR may rescind a waiver if the owner or operator does not diligently respond to inquiries on the construction permit application or if WDNR preliminarily determines that the source will not meet the criteria for permit approval.
        Additional changes are being made to NR 410, Wisconsin's air permit fee rules, to include fees for waivers. NR 10.03(1)(a)(5), related to the fees for a construction permit revision, is amended to exempt the fee if the requested revision is to make the source eligible for a registration operation permit.
        III. Does This Submittal Comply With Federal Regulations?
        EPA reviewed Wisconsin's May 1, 2007, SIP revision submittal to determine completeness, in accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). We found the submittal to be complete.
        EPA evaluated Wisconsin's waiver rule with respect to the SIP approval criteria established in EPA's June 28, 1989, rulemaking “Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans,” (EPA's 1989 rulemaking); Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 54 FR 27274. In addition, EPA has evaluated WDNR's rule with respect to relevant Federal rules and guidance documents, as discussed in more detail below.
        Section 165 of the Clean Air Act (Act) sets forth preconstruction requirements for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Specifically, “(a) No major emitting facility on which construction is commenced after the date of the enactment of this part, may be constructed in any area to which this part applies unless (1) a permit has been issued for such proposed facility in accordance with this part setting forth emission limitations for such facility which conform to the requirements of this part.”
        However, this requirement only applies to major sources, and no such restriction is specified under the minor New Source Review (NSR) program requirements, which are set forth in 40 CFR 51.160. In addition, EPA has made determinations which further support that construction may begin before a permit is issued for minor sources. For example, EPA's October 10, 1978, memorandum from Edward E. Reich to Thomas W. Devine in Region 1 discusses preconstruction activities allowed at a site with both PSD and non-PSD sources. This memo states that construction may begin on PSD-exempt projects before the permit is issued.

        Furthermore, EPA approved a rule for Idaho's permit program which allowed construction to commence prior to a permit being issued. (See 68 FR 2217, final rule.) The August 13, 2002, Federal Register proposed approval of Idaho's rule, Section 213, regarding construction prior to final permit issuance, states:

          Section 213, entitled “Pre-Permit Construction” allows construction to commence on certain non-major sources and non-major modifications prior to receiving a final permit to construct, provided certain conditions are met. EPA believes that this provision is consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.160, including 40 CFR 51.160(b), which requires States to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. (See 67 FR 52666).

        WDNR's rule revision provides that waivers can only be granted for minor sources, and the rule complies with EPA's minor source NSR rules set forth at 40 CFR 51.160. The minor source NSR rules require a state to have a program: (1) To determine “whether construction or modification” of a source will interfere with the SIP or attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and, (2) that includes procedures to “prevent the construction or modification” of the source if it would interfere with the SIP or attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. WDNR will have enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP requirement, or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Additionally, WDNR can rescind a waiver if the source does not meet the criteria in Wis. Statute 285.63(1), which contain the criteria for permit application approval, including that the source will not cause or exacerbate a violation of any NAAQS or ambient air increment, and that the source will meet all applicable emission limitations and other requirements promulgated under the chapter.
        Finally, the rule contains the following additional safeguards. First, granting a waiver does not obligate the WDNR to ultimately approve the proposed project, or relieve the source from compliance with any applicable regulation. Second, if a waiver is granted and the source proceeds with construction, the rule specifies that it is doing so at its own risk, and the source may not operate until the permit is issued.
        Based on EPA's regulations and guidance, and the reasons set forth above, we believe that WDNR's SIP revision is approvable.
        IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
        EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Wisconsin SIP rules NR 406 and 410 submitted by the State on May 1, 2007. EPA also is soliciting comment on this proposed approval.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
        Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.
        Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
        Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes approval of a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
        Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
        National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply.

          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: November 23, 2007.
          Gary Gulezian,
          Acting Regional Administrator,  Region 5.

      [FR Doc. E7-23482 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        48 CFR Part 245
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Government Property/Unique Identification/Item Marking

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD is soliciting comments from both government and industry regarding potential changes to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) policy on government property in the possession of contractors. These changes relate to item marking and valuing (providing cost information) for tangible items (i.e., contractor acquired property and tangible item deliverables). DoD will hold a public meeting to discuss the potential changes and to hear the views of interested parties.

          DATES:

            Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held at the address shown below on May 28, 2003, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., local time.

            Submission of Names of Expected Attendees: The names of individuals expected to attend the public meeting should be provided to the point of contact shown below no later than May 21, 2003.

            Submission of Comments: Written comments on the potential DFARS changes should be submitted to the address shown below no later than June 9, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held at Logistics Management Institute (LMI), 2000 Corporate Ridge, McClean, VA 22102-7805; telephone (703) 917-9800. Directions to LMI can be obtained at http://www.lmi.org.

            Submission of Names of Expected Attendees: The names of individuals expected to attend the public meeting should be provided to Ms. Claudia Low, by telephone at (703) 917-7264; by FAX at (703) 917-7066; by e-mail at clow@lmi.org; or by mail at Logistics Management Institute, 2000 Corporate Ridge, McClean, VA 22102-7805. Walk-in attendance will be accommodated. However, pre-registration is preferred. The LMI general phone number is (703) 917-7800.

            Submission of Comments: Interested parties should submit written comments to Mr. Michael Canales, by mail at OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(P), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060; by e-mail at Michael.Canales@osd.mil; or by FAX at (703) 614-1254.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Michael Canales, telephone (703) 695-8571.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Draft Materials

        The potential DFARS changes will be made available in draft form in Microsoft Word 6.0 text format at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap. The draft changes do not reflect a proposed rule, but are provided for discussion purposes only.
        B. Background

        During the past 6 months, DoD has issued a series of policy memorandums (available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap) and held numerous meetings with government and industry personnel on this particular subject. In addition, DoD continues with its effort to transform the DFARS. As part of this effort, DoD is considering significant changes to DFARS part 245, Government Property. The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with a preliminary indication of changes under consideration, and to solicit public comments on those changes. After consideration of comments received in response to this notice and during the public meeting, DoD plans to publish two proposed DFARS rules, one on item marking and one on item value, for additional public comment.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

      [FR Doc. 03-11726 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 071003556-7575-01]
        RIN 0648-AW08
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 15

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 15 would modify the FMP to implement a limited entry program for the non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery. Amendment 15 was approved by NMFS on June 18, 2008, and in accordance with the notification procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Fishery Management Council was notified of this approval. Amendment 15 is intended to serve as an interim measure to limit potential participation in the Pacific whiting fishery within the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone until implementation of a trawl rationalization program under Amendment 20 to the Groundfish FMP.

          DATES:
           Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before August 11, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

           Amendment 15 is available on the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's or Pacific Council's) website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gffmp.html.
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW08 by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the FederaleRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko.
          • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Attn: Becky Renko, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Northwest Region (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285. Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to the NMFS address above and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer).

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Becky Renko, phone: 206-526-6110, fax: 206-526-6736, or e-mail: becky.renko@noaa.gov, or for permitting information, Kevin Ford, phone: 206-526-6115, fax: 206-526-6736, or e-mail: kevin.ford@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/index.cfm.
        NMFS is proposing this rule to implement Amendment 15 to the FMP, which would create a limited entry program for the three non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery off the U.S. West Coast. Under current Federal regulations, Pacific whiting shoreside fishery catcher vessels, mothership catcher vessels, and catcher/processor vessels, must be registered to a groundfish limited entry permit. The limited entry program has been in place since 1994 and allows appropriately registered vessels to harvest groundfish, targeting any of the 90+ species managed under the FMP. The proposed action to implement Amendment 15 to the FMP would require vessels that wish to harvest and/or process Pacific whiting in the non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery to qualify for a Pacific whiting vessel license limitation program. This is in addition to the requirement for harvesting vessels to be registered for use with groundfish limited entry permits. Amendment 15 is intended to serve as an interim measure that sunsets when the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopts and the National Marine Fisheries Service implements a trawl rationalization program under Amendment 20 to the Pacific Groundfish FMP. Amendment 20 is currently under development by the Council, which adopted its preliminary preferred alternative at the June Council meeting. The Council anticipates taking final action on the trawl rationalization program in November 2008. If NMFS approves the Amendment, implementation is scheduled for late 2010, at which time Amendment 15 would no longer be effective. If development and implementation of Amendment 20 is delayed beyond that point, NMFS intends to request that the Council reconsider the provisions of Amendment 15.
        NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 15 on March 19, 2008 (73 FR 14765), and is requested public comment on it through May 19, 2008. Amendment 15 was approved by NMFS on June 18, 2008.
        Background
        Pacific whiting (Merluccius productus), also known as Pacific hake, is a semi-pelagic and relatively productive species that ranges from Sanak Island in the western Gulf of Alaska to Magdalena Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico. They are most abundant in the California Current System, off the U.S. West Coast. Pacific whiting landings represent the most significant single-species contribution to West Coast groundfish landings from the 90+ groundfish species managed under the FMP by several orders of magnitude. In general, Pacific whiting is a very productive species with highly variable recruitment (the biomass of fish that mature and enter the fishery each year) and a relatively short life span when compared to other groundfish species. In 1987, the Pacific whiting biomass was at a historically high level due to an exceptionally large number of fish that had spawned in 1980 and 1984 (fished spawned during a particular year are referred to as year classes). As these large year classes of fish passed through the population and were replaced by moderate sized year classes, the stock declined. The Pacific whiting stock stabilized between 1995 and 1997, but then declined to its lowest level in 2001. After 2001, the Pacific whiting biomass increased substantially as a strong 1999 year class matured and entered the spawning population. The contribution of the 1999 year class to the total population is rapidly declining as it matures.
        Coastwide Pacific whiting harvest is managed via a 2003 U.S.-Canada agreement on Pacific whiting conservation, research, and catch sharing. Under that agreement, U.S. fisheries have access to 73.88 percent of the total annual Pacific whiting optimum yield (OY), with Canadian fisheries having access to 26.12 percent of the OY.

        Pacific whiting harvest within U.S. waters is first allocated between tribal and non-tribal fisheries. In 1994, the United States formally recognized that the four Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes (Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault) have treaty rights to fish for groundfish in the Pacific Ocean. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of groundfish that pass through the tribes' usual and accustomed ocean fishing areas (described at 50 CFR 660.324). To date, only the Makah Tribe has participated in a tribal fishery for Pacific whiting. Beginning in 1999, NMFS set the tribal allocation according to an abundance-based sliding scale method, proposed by the Makah Tribe in 1998 (see 64 FR 27928 (May 29, 1999); 65 FR 221, (January 4, 2000); 66 FR 2338 (January 11, 2001).) On December 28, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sliding scale approach in Midwater Trawler Cooperative v. Daley, 393 F. 3d 994 (9th Cir. 2004). Under the sliding scale allocation method, the tribal allocation varies with the U.S. Pacific whiting OY, ranging from 14 percent (or less) of the U.S. OY when OY levels are above 250,000 mt, to 17.5 percent of the U.S. OY when the OY level is at or below 145,000 mt.
        Since 1997, the non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery has been divided into three separate sectors: the shore-based sector, which is composed of vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to land-based processors; the mothership sector, which is composed of catcher vessels that harvest whiting and mothership vessels that process; and, the catcher/processor sector, which is composed of vessels that harvest and process whiting. Domestic allocation of the annual U.S. Pacific whiting OY between these three sectors is provided for within Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(2): 34 percent for the catcher/processor sector; 24 percent for the mothership sector; and 42 percent for the shore-based sector. In addition to these between-sector allocations, no more than 5 percent of the shore-based allocation may be taken and retained south of 42° N. lat. before the June 15 start of the shore-based sector primary Pacific whiting season north of 42° N. lat.
        The American Fisheries Act (AFA) and Amendment 15
        The 1998 AFA was designed to strengthen U.S. ownership standards that had been exploited under the Anti-reflagging Act, and to rationalize the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) walleye pollock (pollock) fishery while protecting non-AFA participants in other fisheries. The AFA prioritized U.S. interests in the harvest of U.S. fishery resources and decapitalized the BSAI pollock fishery through buyouts. Management measures required by the AFA include (1) regulations that limit access into the fishing and processing sectors of the BSAI pollock fishery and that allocate pollock to such sectors, (2) regulations governing the formation and operation of fishery cooperatives in the BSAI pollock fishery, (3) regulations to protect other fisheries from spillover effects from AFA, and (4) regulations governing catch measurement and monitoring in the BSAI pollock fishery.
        Section 211 of the AFA requires the Pacific Council, not later than July 1, 2000, to recommend conservation and management measures it determines necessary to protect fisheries under its jurisdiction and the participants in those fisheries from adverse impacts caused by the AFA, or by any fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery. In response to this requirement, the Council initiated discussions on Amendment 15 to the FMP in September 1999. At that time, the initial intent of Amendment 15 was to restrict AFA-qualified vessels that had not met historic Pacific whiting landing requirements during the 1994-1999 period from future participation in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery.
        In September 2001, the Council reviewed a range of alternatives and initial analysis for Amendment 15. The draft environmental assessment (EA) identified four key issues: qualifying criteria for AFA catcher vessels; whether AFA catcher vessel restrictions would be on vessels, permits held by vessels, or both; qualifying criteria for AFA catcher processors; qualifying criteria for AFA motherships; and duration of the restrictions. Upon reviewing the draft 2001 EA, the Council determined that there was no imminent harm to West Coast groundfish fisheries from the AFA. This determination, in combination with competing workload led the Council to table action on Amendment 15 in 2001.
        Amendment 15 in the 2007 Council Process
        In 2005 and 2006, market conditions for Pacific whiting changed dramatically, with prices paid to fishermen increasing from an average price of about $0.04 per pound ($88 per ton) in the 1992-2005 period to more than $ 0.06 per pound ($143 per ton) in 2006. Preliminary information for Oregon shore-based landings of Pacific whiting indicates an increase from $0.07 in 2006 to $0.08 in 2007, doubling the historic average price. The rise in ex-vessel prices was stimulated by increased world demand for whiting products, in particular new markets for headed and gutted whiting. Higher Pacific whiting prices attracted new entrants to the Pacific whiting fishery from vessels with Pacific coast limited entry groundfish permits that had historically participated in the non-whiting groundfish fisheries, that had purchased West Coast limited entry permits for the purpose of joining the Pacific whiting fishery, or that had historic Pacific whiting catch in one sector but were newly entering other sectors. Historic fishery participants were concerned that new fishery entrants would ultimately accelerate the race for fish in the fishery, making the fishery more dangerous for participants and more prone to poor decision-making in fishing and which could ultimately result in higher rates of bycatch of protected or overfished species associated with Pacific whiting. Some of the new entrants to the Pacific whiting fishery were AFA-qualified vessels with fishing operations off Alaska. Therefore, in 2006, fishing industry members requested that the Council re-open consideration of Amendment 15 to the FMP.

        In September 2006, the Council again took up Amendment 15 and, realizing that an FMP amendment could not be completed in time to affect the 2007 Pacific whiting fishery, discussed how to limit Pacific whiting fishery participation in 2007. To address short-term participation in the Pacific whiting fishery, the Council requested that NMFS implement an emergency rule for the 2007 fishery that would prohibit participation in a non-tribal sector by AFA-qualified vessels that had no historic participation in that sector prior to 2006. NMFS denied this request primarily because it would not have restricted participation in the 2007 fishery by non-AFA vessels; therefore, the requested rule would not solve the serious conservation or management problems in the fishery the Council had identified. Current harm to the fishery could not be traced back solely to the AFA itself, which meant that an emergency rule designed to exclude only AFA-qualified vessels could not be approved.
        The Council re-visited its emergency rule request at its March 2007 meeting, and ultimately recommended that NMFS implement an emergency rule. After concluding that conditions were such that new entry into the non-tribal sectors was likely in 2007, the Council recommended an emergency rule to prohibit participation in a particular non-tribal sector by a vessel without a history of sector-specific participation between January 1, 1997 and January 1, 2007. NMFS implemented this request on May 14, 2007 (72 FR 27759, May 17, 2007) stating concern that an accelerated “race for fish” was likely to cause serious conservation and management problems. The emergency rule was intended to be interim until longer term regulations could be implemented.
        Continuing its work for 2008 and beyond, the Council again addressed Amendment 15 at its April, June, and September 2007 meetings. Based on continued concern with conservation effects of increased entry and the resulting race for fish, the Council discussed action alternatives that would restrict participation in the sectors by any vessel, not just AFA-qualified vessels, that did not meet particular landings requirements. The action alternatives differed only in the qualifications necessary to participate in particular non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery. At its September 9-14, 2007 meeting in Portland, Oregon, the Council reviewed an EA and draft amendatory language for Amendment 15, and listened to the advice of its advisory bodies and members of the public on choosing a preferred alternative for implementing Amendment 15. Council discussions concerned the likelihood of new entry given increased whiting exvessel prices and declining pollock quotas. Council discussions centered on the effects of new entry into a fishery already experiencing declining limited West Coast trawl opportunities due to overfished species rebuilding measures, concerns about the conservation of overfished groundfish stocks and salmon stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act, increased costs to manage the fishery if it becomes faster paced due to increased participation, and the decreased economic returns to historical harvesters from new entrants. Ultimately, the Council chose a hybrid alternative that combined historic qualification preferences expressed by participants in the three different non-tribal sectors, based on the evolution of the different sectors.
        The Council's preferred alternative for Amendment 15, which this rule proposes to implement, would restrict participation in the non-tribal sectors as follows: catcher vessels in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery would be required to have made sector-specific Pacific whiting landings in any one calendar year during the period of January 1, 1994, through January 1, 2007; vessels participating in either the catcher/processor or mothership sector would be required to have either caught and processed Pacific whiting (catcher/processor sector,) caught and delivered Pacific whiting (catcher vessels in mothership sector,) or processed Pacific whiting (motherships) in any one calendar year during the period of January 1, 1997 through January 1, 2007. This would be the first participation requirement for motherships, which, unlike catcher vessels, have not needed a groundfish limited entry permit registered to them. The Council preferred the 1994 qualifying period start date for the shore-based sector because that was the first year the groundfish limited entry program was in effect. For the at-sea sectors, however, 1997 was the preferred qualifying period start date because that was the first year that Pacific whiting was specifically allocated between the three sectors. Prior to 1997, Pacific whiting catch was allocated between vessels that landed on shore and those that caught Pacific whiting for processing at sea.
        Amendment 15 Implementing Regulations
        Amendment 15 proposes to implement a limited entry program for the three non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery. Vessels would be required to meet certain participation criteria and, with the exception of the motherships, would also be required to have the vessel registered to a Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry permit. Motherships would only be required to meet the participation criteria. The regulations proposed in this rule for Amendment 15 would follow NMFS Northwest Region's historic practices for implementing license limitation and permit limitation programs, such as the groundfish limited entry program itself, the sablefish endorsement program, and the three-tier sablefish program.

        Under the proposed regulations, NMFS would mail Pacific whiting vessel license applications to all current and prior owners of vessels that have been registered for use with limited entry permits with trawl endorsements, excluding owners of those vessels whose permits were purchased through the Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program. NMFS would also make license applications available online at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Permits/index.cfm.
        To participate in the fishery in 2009 and beyond, a vessel owner who believes that his/her vessel may qualify for the Pacific whiting vessel license would have until December 31, 2008, to submit documentation showing how his/her vessel has met the qualifying criteria. NMFS will not accept applications for Pacific whiting vessel licenses received after December 31, 2008. After receipt of a complete application, NMFS will notify applicants by letter of its determination whether their vessels qualify for Pacific whiting vessel licenses and the sector or sectors to which the licenses apply. Vessels that have met the qualification criteria will be issued the appropriate licenses at that time.
        For 2008, the proposed action would prohibit vessels from fishing, landing, or processing Pacific whiting in a primary whiting season from the effective date of this action through December 31, 2008, with a catcher/processor, mothership or mothership catcher vessel that has no history of participation within that specific sector of the whiting fishery during the period from January 1, 1997, through January 1, 2007, or with a shoreside catcher vessel that has no history of participation within the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery during the period from January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2007, as specified in § 660.373(j). Participation in the shore-based sector is in reference to participation in the primary whiting season. This rule proposes that, in order to qualify for a Pacific whiting vessel license in the shore-based sector, documentation is required to show the vessel made at least one landing of whiting taken with mid-water trawl gear during a primary shore based season during the period January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2007, and that the weight of whiting exceeded 50 percent of the total weight of the landing.

        NMFS is authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to collect funds from permit recipients to recover the cost of the permitting process. NMFS initially estimates that the fee for initial issuance of Pacific whiting licenses will be $650 per license it issued. NMFS must receive the fee payment in full to consider the application complete and to process the application.

        For 2009, NMFS would both publish a list of vessels that have qualified for the Pacific whiting vessel license in the Federal Register, and would issue licenses to those vessels that apply prior to the start of the 2009 fishing season. Each license will indicate the sector or sectors for which the vessel has qualified. To participate in any of the non-tribal whiting sectors in 2009 and beyond, a harvesting vessel would be required to be registered for use with both a groundfish limited entry permit and with a Pacific whiting vessel license. The license would be associated with the vessel, not with a limited entry permit. A mothership vessel that processes whiting, but does not harvest would only be required to have a whiting vessel license for the mothership sector. Therefore, once issued, the Pacific whiting vessel license would not be re-issued unless it has been lost, or unless there is some change in the vessel owner information for the vessel to which it is registered. Consistent with the intent of Amendment 15, Pacific whiting vessel license holders would not be allowed to transfer those licenses to any other vessels.
        Based on an initial review of potential qualifying vessels for each sector, NMFS anticipates that there would be some catcher vessels that qualify to be licensed for both the shore-based and mothership sectors. However, NMFS also anticipates that there would not be any vessels that qualify to be licensed as both a catcher/processor and as a mothership processor. Therefore, NMFS is proposing via this action to remove § 660.373(h), which allows that catcher/processor vessels have mobility between the different sectors mobility that the Council has recommended eliminating via Amendment 15.

        The proposed regulations to implement Amendment 15 would also correct an error made in the temporary rule discussed above and published on May 14, 2007 (72 FR 27759.) Through a mistake in the “DATES” section of the May 17, 2007, temporary rule, NMFS made permanent revisions to 50 CFR 660.333 and 660.335. These permanent revisions allow limited entry trawl permits that were created between December 31, 2006, and May 14, 2007, by aggregating multiple limited entry permits, to be disaggregated back into the initially combined component parts - an action otherwise prohibited by limited entry permit regulations. At least one vessel owner who had, prior to the implementation of the temporary rule, prepared for participating in the 2007 Pacific whiting fishery by purchasing and aggregating permits in order to create a permit with a length endorsement long enough to suit their vessel. The temporary rule provided an exception to regulations that would normally not allow disaggregating permits, in order to mitigate for the potential long-term effects on vessel owners who had expected to become new participants in the 2007 Pacific whiting fishery, but who were prevented by the temporary rule. Because this provision was improperly implemented as a permanent change to Federal regulations instead of temporarily as provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS proposes to correct that mistake via this proposed rule to implement Amendment 15. NMFS announced this intent in the notice that extended the emergency rule (72 FR 64953; November 19, 2007) These corrections would affect 50 CFR 660.333(f) and 660.335(f)(3).
        Regulations Steamlining
        In addition to this correction, this action also proposes a measure for Federal regulations at § 660.335(a). In their review of Chapter 11 of the FMP, NMFS and the Council noted that the chapter includes a requirement held over from Amendment 6, the original limited entry program, that calls for NMFS to send out notification of annual limited entry permit renewals by September 1 of each year. This September 1 notification date was included in the FMP in order to accommodate an annual 60-day renewal period for vessel owners of October 1 through November 30. This provision is implemented in Federal regulations at § 660.335(a)(2), which states in part, “Notification to renew limited entry permits will be issued by SFD prior to September 1 each year to the most recent address of the permit owner...''
        The Council recommended that Amendment 15 include a shift in the permit renewal notification date from September 1 to September 15. This shift would not alter the October 1 through November 30 renew period; rather, it would help to ensure that renewals do not occur prior to October 1st, which would be beneficial both from an accounting perspective and from an agency workload perspective.
        The Federal fiscal year begins October 1st. When NMFS sends permit renewal notices by September 1st, many permit owners diligently renew their permits as quickly as possible, often sending renewals and fees by mid-September. NMFS immediately deposits funds received, in keeping with good accounting practices. As a result of this one-month lag between renewal notices and fiscal year start date, each renewal period inevitably includes funds received in two separate fiscal years. Moving the renewal date to September 15th would aid NMFS by ensuring that funds received to renew permits for a particular fishing year are credited to the applicable fiscal year.
        September 1st is also the start of a two-month cumulative limit period, which means that the week just prior to September 1st, numerous permit owners submit permit transfers to move their permits to new boats for the start of the September-October cumulative limit period. This particular cumulative limit period is often active for permit transfers, since it is the last cumulative limit period that also falls within the April - October primary tier sablefish fishing season. Moving the renewal date to September 15th would allow NMFS to process last-minute permit transfer requests before sending renewal notification packets to permit owners. This will ensure that all renewal forms reflect the most recent changes to these permits. For these reasons, Amendment 15 authorizes Federal regulations at § 660.335(a)(2) to be revised to read in part, “Notification to renew limited entry permits will be issued by SFD prior to September 15 each year to the most recent address of the permit owner. . . .”
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

         An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the US including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. NMFS March 2007 Economic Guidelines (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/EconomicGuidelines.pdf) establish the current size standards for Magnuson-Stevens Act related rules as follows: Any fish-harvesting or hatchery business is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation and if it has total annual gross receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. Total annual gross receipts should include those of affiliates when practicable and appropriate to do so. Any vessel which both harvests and processes fish (also referred to as a catcher processor) is currently considered a small business if its combined total annual gross receipts (including all affiliates, worldwide, where practicable and appropriate) are not in excess of $4.0 million.
        Adoption of Amendment 15 under the preferred alternative is expected to maintain the existing economic character of the Pacific whiting fishery. The actual levels of jobs, revenues, profits and total personal income for fishery participants and the affected communities will be influenced by such things as the abundance of Pacific whiting, market prices for Pacific whiting and substitute commodities and the condition of other fishery resources.
        The number of fishery participants is expected to stay relatively consistent with the numbers observed in past years as no new entrants to the Pacific whiting fishery will be permitted. Accordingly, the economic impacts of the proposed action per se on existing businesses are expected to be minimal provided that a significant number of historically active vessels are not both eligible for the limited Pacific whiting licenses and choose to enter the fishery. Either because of participation in Alaska Pollock and other fisheries or being affiliated with large seafood companies, catcher/processor and mothership operations operating in the WOC are not considered small businesses.
        Since 1994, approximately 26-31 catcher vessels have participated in the shoreside fishery annually. Approximately 10-43 catcher vessels have participated in the mothership fishery annually since 1994. These companies are all assumed to be small businesses. This rulemaking is expected to have minimal impacts on the business that catcher vessels conduct with the mothership processors and shore-based processors. It is also expected to have minimal impact on vessels in the catcher/processor sector of the fishery. If anything, this rule maintains the economics of the existing small businesses participating in the fishery as it prevents new vessels, potentially the larger vessels from Alaska, from participating in the fishery. NMFS is aware of one company that has purchased several permits for possible combination into a single large permit that has the length endorsement for use with a catcher/processor vessel, but this company is not considered a small company as its involvement in Alaska pollock fisheries suggests that it earns more than $4.0 million in revenues. There may be other companies large or small that wish to enter the fishery but we are unaware of any investments that have been undertaken specifically for entering the whiting fishery.
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for applying for a Pacific whiting licenses is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Northwest Region at the ADDRESSES above, and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal, and Oregon coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, southern California).
        NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999, Biological Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the 11,000-fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to do a more complete analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.

        NMFS completed its reinitiation consultation and prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 2006. In its 2006 Supplemental Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 2005 Pacific whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the reinitiation trigger of 11,000. Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450. The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the Pacific whiting fishery have generally improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation. Although these species remain at risk, as indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS concluded that the higher observed bycatch in 2005 does not require a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion with respect to the fishery. For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded that incidental take in the groundfish fisheries is within the overall limits articulated in the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 Biological Opinion. The groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data to analyze take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the Groundfish FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
        Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) were recently listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead. The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006) were also recently listed as threatened under the ESA. As a consequence, NMFS has reinitiated its Section 7 consultation on the PFMC's Groundfish FMP.
        After reviewing the available information, NMFS concluded that, in keeping with Sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA, the proposed action would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures.
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this action was developed through the Council process with meaningful collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. The tribal representative on the Council did not make a motion on this action for tribal fisheries.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.

          Dated: July 7, 2008.
          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 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        l. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 660.306, paragraph (f)(7) is removed, paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) are redesignated as paragraphs (f)(2)through (f)(7), respectively, and a new paragraph (f)(1) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.306
          Prohibitions.
          (f) * * *
          (1) Fish in any of the sectors of the whiting fishery described at § 660.373(a) after January 1, 2009 using a vessel that is not registered for use with a sector-appropriate Pacific whiting vessel license under § 660.336. Prior to January 1, 2009, vessels are prohibited from fishing, landing, or processing Pacific whiting with a catcher/processor, mothership or mothership catcher vessel that has no history of participation within that specific sector of the whiting fishery during the period from January 1, 1997, through January 1, 2007, or with a shoreside catcher vessels that has no history of participation within the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery during the period from January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2007, as specified in § 660.373(j). For the purpose of this paragraph, “historic participation” for a specific sector is the same as the qualifying criteria listed in § 660.336 (a)(2).
          (i) If a Pacific whiting vessel license is registered for use with a vessel, fail to carry that license onboard the vessel registered for use with the license at any time the vessel is licensed. A photocopy of the license may not substitute for the license itself.
          (ii) [Reserved]

        3. In § 660.333, paragraph (f) is removed and paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.333
          Limited entry fishery eligibility and registration.
          (a) General. A limited entry permit confers a conditional privilege of participating in the Pacific coast groundfish limited entry fishery, in accordance with Federal regulations in 50 CFR part 660. In order for a vessel to participate in the limited entry fishery, the vessel owner must hold a limited entry permit and, through SFD, must register that permit for use with his/her vessel. When participating in the limited entry fishery, a vessel is authorized to fish with the gear type endorsed on the limited entry permit registered for use with that vessel. There are three types of gear endorsements: trawl, longline, and pot (or trap). All limited entry permits have size endorsements and a vessel registered for use with a limited entry permit must comply with the vessel size requirements of this subpart. A sablefish endorsement is also required for a vessel to participate in the primary season for the limited entry fixed gear sablefish fishery, north of 36° N. lat. After December 31, 2008, a catcher vessel participating in either the whiting shore-based or mothership sector must, in addition to being registered for use with a limited entry permit, be registered for use with a sector-appropriate Pacific whiting vessel license under § 660.336. After December 31, 2008, a vessel participating in the whiting catcher/processor sector must, in addition to being registered for use with a limited entry permit, be registered for use with a sector-appropriate Pacific whiting vessel license under § 660.336. After December 31, 2008, although a mothership vessel participating in the whiting mothership sector is not required to be registered for use with a limited entry permit, such vessel must be registered for use with a sector-appropriate Pacific whiting vessel license under § 660.336.

        4. In § 660.335, paragraph (f)(3) is removed and paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.335
          Limited entry permits renewal, combination, stacking, change of permit ownership or permit holdership, and transfer.
          (a) * * *
          (2) Notification to renew limited entry permits will be issued by SFD prior to September 15 each year to the most recent address of the permit owner. The permit owner shall provide SFD with notice of any address change within 15 days of the change.

        5. A new § 660.336 is added to read as follows:

          § 660.336
          Pacific whiting vessel licenses.
          (a) Pacific whiting vessel license—(1) General. After December 31, 2008, participation in the non-tribal primary whiting season described in § 660.373(b) requires that an owner of any vessel that catches or processes Pacific whiting hold: a limited entry permit, registered for use with that vessel, with a trawl gear endorsement; and, a Pacific whiting vessel license, registered for use with that vessel, appropriate to the sector or sectors in which the vessel intends to participate. Pacific whiting vessel licenses are separate from limited entry permits and do not license a vessel to harvest whiting in the primary whiting season unless that vessel is also registered for use with a limited entry permit with a trawl gear endorsement.
          (2) Pacific whiting vessel license qualifying criteria.

          (i) Qualifying criteria. Vessel catch and/or processing history will be used to determine whether that vessel meets the qualifying criteria for a Pacific whiting vessel license and to participate in a specific sector of the Pacific whiting fishery in 2008 and to determine the sectors for which that vessel may qualify. Vessel catch and/or processing history includes only the catch and/or processed product of that particular vessel, as identified in association with the vessel's USCG number. Only whiting regulated by this subpart that was taken with midwater (or pelagic) trawl gear will be considered for the Pacific whiting vessel license. Whiting harvested or processed by a vessel that has since been totally lost or decommissioned will not be considered for this license. Whiting harvested or processed illegally or landed illegally will not be considered for this license. Catch and/or processing history associated with a vessel whose permit was purchased by the Federal government through the Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program, as identified in 68 FR 62435 - 62440 (November 4, 2003), does not qualify a vessel for a Pacific whiting vessel license and no vessel owner may apply for or receive a Pacific whiting vessel license based on catch and/or processing history from one of those buyback vessels. The following sector-specific license qualification criteria apply:
          (A) For catcher/processor vessels, the qualifying criteria for a Pacific whiting vessel license is evidence of having caught and processed any amount of whiting during a primary catcher/processor season during the period January 1, 1997 through January 1, 2007.
          (B) For mothership at-sea processing vessels, the qualifying criteria for a Pacific whiting vessel license is documentation of having received and processed any amount of whiting during a primary mothership season during the period January 1, 1997 through January 1, 2007.
          (C) For catcher vessels delivering whiting to at-sea mothership processing vessels, the qualifying criteria for a Pacific whiting vessel license is documentation of having delivered any amount of whiting to a mothership processor during a primary mothership season during the period January 1, 1997, through January 1, 2007.
          (D) For catcher vessels delivering whiting to Pacific whiting first receiver, the qualifying criteria for a Pacific whiting vessel license is documentation of having made at least one landing of whiting taken with mid-water trawl gear during a primary shore-based season during the period January 1, 1994, through January 1, 2007, and where the weight of whiting exceeded 50 percent of the total weight of the landing.
          (ii) Documentation and burden of proof. A vessel owner applying for a Pacific whiting vessel license has the burden to submit documentation that qualification requirements are met. An application that does not include documentation of meeting the qualification requirements during the qualifying years will be considered incomplete and will not be reviewed. The following standards apply:
          (A) A certified copy of the current vessel document (USCG or State) is the best documentation of vessel ownership and LOA.
          (B) A certified copy of a State fish receiving ticket is the best documentation of a landing at a Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver, and of the type of gear used.
          (C) For participants in the at-sea whiting fisheries, documentation of participation could include, but is not limited to: a final observer report documenting a particular catcher vessel, mothership, or catcher/processor's participation in the whiting fishery in an applicable year and during the applicable primary season, a bill of lading for whiting from an applicable year and during the applicable primary season, a catcher vessel receipt from a particular mothership known to have participated in the whiting fishery during an applicable year, a signed copy of a Daily Receipt of Fish and Cumulative Production Logbook (mothership sector) or Daily Fishing and Cumulative Production Logbook (catcher/processor sector) from an applicable year during the applicable primary season.
          (E) Such other relevant, credible documentation as the applicant may submit, or the SFD or the Regional Administrator request or acquire, may also be considered.
          (3) Issuance process for Pacific whiting vessel licenses.

          (i) SFD will mail Pacific whiting vessel license applications to all current and prior owners of vessels that have been registered for use with limited entry permits with trawl endorsements, excluding owners of those vessels whose permits were purchased through the Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program. NMFS will also make license applications available online at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Permits/index.cfm. A vessel owner who believes that his/her vessel may qualify for the Pacific whiting vessel license will have until December 31, 2008, to submit an application with documentation showing how his/her vessel has met the qualifying criteria described in this section. NMFS will not accept applications for Pacific whiting vessel licenses received after December 31, 2008.

          (ii) After receipt of a complete application, NMFS will notify applicants by letter of its determination whether their vessels qualify for Pacific whiting vessel licenses and the sector or sectors to which the licenses apply. Vessels that have met the qualification criteria will be issued the appropriate licenses at that time. After December 31, 2008, NMFS will publish a list of vessels that qualified for Pacific whiting vessel licenses in the Federal Register.
          (iii) If a vessel owner files an appeal from the determination under paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section the appeal must be filed with the Regional Administrator within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the letter of determination. The appeal must be in writing and must allege facts or circumstances, and include credible documentation demonstrating why the vessel qualifies for a Pacific whiting vessel license. The appeal of a denial of an application for a Pacific whiting vessel license will not be referred to the Council for a recommendation, nor will any appeals be accepted by NMFS after April 1, 2009.
          (iv) Absent good cause for further delay, the Regional Administrator will issue a written decision on the appeal within 30 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. The Regional Administrator's decision is the final administrative decision of the Department of Commerce as of the date of the decision.
          (4) Notification to NMFS of changes to Pacific whiting vessel license information. The owner of a vessel registered for use with a Pacific whiting vessel license must provide a written request to NMFS to change the name or names of vessel owners provided on the vessel license, or to change the licensed vessel's name. The request must detail the names of all new vessel owners, a business address for the vessel owner, business phone and fax number, tax identification number, date of birth, and/or date of incorporation for each individual and/or entity, and a copy of the vessel documentation (USCG 1270) to show proof of ownership. NMFS will reissue a new vessel license with the names of the new vessel owners and/or vessel name information. The Pacific whiting vessel license is considered void if the name of the vessel or vessel owner is changed from that given on the license. In addition, the vessel owner must report to NMFS any change in address for the vessel owner within 15 days of that change. Although the name of an individual vessel registered for use with a Pacific whiting vessel license may be changed, the license itself may not be registered to any vessel other than the vessel to which it was originally issued, as identified by that vessel's United States Coast Guard documentation number.

        6. Section 660.339 is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.339
          Limited entry permit and Pacific whiting vessel license fees.
          The Regional Administrator will charge fees to cover administrative expenses related to issuance of limited entry permits, and Pacific whiting vessel licenses including initial issuance, renewal, transfer, vessel registration, replacement, and appeals. The appropriate fee must accompany each application.

        7. In § 660.373, paragraph (h) is removed, and paragraphs (i) and (j) are redesignated as (h) and (i), respectively, and paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.373
          Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery management.
          (a) Sectors and licensing requirements. The catcher/processor sector is composed of catcher/processors, which are vessels that harvest and process whiting during a calendar year. The mothership sector is composed of motherships vessels that process whiting and catcher vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to motherships. Motherships are vessels that process, but do not harvest, whiting during a calendar year. The shore-based sector is composed of vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers. In order for a vessel to participate in a particular whiting fishery sector, that vessel must be registered for use with a sector-specific Pacific whiting vessel license under § 660.336.

      [FR Doc. E8-15833 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 249 and 252
        [Docket DARS-2019-0060]
        RIN 0750-AK56
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Modification of DFARS Clause “Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction” (DFARS Case 2019-D019)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update legal and DFARS citations in an existing DFARS clause, conform the clause text to the current DFARS convention regarding the use of dollar thresholds in contract clauses, and remove clause text that is no longer needed to implement the underlying statutory language.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before December 30, 2019, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2019-D019, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2018-D019.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2019-D019” on any attached documents.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2019-D019 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Carrie Moore, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Within the DFARS, statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds that are subject to inflation adjustment under 41 U.S.C. 1908 are identified in the applicable DFARS policy section. Any clause that relies on such a threshold will reference the threshold in the applicable DFARS policy section, instead of citing the actual dollar value. This drafting convention ensures that inflation adjustments of statutory acquisition-related thresholds apply to existing contracts and subcontracts in effect on the date of the adjustment.
        To conform to this drafting convention, this rule proposes to modify the DFARS subpart 249.70 to add the pertinent dollar thresholds of 10 U.S.C. 2501 note, Notice to Contractors and Employees Upon Proposed Termination or Substantial Reduction in Major Defense Programs, and modify DFARS clause 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction, to add references to the statutory thresholds cited at DFARS subpart 249.70.
        In addition, DFARS clause 252.249-7002 advises contractors of the benefits that may be available to affected employees through the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1661 and 1662; Pub. L. 97-300). The Job Training and Partnership Act was repealed and superseded by the Workforce Investment Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. chapter 30; Pub. L. 105-220), which was later repealed and superseded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. chapter 32; Pub. L. 113-128). This rule proposes to modify DFARS clause 252.249-7002 to reflect the current statute associated with the 10 U.S.C. 2501 note and make other conforming changes.
        II. Discussion and Analysis

        DFARS clause 252.249-7002 is included in all contracts under a major defense program and implements the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2501 note. The 10 U.S.C. 2501 note requires contractors, upon receiving notice of contract termination or a substantial reduction in funding resulting from an appropriations act, to provide notice of the anticipated termination or substantial reduction to first-tier subcontractors with a subcontract of $700,000 or more, and flow down the notification to lower-tier subcontractors with a subcontract of $150,000 or more. To implement the dollar thresholds of the 10 U.S.C. 2501 note in accordance with the current DFARS drafting convention, the rule adds the relevant dollar thresholds in DFARS 249.7003, and updates the clause text to refer to the thresholds added to DFARS 249.7003.
        This rule also proposes to amend the DFARS clause to cite the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which is the current statute under which employee employment and training opportunities apply, and to conform the clause with the current requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2501 note. Public Law 103-160 amended 10 U.S.C. 2501 note to specify which services under title 29 of the U.S.C. an employee could be eligible for, depending on whether the termination or reduction will or will not result in plant closure or mass layoffs. This specification of available services based on results of the notification was removed from 10 U.S.C. 2501 note by Public Law 105-277; therefore, this rule removes this delineation from the DFARS clause. In addition, the thresholds for the subcontractor notification requirements is revised to state “exceeds” in lieu of “equals or exceeds” to align with the statute.

        The revision of this DFARS clause implements a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 35741 on August 1, 2017, and requested public input. One public comment was received on this clause. Subsequently, the DoD Task Force reviewed the requirements of DFARS clause 252.249-7002 and determined that the clause should be modified. A summary of the comment received and the response to the respondent is provided as follows:

          Comment: The respondent advised that the clause imposes administrative burden on contractors and is difficult to manage at the multi-tier level.

          Response: The clause is necessary to implement the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2501 note, which identifies notification responsibilities for DoD, as well as certain DoD contractors and their subcontractors, when funding levels in an appropriation act may result in the termination or substantial reduction of funding for contracts under a major defense program. The clause ensures contractors and subcontractors comply with the law and are aware of the benefits potentially available to their employees that are adversely affected by the termination or reduction in funds.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items
        This proposed rule does not create any new provisions or clauses. The rule simply updates legal and DFARS citations in the clause and removes unnecessary information. This rule does not change the applicability of the affected clause, which does not apply to contracts valued at or below the SAT, or for commercial or COTS items.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13771
        This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule is not creating any new requirements for contractors or changing any existing policies and practices. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:
        DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to modify the text of DFARS clause 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction, to: (1) Update legal and DFARS citations in the clause; (2) remove text that is no longer necessary to implement 10 U.S.C. 2501 note; and (3) conform the clause text to the current DFARS convention for referencing dollar thresholds in a clause. The update of legal and DFARS citations is pursuant to action taken by the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force under Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.
        The objective of this proposed rule is to provide current information to contractors and maintain consistency within the DFARS clause text.
        DoD does not collect data on the number of small businesses that have been awarded contracts under a major defense programs and have also received notice of contract termination or a substantial reduction in funding resulting from an appropriations act. Due to the complexity and magnitude of major defense program contracts, the prime contracts are generally awarded to major contractors, and not to small entities. Senior DoD program acquisition officials estimate that such notification of the termination or substantial reduction in a major defense program does not occur, on the average, more than once or twice per year. However, this rule is not expected to have a significant impact on small business entities, as it does not impose any new requirements or change any existing requirements for small business entities.
        This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no known alternatives to the rule that will meet the stated objectives of the statutes or minimize the impact on of the rule on small entities.
        DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2019-D019) in correspondence.
        VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, the changes to DFARS 252.249-7002 do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0533, titled: DFARS Subpart 249—Termination of Contracts.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 249 and 252
          Government procurement.

          Jennifer Lee Hawes,
          Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, 48 CFR parts 249 and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 249 and 252 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

          PART 249—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

        2. Amend section 249.7003 by—
        a. In paragraph (a), removing “Section 824” and “Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1661 and 1662)” and adding “section 824” and “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. Chapter 32) (Pub. L. 113-128)” respectively, in their places;
        b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing “to:” and adding “to—” in its place;
        c. In paragraph (b)(1), removing “act.” And adding “act; and” in its place;
        d. Revising paragraph (c).
        The revision reads as follows:

          249.7003
           Notification of anticipated contract terminations or reductions.

          (c) When subcontracts have been issued, the prime contractor is responsible for—
          (1) Providing notice of the termination or substantial reduction in funding to all first-tier subcontractors with a subcontract valued equal to or greater than $700,000; and
          (2) Requiring that each subcontractor—
          (i) Provide such notice to each of its subcontractors for subcontracts valued greater than $150,000; and
          (ii) Impose a similar notice and flowdown requirement in subcontracts valued greater than $150,000 at all tiers.

        3. Add section 249.7004 to read as follows:

          249.7004
          Contract clause.
          Use the clause at 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction, in all contracts under a major defense program.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        3. Amend section 252.249-7002 by—
        a. In the introductory text, removing “249.7003(c)” and adding “249.7004” in its place;
        b. Removing the clause date “(MAY 2019)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place;
        c. Revising paragraph (b);
        d. Redesignating the paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(1) and paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iv), respectively.
        e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(1)(iii);
        f. Adding paragraph (c)(2);

        g. In paragraph (d)(1), removing “225.870-4(c)(2)(i)(A)(1) and adding “249.7003(c)(1)” in its place;
        h. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii); and
        i. Removing paragraph (e).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          252.249-7002
           Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction.

          (b) Scope. This clause implements section 1372 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Pub. L. 103-160) and section 824 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Pub. L. 104-201), which are intended to help establish benefit eligibility under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. chapter 32) (Pub. L. 113-128) for employees of DoD contractors and subcontractors adversely affected by contract terminations or substantial reductions under major defense programs.
          (c) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) The State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities described in section 134(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(a)(2)(A)(i)); and

          (2) The notice provided an employee under paragraph (c) of this clause shall have the same effect as a notice of termination to the employee for the purposes of determining whether such employee is eligible for training, adjustment assistance, and employment services under section Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. chapter 3101) (Pub. L. 113-128).
          (d) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) Provide notice to each of its subcontractors with a subcontract that exceeds the threshold specified in DFARS 249.7003(c)(2)(i) at the time of the notice; and
          (ii) Impose a similar notice and flowdown requirement to subcontractors with subcontracts that exceed the threshold specified in DFARS 249.7003(c)(2)(ii) at the time of the notice.

      [FR Doc. 2019-23807 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 5001-06-P