        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 120403249-2230-01]
        RIN 0648-BC03
        Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Snapper-Grouper Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS publishes this proposed rule to implement a regulatory amendment (Regulatory Amendment 12) to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would modify the golden tilefish annual catch limit (ACL), which would be equal to the optimum yield (OY), as well as revise the recreational accountability measures (AMs) for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The intent of this rule is to modify management measures for golden tilefish in the commercial and recreational sectors in the South Atlantic based on new stock assessment analyses.

          DATES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before August 20, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0087” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Instructions” for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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 (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous).

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0087” in the search field and click on “search.” After you locate the document “Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Snapper-Grouper Management Measures,” click the “Submit a Comment” link in that row. This will display the comment Web form. You can then enter your submitter information (unless you prefer to remain anonymous), and type your comment on the Web form. You can also attach additional files (up to 10MB) in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          For further assistance with submitting a comment, see the “Commenting” section at http://www.regulations.gov/#!faqs or the Help section at http://www.regulations.gov.

          Electronic copies of documents supporting this proposed rule including an environmental assessment, initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/SASnapperGrouperHomepage.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karla Gore, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: Karla.Gore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing, to achieve (on a continuing basis) the OY from federally managed fish stocks, and to rebuild stocks that have been determined to be overfished. These mandates ensure management of fishery resources for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2007 required implementation of new tools to help end and prevent overfishing to achieve the OY from a fishery. The tools are ACLs and AMs.
        An ACL is the level of annual catch of a stock that, if met or exceeded, triggers some corrective action through AMs. The AMs are management controls to prevent exceeding the ACLs and to correct for overages of ACLs if they occur. An AM might be an in-season closure if catch approaches the ACL, or it may require reducing the ACL for the following fishing year because of an overage that occurred during the previous fishing year. ACLs may not exceed the overfishing limit (OFL) and the acceptable biological catch (ABC). The OFL is an estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring and may come from a stock assessment. The ABC is defined as the level of a stock's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty, and is based on the Council's ABC control rule.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule

        This proposed rule, if implemented, would modify the ACL for golden tilefish. In 2011, ACLs and AMs were implemented for golden tilefish through the Amendment 17B to the FMP (75 FR 82280, December 30, 2010). Since then, golden tilefish have been assessed through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process using data through 2010. The stock assessment for golden tilefish indicated that the South Atlantic population is not overfished nor undergoing overfishing. Results from the recent stock assessment (SEDAR 25 2011) suggest that the current South Atlantic golden tilefish ACL (326,554 lb (148,122 kg), round weight, or 291,566 lb (132,252 kg), gutted weight), can be increased. The current South Atlantic golden tilefish commercial ACL is 316,757 lb (143,679 kg), round weight, or 282,819 lb (128,285 kg), gutted weight; and the recreational ACL is 1,578 fish. If implemented, the commercial and recreational ACLs for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic would be set at the yield associated with 75 percent fishing mortality that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) while the population is at equilibrium. Therefore, this proposed rule would increase the current South Atlantic golden tilefish ACL to 625,000 lb (283,495 kg), round weight, or 558,036 lb (253,121 kg), gutted weight. The ACLs would continue to be split using the existing recreational (3 percent) and commercial (97 percent) sector allocation. Therefore, if implemented, this proposed rule would set the South Atlantic golden tilefish commercial ACL equal to 606,250 lb (274,990 kg), round weight, or 541,295 lb (245,527 kg), gutted weight, and the recreational ACL equal to 3,019 fish. The ACLs would be set at this level to ensure there is a buffer between the ACLs and ABC (668,000 lb (303,000 kg), round weight, or 596,429 lb (270,536 kg), gutted weight) to account for management uncertainty. Equilibrium values represent the yield expected, on average, over a long period from a given management strategy. Using the estimated equilibrium values as a catch limit is a risk-averse approach that sacrifices some yield over the short-term to gain stability over the long-term and prevent unrealistic expectations of fishery potential by constituents.
        This proposed rule would also modify the AMs for the golden tilefish recreational sector of the snapper-grouper fishery. If recreational landings for golden tilefish meet, or are projected to meet the recreational ACL, NMFS will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. Additionally, if the ACL is exceeded, the current recreational AMs for golden tilefish use a 3-year running average to determine if the length of the following fishing season needs to be reduced to ensure that the ACL is not exceeded in the following year. The 3-year running average could be heavily influenced by a single year's anomalously high or low landings, which may or may not be due to actual increases in harvest or statistical variation. This proposed rule would eliminate the 3-year running average and use landings in a single year instead to reduce the risk of implementing overly conservative AMs when they are not needed.
        Management Measures Contained in Regulatory Amendment 12
        Additionally, Regulatory Amendment 12 revises OY for golden tilefish and would establish the ACL equal to the OY and equal to the yield at 75 percent of the fishing mortality at MSY when the population is at equilibrium.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, Regulatory Amendment 12, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA for this rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and 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 copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        The proposed rule would not introduce any changes to current reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements in the golden tilefish segment of the snapper-grouper fishery.
        NMFS expects the proposed rule to directly affect commercial fishers and for-hire operators. The Small Business Administration established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters and for-hire operations. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, other qualifiers apply and the annual receipts threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
        A total of 142 vessels using hook-and-line gear and 38 vessels using longline gear landed golden tilefish in any one year during 2005-2010. Vessels using hook-and-line gear landed an annual average of about 27,000 lb (12,247 kg), gutted weight, of golden tilefish and 220,000 lb (99,790 kg), gutted weight, of other snapper-grouper species. Gross revenues of these vessels annually averaged $76,000 (2010 dollars) from golden tilefish and $567,000 (2010 dollars) from other snapper-grouper species. For 2005-2010, vessels using longline gear landed an annual average of about 298,000 lb (135,172 kg), gutted weight, of golden tilefish and 153,000 lb (69,400 kg), gutted weight, of other snapper-grouper species. For this period, their revenues annually averaged $802,000 from golden tilefish and $286,000 from other snapper-grouper species. On average, vessels using hook-and-line gear depended on other snapper-grouper species for a majority of their revenues while vessels using longline gear depended on golden tilefish as their major source of revenues. Obviously, some vessels using hook-and-line gear could be expected to be more dependent on golden tilefish as a major source of revenues. Similarly, some vessels using longline gear could be more dependent on other snapper-grouper species as a major source of revenues. These vessels, using hook-and-line or longline gear, are assumed to comprise the universe of commercial vessels directly affected by actions in this regulatory amendment, including the ACL alternatives. It is possible that, with the proposed ACL increase, other commercial vessels may enter or re-enter the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery, but it is not reasonably possible to determine how many vessels would do so.
        Based on revenue information, all commercial vessels affected by the proposed action can be considered small entities.
        From 2005-2010, an annual average of 1,985 vessels had valid permits to operate in the snapper-grouper for-hire sector, of which 85 are estimated to have operated as headboats. The for-hire fleet consists of charterboats, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. The charterboat annual average gross revenue (2010 dollars) is estimated to range from approximately $62,000-$84,000 for Florida vessels, $73,000-$89,000 for North Carolina vessels, $68,000-$83,000 for Georgia vessels, and $32,000-$39,000 for South Carolina vessels. For headboats, the corresponding revenue estimates are $170,000-$362,000 for Florida vessels, and $149,000-$317,000 for vessels in the other states.
        Based on these average revenue figures, all for-hire operations that would be affected by the proposed action can be considered small entities.
        Some fleet activity, i.e., multiple vessels owned by a single entity, may exist in both the commercial and for-hire snapper-grouper sectors to an unknown extent, and all vessels are considered as independent entities in this analysis.

        NMFS expects the proposed rule to directly affect all federally permitted commercial vessels harvesting golden tilefish and for-hire vessels that operate in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. All directly affected entities have been determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities. Therefore, NMFS determines that the proposed action would affect a substantial number of small entities.
        Because NMFS determines that all entities expected to be affected by the actions in this proposed rule are small entities, the issue of disproportional effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
        Given that the current commercial AM is maintained, the proposed ACL increase would result in revenue increases to the commercial vessels. It is also expected that such revenue increases would lead to profit increases, although the magnitude of profit increases cannot be estimated based on available information.
        The recreational sector has exceeded its ACL in recent years. In 2011, this sector exceeded its ACL by more than 500 percent. The proposed ACL increase would not be enough to compensate for the expected overages in the recreational sector. Hence, with the proposed in-season and post-season AM for the recreational sector, the for-hire entities may be expected to experience profit reductions even with the proposed ACL increase. The magnitude of such profit reduction cannot be estimated based on available information.
        Because the commercial sector harvests much more golden tilefish than the recreational sector, receiving 97 percent of the combined ACL, it is likely that the profit increases to the commercial sector would cumulatively outweigh the profit decreases to the for-hire sector. NMFS expects that the proposed ACL increase would yield positive net profit to small entities that participate in the golden tilefish segment of the snapper-grouper fishery.
        Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for revising the ACL and OY for golden tilefish. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the existing ACL, which is equal to OY and OY equal to 75 percent of the fishing mortality at MSY. This is not a viable alternative because, based on updated biomass information, it would result in an ACL that is greater than the ABC recommended by the Council's SSC. The second alternative would set the ACL equal to OY and OY equal to ABC. Due to its larger ACL, this alternative would result in larger short-term revenue and profit increases to commercial vessels than the preferred alternative. For the same reason, it would also result in better fishing opportunities and possibly higher profits to for-hire vessels than the preferred alternative. However, this alternative poses some risks, largely absent in the preferred alternative, of pushing the stock to an overfished level—fishery managers can overshoot the equilibrium biomass target, which could result in the population biomass dropping below both target and limit levels. In addition, this alternative provides for declining ACLs over time, which would tend to invite controversy especially when the stock is abundant and not overfished. On the other hand, the preferred alternative would provide for stable harvest levels over time that, although lower than those of the second alternative, would still be substantially higher than current levels. The third alternative would set the ACL equal to the OY and the OY equal to 90 percent of the ABC. The fourth alternative would set the ACL equal to the OY and the OY equal to 80 percent of the ABC. These two other alternatives would provide for lower ACLs than the preferred alternative, and thus lower economic benefits as well.
        Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for revising the recreational AMs for golden tilefish. The first alternative, the no action alternative, is a post-season AM and employs a 3-year averaging method for determining ACL overages. Without an in-season AM, this alternative would not be as effective as the preferred alternative in preventing overages in the recreational sector. In addition, given the relatively large recreational harvests in recent years, the 3-year averaging method for determining ACL overages could potentially trigger the application of the AM even if no overages occurred in the current year. This would result in short-term reductions in profits and might also delay the benefits that would accrue from increasing the sector's ACL. The second alternative would specify a recreational sector AM trigger and includes two sub-alternatives, including the preferred sub-alternative. The first sub-alternative would not specify a recreational sector AM trigger, thus possibly limiting adverse effects on the profits of small entities. However, it would not provide for a measurable index in addressing the overages in the recreational sector. The third alternative would specify a recreational sector in-season AM and includes two sub-alternatives, including the preferred sub-alternative. The first sub-alternative would not specify a recreational sector in-season AM. This sub-alternative would likely result in higher profits to small entities than the preferred sub-alternative. However, it would not address the overages in the recreational sector that would eventually result in more restrictive regulations and larger reductions in the profits of small entities. The fourth alternative would specify a recreational sector post-season AM and includes two sub-alternatives, including the preferred sub-alternative. The first sub-alternative would specify a recreational sector post-season AM in terms of paybacks for the prior year's overages if golden tilefish were overfished. This sub-alternative would likely result in larger profit reductions to small entities than the preferred sub-alternative. Moreover, this sub-alternative would be unnecessary because golden tilefish is not overfished.
        In this regulatory amendment, the Council considered four alternatives for a commercial sector ACT for which the no action alternative is the preferred alternative. The other alternatives would set a commercial ACT equal to 90 percent, 75 percent, or 50 percent of ACL. If the Council had decided to use the ACT to close the commercial harvest and prohibit the sale of golden tilefish, these other alternatives would likely result in larger profit reductions to small entities than the preferred alternative.

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

          Dated: July 17, 2012.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
          1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 622.42, paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.42
            Quotas.

            (e) * * *

            (2) Golden tilefish—541,295 lb (245,527 kg).

            3. In § 622.49, the heading for § 622.49 is revised, and paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) are revised to read as follows:

            § 622.49
            Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Commercial sector. If commercial landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL (commercial quota) specified in § 622.42(e)(2), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year.
            (ii) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for golden tilefish, as estimated by the SRD, meet or are projected to meet the recreational ACL of 3,019 fish, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. If recreational landings for golden tilefish, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year.

      [FR Doc. 2012-17750 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 020313058-2058-01; I.D. 030402A]
        RIN 0648-AP07
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2002 Specifications for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Regulatory Amendment

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery for the 2002 fishing year, which is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003.  The implementing regulations for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish specifications for the upcoming fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment.  The intent is to specify the commercial quota and other management measures, such as trip limits, to address overfishing of the spiny dogfish resource.  This proposed rule would make a correction to the Spiny Dogfish regulations to indicate that the target fishing mortality rate (F) specified for the period May 1, 2003 - April 30, 2004 should be F=0.03.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on April 8, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.  Mark on the outside of the envelope, “Comments—2002 Spiny Dogfish Specifications.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee and the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee; the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA); and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFHA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Federal Building, Room 2115, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19904.  The EA, RIR, IRFA and EFHA are accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nero.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Bonnie L. Van Pelt, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)281-9244, fax (978)281-9135, e-mail bonnie.l.vanpelt@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Spiny dogfish were declared overfished by NMFS on April 3, 1998, and added to that year’s list of overfished stocks in the Report on the Status of the Fisheries of the United States, prepared pursuant to section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Consequently, the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the preparation of measures to end overfishing and to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock.  A joint FMP was developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils) during 1998 and 1999.  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) was designated as the administrative lead on the FMP.
        The regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L, outline the process for specifying annually the commercial quota and other management measures (e.g., minimum or maximum fish sizes, seasons, mesh size restrictions, trip limits, and other gear restrictions) for the spiny dogfish fishery to achieve the annual target F specified in the FMP.  The target F for the 2002 fishing year is 0.03.
        The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee), comprised of representatives from states, MAFMC staff, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) staff, NMFS staff and two non-voting, ex-officio industry representatives (one each from the MAFMC and NEFMC regions) is required to review annually the best available information and to recommend a commercial quota and other management measures necessary to achieve the target F for the upcoming fishing year.  The Council’s Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee) then considers the Monitoring Committee's recommendations and any public comment in making its recommendation to the two Councils.  Afterwards, the MAFMC and the NEFMC make their recommendations to NMFS.  NMFS reviews those recommendations to assure they are consistent with the target F level, and publishes proposed measures for public comment.
        Monitoring Committee Recommendations

        The Monitoring Committee met on September 11, 2001, to review updated stock assessment information.  Based on a 3-year average (1999-2001), fishing mortality was estimated at F= 0.27, far above the overfishing threshold level of 0.11.  This level of F reflects overfishing in the fishery before the FMP was implemented.  Using 1999-2001 Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring survey trawl data and commercial landings data through 2000, the Monitoring Committee noted a reduction in the biomass of adult females (>80 cm) throughout the time series (1978 - 2001).  The average size of female dogfish has declined from greater than 8.8 lb (4 kg) in 1987 to about 4.40 lb (2 kg) in 2000.  Since 1990, the estimate of mature female biomass has declined steadily.  The decline in estimated biomass of mature females and large males is consistent with cumulative removals from a slow growing stock.  These results suggest that total removals have exceeded productive capacity of the stock.  The 3-year average of swept area female biomass (>80 cm) for the period 1999 - 2001, has declined to about 34 percent of the recommended biomass rebuilding target (Bmsy) of 200,000 mt (441 million lb).
        NEFMC survey data show a reduction in the biomass of spiny dogfish pups based on the decline in biomass of dogfish less than 35 cm (13.8 inch).  The survey indices for pups have continued to be the lowest in the 33-year time series for the past 5 consecutive years (1997 - 2001), indicating recruitment failure.
        The Monitoring Committee estimated the yield associated with a F=0.03 for 2002 to be 4.0 million lb (1.81 million kg), assuming the current stock size.  The Monitoring Committee recommended a 4-million pound (1.81-million kg) commercial quota for spiny dogfish for the 2002-2003 fishing season, divided into the two semi-annual periods as specified in the FMP:  57.9 percent for quota period 1 (May-October), or 2,316,000 lb (1.05 million kg), and 42.1 percent for quota period 2 (November-April), or 1,684,000 lb (763,849 kg).  The Monitoring Committee also recommended maintaining a trip limit of 600 lb (272 kg) for quota period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota period 2 (vessels are prohibited from landing more than the specified amount in any one calendar day).  The Monitoring Committee also expressed concern that even the current restrictive rebuilding strategy may be too liberal to accomplish the rebuilding objectives of the FMP (i.e., rebuilding to SSBmax), even in the long term.
        Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee Recommendations
        The Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee) met on September 28, 2001, to consider the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee, and to make a recommendation to the Councils.  The Joint Committee recommended that the Councils, using whatever means necessary, adopt a fishing mortality rate for the 2002-2003 fishing season that would be consistent with a commercial quota of 8.8 million lb (4 million kg).  In addition, the Joint Committee recommended trip limits of 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) for both quota periods.
        Alternatives Proposed by the Councils
        The MAFMC and NEFMC voted upon recommendations for year four (2002-2003) management measures at their respective meetings in October and November 2001.  The MAFMC adopted the Monitoring Committee recommendations for a commercial quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) and trip limits of 600 lb (272 kg) for quota period 1 (May 1 - Oct. 31) and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota period 2 (Nov. 1 - April 30).  The NEFMC adopted the Joint Committee recommendation for a fishing mortality rate consistent with a commercial quota of 8.8 million lb (4 million kg), and trip limits of 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) for both quota periods.
        Proposed 2002 Measures

        At both Council meetings NMFS noted that it was not possible to modify the FMP target F through the annual specifications as was recommended by the NEFMC, because such a change would require an FMP amendment.  NMFS reviewed both Councils’ recommendations and concluded that the MAFMC recommendation would assure that the target F is not exceeded.  NMFS proposes a commercial spiny dogfish quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) for the 2002 fishing year to be divided into two semi-annual periods as follows:  2,316,000 lb (1.05 million kg) for Quota period 1 (May 1, 2001-Oct. 31, 2001); and 1,684,000 lb (763,849 kg) for Quota period 2 (Nov. 1, 2001-April 30, 2002).  In addition, NMFS proposes to maintain trip limits of 600 lb (272 kg) for Quota period 1, and 300 lb (136 kg) for Quota period 2 to discourage a directed fishery.  The directed fishery has traditionally targeted large mature female spiny dogfish, the stock component that is most in need of protection and rebuilding.  A trip limit level of 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) could result in a directed fishery, which is inconsistent with the rebuilding program.  Maintaining the limits of 600 lb (272 kg) and 300 lb (136 kg) for Quota period 1 and Quota period 2, respectively, would allow for the retention of spiny dogfish caught incidentally while fishing for other species, but discourage directed fishing and, therefore, provide protection for mature female spiny dogfish.
        This proposed rule would also make a correction to the spiny dogfish regulations, because they mistakenly specify a target F=0.08 to begin on May 1, 2003.  The FMP requires that the target of F=0.03 be maintained through the end of the fishing year 2003-2004.
        Classification
        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared that describes the 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 of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.  A summary of the analysis follows.
        The small entities considered in the analysis include 488 vessels that have reported spiny dogfish landings to NMFS in 2000 (the most recent year for which there is vessel-specific data).  In addition, there are vessels that are not subject to the Federal reporting requirements because they fish exclusively in state waters.  It is not possible to identify these vessels, but some number of them are likely to be impacted.  There is no reason to presume the impacts on these vessels would be substantially different from the impact on Federally-permitted vessels.
        Furthermore, there are a large number of vessels that have been issued Federal spiny dogfish permits, but have not fished for spiny dogfish (a total of 2,079 vessels were issued the permit in 2001).  It is presumed that these vessels are interested in the fishery but have chosen not to participate under the restrictive trip limits.  If any of these vessels should choose to participate in the upcoming fishing year, they might experience revenue increases associated with landings of spiny dogfish but those increases cannot be estimated.
        NMFS considered three alternatives.  The action recommended in this proposed rule includes a commercial quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg), and trip limits of 600 lb (272 kg) during Quota period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) during Quota period 2.  Alternative 2 includes a commercial quota of 8.8 million lb (4 million kg) and trip limit of 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) for both quota periods.  Alternative 3 evaluates the impact of having no management measures.
        The potential changes in 2002 revenues under the 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) quota were evaluated relative to landings and revenues derived during 2001:  4.6 million lb (2.08 million kg) of landings, valued at $1,012,000.  The analysis is based on the last full fishing year of landings data and assumed that the revenues of the 488 vessels that landed spiny dogfish in 2000 would be reduced proportionately by the proposed action.  The reduction in overall gross revenues to the fishery as a whole was estimated to be about $132,000, or about $270 per vessel, compared to fishing year 2001.
        The proposed trip limits of 600 lb (272 kg) in Quota period 1, and 300 lb (136 kg) in Quota period 2 represent a continuation of the trip limits established for fishing year 2001 and have no new impact.  The trip limit analysis projected that, on average, under a 600 lb (272 kg) trip limit for quota period 1, landings exceeded the semi-annual quota of 2,316,000 lb (1.05 million kg) on about September 5, 2000 (128 days into the quota period).  During Quota period 2, however, if a 300-lb (136-kg) possession limit was in effect, landings were projected not to exceed the semi-annual quota of 1,684,000 lb (763,849 kg).  The analysis projected landings of only 615,000 lb (278,959 kg) during quota period 2.  Thus, approximately 1,069,000 lb (484,890 kg) of allowable spiny dogfish landings were projected not to be landed.  Although the commercial quota is 4 million lb (1.81 million kg), total projected landings would only reach 2.93 million lb (1.33 million kg).  However, the analysis does not account for behavioral changes by vessel operators that could impact the amount of landings.  Also, since vessels without Federal permits are not captured in the analysis, yet their landings count towards the quota, it is likely that additional landings will occur.  In fact, during the 2001 fishing year, under identical trip limits and commercial quota,  period 1 was open for 52 days under a 600-lb (272-kg) trip limit and period 2 was open for 20 days under a 300-lb (136-kg) trip limit.
        Under Alternative 2, the quota would increase to 8.8 million lb (4 million kg).  This represents an increase from landings in fishing year 2001 of 4.2 million lb (1.91 million kg), valued at $924,000.  Assuming that the increase is shared among the 488 that landed spiny dogfish in fishing year 2000, each vessel would experience revenue increases of $1,893.  However, this quota is inconsistent with the target F required by the FMP.
        Under Alternative 2, trip limits of 7,000 lb (3,175 kg), the semi-annual quota of 5,095,200 lb (2.31 million kg) would be exceeded on average approximately 55 days into quota period 1 and the semi-annual quota of 3,704,800 lb (1.68 million kg) would be exceeded approximately 80 days into quota period 2.
        Although more vessels would find it profitable to land spiny dogfish under a trip limit of 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) while the season is open, the season would close sooner than under the lower trip limits.  Vessels may still be able to make profitable trips by directing on other species and landing up to the trip limit of 600 lb (272 kg) or 300 lb (136 kg) of spiny dogfish.  Revenues from spiny dogfish alone would be minimal, but the lower trip limits would likely end the directed fishery, consistent with the FMP.  If major spiny dogfish markets are eliminated as a result of low supply due to a low trip limit or quick closure of the fishery, much of the revenue from the spiny dogfish fishery would also be drastically reduced.
        Under Alternative 3, with no quota or management measures, landings are projected to be 24.9 million lb (11,294 mt) in 2002-2003.  This represents an increase from 2001 landings of 20.3 million lb (9.2 million kg).  Increases in gross revenues to vessels would be about $4.5 million.  Gross revenues for vessels engaged in the spiny dogfish fishery would be expected to increase, on average, by about $9,151 per vessel in fishing year 2002.  Although unrestricted fishing would result in higher short-term landings and revenues, compared to fishing year 2001, this would be inconsistent with the rebuilding program established in the FMP, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        According to 2000 landings information, the impact of the proposed specifications for the 2002 fishing year will be  greatest in Massachusetts which accounted for the largest share of the landings (28.5 percent), followed by New Jersey (25.8 percent), North Carolina (14.1 percent), New Hampshire (11.5 percent) and New York (9.4 percent).  The top four ports which landed spiny dogfish in 2000 included Chatham, MA (21 percent); Point Pleasant, NJ (17.4 percent); Hampton Bay, NY (8.5 percent); and Portsmouth, NH (8.3 percent).
        The proposed correction to the target F will have no impact on any business entity, since it does not modify the status quo.
        It has been determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
        This proposed rule does not contain or involve any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

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

          Dated: March 18, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

            PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

          2.  In § 648.230, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.230
            Catch quotas and other restrictions.

          (a) Annual review.  The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will annually review the following data, subject to availability, to determine the total allowable level of landings (TAL) and other restrictions necessary to assure a target fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.2 in 1999 through April 30, 2000, a target F of 0.03 from May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2004, and a target F of 0.08 thereafter will not be exceeded:  Commercial and recreational catch data; current estimates of F; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of spiny dogfish; and any other relevant information.

      [FR Doc. 02-6983 Filed 3-21-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [CA 226-0226; FRL-6960-5]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We are proposing a limited approval to revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning particulate matter (PM-10) emissions and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from incineration and from fuel burning equipment.
          The intended effect of proposing a limited approval of these rules is to strengthen the federally approved SIP by incorporating this revision. EPA's final action on this proposal will incorporate these rules into the SIP. While strengthening the SIP, this revision contains deficiencies which the VCAPCD must address before EPA can grant full approval under section 110(k)(3).

          We are also proposing full approval of a revision to the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP concerning nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from boilers, steam generators, and process heaters.
          We are following the CAA requirements for actions on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for attainment and nonattainment areas.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by April 30, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
          You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions at the following locations:

          Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460
          California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
          Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
          Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rules did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of these rules?
          C. What are the purposes or changes in the submitted rules?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
          B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. What are the rule deficiencies?
          D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
          E. Proposed action and public comment
          III. Background information
          Why were these rules submitted?
          IV. Administrative Requirements

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What Rules did the State Submit?
        Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted to us by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          Table 1.—Submitted Rules

            Local Agency
            Rule #
            Rule Title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            BAAQMD
            Manual of Procedures, volume I, chapter 5
            Boiler, Steam Generator, and Process Heater Tuning Procedure
            09/15/93
            07/23/96

            VCAPCD
            57
            Combustion Contaminants—Specific
            06/14/77
            01/21/00

            VCAPCD
            68
            Carbon Monoxide
            06/14/77
            01/21/00

        On October 30, 1996, March 1, 2000, and March 1, 2000, respectively, these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
        There are no previous versions of BAAQMD Manual of Procedures, volume I, chapter 5 in the SIP.
        We previously approved a version of VCAPCD Rule 57 into the SIP on August 15, 1977 (42 FR 41121).
        We previously approved a version of VCAPCD Rule 68 into the SIP on September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19806).
        C. What are the Purposes or Changes in the Submitted Rules?

        BAAQMD Rule Manual of Procedures, volume I, chapter 5 is a step-wise procedure for tuning boilers, steam generators, and process heaters to provide sufficient oxygen for complete combustion, but not too much oxygen for minimization of NOX formation. The tuning procedure is required by BAAQMD Rule 9-7, Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters.
        VCAPCD Rules 57 and 68 both add an exemption for jet engine and rocket engine test stands to the fuel burning equipment sections of the rules.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

        We evaluated these rules for enforceability and consistency with the CAA as amended in 1990, with 40 CFR part 51, and with EPA's RACT Guidance, NOX policy, and PM-10 policy. BAAQMD is a NOX attainment area and an ozone nonattainment area.1
           Ozone nonattainment areas must meet the requirements of RACT according to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA. VCAPCD is a PM-10 maintenance attainment area and a CO attainment area.

            1 On July 10, 1998 (63 FR 37258), EPA published the final rule redesignating the San Francisco Bay Area to nonattainment with the federal 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation was authorized under the general nonattainment provisions of subpart 1 of the Act. The Bay Area, therefore, does not have a subpart 2 classification. When comparing air quality in the Bay Area to the traditional subpart 2 classification system, the Bay Area's design value is equivalent to that of a moderate area.

        Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate the rules are as follows:
        • PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).
        • Sourcebook: NOX
          Control Technical Data (EPA-600/2-91-029).

        • Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
          Federal Register (52 FR 45044) (The Blue Book).
        B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
        BAAQMD Manual of Procedures, volume I, chapter 5 meets the evaluation criteria.
        The adoption of revised VCAPCD Rules 57 and 68 improves the SIP by bringing the SIP into conformance with long historical practice in the District. Although, the addition of an exemption may, under certain circumstances, lessen the stringency of the SIP, approval of the revised Rules VCAPCD 57 and 68 is not inconsistent with sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA for the following reasons:
        • There are two sources of jet engine and rocket engine test stand PM-10 emissions in the VCAPCD that are regulated by permit and are allowed to emit up to 2.13 and 5.44 tons/year PM-10, respectively. These small uncontrolled sources are included in the air quality management plant for the District without any credit taken for controls. Therefore, exempting these small sources from Rule 57 will not cause a violation of the NAAQS for PM-10.
        • There are two sources of jet engine and rocket engine test stand CO emissions in the VCAPCD that are regulated by permit are allowed to emit up to 839 and 17 tons/year CO, respectively. These uncontrolled sources are included in the air quality management plan for the District without any credit taken for controls. In a letter from CARB to EPA Region IX dated May 7, 1979, CARB concluded that the exemption to Rule 68 would not prevent attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS for CO. Therefore, we do not expect these sources to cause a violation of the NAAQS for CO.
        C. What are the Rule Deficiencies?
        VCAPCD Rules 57 and 68 have the following deficiencies that prevent full approval:
        • The enforceability is limited, because EPA-approved test methods are not included in the rules.
        • The enforceability is limited, because monitoring is not required by the rules.
        • The enforceability is limited, because recordkeeping is not required by the rules.
        D. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
        The TSD for VCAPCD Rule 68 describes an additional rule revision that does not affect EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
        E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
        As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, we are proposing a limited approval of VCAPCD Rules 57 and 68 to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP. No sanctions under section 179 are associated with this proposed action.
        As authorized in section 110(k) of the Act, we are proposing a full approval of BAAQMD Manual of Procedures, volume I, chapter 5 to improve the SIP.
        We will accept comments from the public on the proposed full approval and proposed limited approvals for the next 30 days.
        III. Background Information
        Why Were These Rules Submitted?
        PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency PM-10 rules.

          Table 2.—PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones

            Date
            Event

            March 3, 1978
            EPA promulgated a list of total suspended particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.

            July 1, 1987
            EPA replaced the TSP standards with new PM standards applying only up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672.

            November 15, 1990
            Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

            November 15, 1990
            PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA were designated nonattainment by operation of law and classified as moderate or serious pursuant to section 189(a). States are required by section 110(a) to submit rules regulating PM-10 emissions in order to achieve the attainment dates specified in section 188(c).

        CO harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control CO emissions. Table 3 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency CO rules.

            Table 3.—CO Nonattainment Milestones

            Date
            Event

            March 3, 1987
            EPA promulgated a list of CO nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 40 CFR 81.305.

            November 15, 1990
            Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671g.

            November 15, 1990
            CO areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(A) of the CAA were designated nonattainment by operation of law and classified as moderate or serious pursuant to section 186(a). States are required by section 110(a) to submit rules regulating CO emissions in order to achieve the attainment dates specified in section 186(a)(1).

        NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NOX emissions. Table 4 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency NOX rules.

            Table 4.—Ozone Nonattainment Milestones

            Date
            Event

            March 3, 1987
            EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.

            May 26, 1988
            EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA's SIP-Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act.

            November 15, 1990
            Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671g.

            May 15, 1991
            Section 182(a)(2)(a) requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this date.

        IV. Administrative Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
        B. Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
        C. Executive Order 13132
        Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        This proposed rule will 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, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
        D. Executive Order 13175
        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
        E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
        F. Unfunded Mandates
        Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
        EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
        EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: March 14, 2001.
          Mike Schulz,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 01-7793 Filed 3-28-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers
        33 CFR Part 334
        United States Navy Restricted Area, Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, CA

          AGENCY:
          United States Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to amend its regulations to establish a new restricted area in waters adjacent to the Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), San Diego, California. This amendment will restrict activities by the public on the northeast side of the base. The regulations are necessary to safeguard Navy vessels and United States Government facilities from sabotage and other subversive acts, accidents, or incidents of a similar nature.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be submitted by November 25, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-OR, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Frank Torbett, Headquarters Regulatory Branch, Washington, DC, at (202) 761-4618, or Mr. Russell L. Kaiser,  Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Branch, at (213) 452-3293.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Pursuant to its authorities in section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. V1) and chapter XIX, of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is proposing to amend the restricted area regulations in 33 CFR part 334 by adding a restricted area at § 334.865. The proposed restricted area is being established for safety and security purposes in support of accommodating the homeport of a third aircraft carrier at NASNI. The proposed restricted area is adjacent to a current U.S. Coast Guard security zone, which is enclosed by latitude/longitude coordinates: 32°42′52.5″ N, 117°11′45.0″ W; 32°42′55.3″ N, 117°11′45.0″ W; 32°42′55.0″ N, 117°11′30.5″ W; 32°42′40.0″ N, 117°11′06.5″ W; 32°42′37.2″ N, 117°11′06.8″ W; 32°42′28.5″ N, 117°11′ 11.0″ W; 32°42′21.5″ N, 117°10′47.7″ W; and 32°42′13.1″ N, 117°10′51.2″ W. The proposed connection of the restricted area with the security zone would occur at the following coordinates: 32°42′55.0″ N, 117°11′30.5″ W and 32°42′40.0″ N, 117 °11′06.5″ W.
        Procedural Requirements
        A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
        This rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.
        B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps expects that the economic impact of this new restricted area would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic and accordingly, certifies that this proposal will have no significant economic impact on small entities.
        C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

        The Los Angeles District is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this action. Although not expected at this time, based on the minor nature of the proposed additional restricted area regulations, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared if determined appropriate. When the NEPA documentation is completed, it will be available for review at the Los Angeles District office listed at the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Act
        This rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, is not a Federal private sector mandate and is not subject to the requirements of section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under section 203 of the Act, that small Governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334
          Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:

          PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS
          1. The authority citation for part 334 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

          2. Section 334.865 is added to read as follows:

            § 334.865
            Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California, Restricted Area.
            (a) The area. The waters within an area beginning at 32°42′55.0″ N, 117°11′30.5″ W; thence running easterly to 32°42′57.0″ N, 117°11′22.5″ W; thence running easterly to 32°42′56.0″ N, 117°11′19.0″ W; thence running southeasterly to 32°42′49.0″ N, 117°11′08.5″ W; thence running southeasterly to 32°42′44.5″ N, 117°11′06.5″ W; thence running southerly to 32°42′40.0″ N, 117°11′06.5″ W.
            (b) The regulation. (1) The restricted area shall not be open to swimming, fishing, water-skiing, mooring or anchorage.
            (2) Dragging, seining, other fishing operations, and other activities not under the direction of the United States, which might foul underwater installations within the restricted area, are prohibited.
            (3) All tows entering the restricted area shall be streamed and shortened to the seaward of the area and towing appendages and catenaries shall not be dragged along the bottom while proceeding through the area.
            (4) All vessels entering the restricted area shall proceed across the area by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay.
            (5) No vessel or craft of any size shall lie-to or anchor in the restricted area at any time other than a vessel operated by or for the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, other authorized military components, or other vessels authorized by Commander, Navy Region Southwest, or his/her designee.
            (6) When security conditions dictate, Naval security forces may impose strict enforcement of stand-off distances within the restricted area. This enforcement will not prevent utilization of navigable channels, but will serve to control its use in order to protect vital National interests.
            (c) Enforcement. The regulation in this section, promulgated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, shall be enforced by the Commander, Navy Region Southwest, and such agencies or persons as he/she may designate.

            Dated: September 17, 2002.
            Michael G. Ensch,
            Acting Chief, Operations Division, Directorate of Civil Works.

      [FR Doc. 02-26645 Filed 10-23-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3710-92-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket  No. 000816233-0233-0233-01; I.D. 050200A]
        RIN  0648-AK23
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Precious Corals Fisheries; Harvest Quotas, Definitions, Size Limits, Gear Restrictions, Bed Classification

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a rule that would make eight changes to the regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Precious Coral Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP).  This proposed rule would: Suspend the harvest for gold coral at the established Makapuu Bed, Oahu; redefine “dead precious coral” as coral without living coral polyps or tissue and redefine “live precious coral” accordingly; apply minimum size restrictions only to live precious corals; prohibit the harvest of black coral unless it has attained a minimum stem diameter of 2.54 cm (1 in) or a minimum height of 122 cm (48 in), except in certain cases; prohibit the use of non-selective fishing gear to harvest precious corals; apply the current minimum size restriction for pink coral to all permit areas; revise the boundaries of the Brooks Bank Bed, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), reduce its harvest quota for pink coral, and suspend the Bed’s harvest quota for gold coral; and establish a new NWHI precious coral permit area, French Frigate Shoals (FFS) Gold Pinnacles Bed, and classify this Bed as a conditional bed with a zero harvest quota for all species of precious corals.  This comprehensive set of management measures is intended to conserve and reduce the risk of overfishing the precious coral resources, promote optimal utilization of the resource and minimize waste, facilitate effective monitoring and enforcement of harvest quotas, and protect precious coral beds that provide foraging habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted through October 20, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be mailed to Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator, Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm. 1101, Honolulu HI 96814; or sent via facsimile (fax) to 808-973-2941. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of the background document on the proposed regulatory adjustments, including an Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), may be obtained from Kitty Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Rm 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alvin Katekaru, PIAO, 808-973-2937.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The FMP defines precious coral as any coral of the genus Corallium, consisting of pink corals, as well as gold, bamboo, and black coral species.  Pink, gold, and bamboo corals are found in deep water (350 - 1500 m) on solid substrate where bottom currents are strong.  Black coral also occurs on solid substrate, but generally at depths less than 100 m.  Precious corals typically are solitary and form colonies; however, they do not build reefs.  All precious corals are slow growing and are characterized by low rates of mortality and recruitment.  Precious corals are known to occur in waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Hawaii (seven locations) and very likely exist off American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas.  The domestic fishery for precious corals in Hawaii has been dormant for nearly two decades, with the exception of a limited black coral fishery involving less than 10 divers.  Recently, several new firms have become interested in harvesting precious corals using manned submersibles in the EEZ around Hawaii.  One firm with a permit has been harvesting precious coral from the established Makapuu Bed off the Island of Oahu.  Also, recent research and surveys have provided new information on the size and condition of certain precious coral beds off the Hawaiian Islands, on the presence of a new precious coral bed at FFS, NWHI, and on the use of certain precious coral beds as foraging areas for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal.  In response to this new information and a reactivated precious coral fishery, in June 1999, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) discussed the need for alternative management measures governing the precious coral fisheries.  Subsequently, at its October 1999 meeting, under FMP framework procedures, the Council approved eight changes to the regulations implementing the FMP.  These regulatory changes were developed by the Council’s Precious Coral Plan Team, and reviewed by the Precious Coral Advisory Panel and the Scientific and Statistical Committee.
        The first change would be to suspend the harvest quota for gold coral at the established Makapuu Bed based on 1998 surveys that indicated a relatively low gold coral recruitment rate since this bed was last harvested in 1978.  A no action alternative and a minimum size for harvesting gold coral at the Makapuu Bed were both rejected because there are insufficient data to show that these alternatives could effectively reduce the risk of overharvesting the gold coral resource.
        The second change would be to redefine “dead precious coral” as coral devoid of living coral polyps or tissue and to redefine “live coral precious coral” as coral that has living coral polyps or tissue.  These changes are needed to prohibit the harvest of precious coral under a minimum size with live coral polyp or tissue; conversely, corals without any living polyp or tissue (dead coral) may be harvested.  The current definition for dead coral is any precious coral that contains holes from borers or is discolored or encrusted at the time of removal from the seabed.  This definition is too broad because it allows the unrestricted harvest of precious coral colonies that have holes, are discolored, and may be encrusted yet may still have living polyps.  Given that scientists, using a submersible at FFS, observed a monk seal foraging around gold coral colonies containing living coral polyps, it is important that living precious corals be given optimal protection.
        The third change would be to apply minimum size limits to live precious corals only to maximize the economic yield of the fishery by allowing the harvest of dead coral, regardless of its size.  A no action alternative was rejected because it prevents dead corals below the minimum size that have economic value from being harvested.

        The fourth change would be to prohibit the harvest of black coral unless it has a minimum stem diameter of 2.54 cm (1 in) or a minimum height of 122 cm (48 in).  In order to complement State of Hawaii black coral regulations, the proposed rule would allow fishermen who can document, via State records, landings of black coral during the last 5 years to continue to harvest black coral, under an exemption.  These black coral would have to be harvested  in accordance with the State’s minimum harvest size (1.91 cm or 3/4 in stem diameter), provided the black coral is harvested by hand.  Alternatives to applying the State’s minimum harvest size for all fishermen (no exemption) were considered, but were rejected by the Council.  The alternative of adopting the State’s minimum size would not provide sufficient protection to the reproductive capability of the black coral stock if harvest levels increase significantly.  Another alternative that contained no exemption to the Council’s proposed minimum size for black coral would result in unacceptable economic burden on a small number of precious coral divers, who have previously landed black corals and operate at very low harvest levels in the fishery.  An alternative that would have set a black coral harvest quota based on total pounds harvested was also rejected because it may not be effective in preventing overfishing, and because it would be difficult to enforce.
        The fifth change would be to prohibit the use of non-selective gear to harvest any precious coral in the EEZ of the western Pacific region.  This measure would eliminate the use of destructive and inefficient gear, such as bottom dredges and tangle nets, that damage essential fish habitat and waste up to 60 percent of the precious corals that are not harvested yet are knocked down by non-selective gear.  A no action alternative, as well as an alternative that would have prohibited the use of non-selective gear only in certain permit areas, were both rejected as providing inadequate protection to essential fish habitat and promoting inefficient harvest methods.
        The sixth change would be to apply the current minimum harvest size limit (25.4 cm or 10 in minimum height) for pink corals at established beds to all permit areas to prevent the harvest of pink coral colonies that are immature and have not reached full reproductive potential.  A no action alternative and an alternative that would apply pink coral size limits only in certain permit areas were rejected because they would not adequately reduce the potential for overharvesting the pink coral resources.
        The seventh change would be to modify the boundaries of the Brooks Bank Bed, reduce the Bed’s annual pink coral quota from 444 kg (979 lb) to 200 kg (441 lb), and suspend the gold coral quota. These changes reflect new information on the size and composition of the Bed obtained during a survey of the area in 1998, as well as concerns related to the foraging habits of a Hawaiian monk seal colony nearby at FFS.  Several monk seals from this colony were observed spending considerable time at the depths where precious corals occur.  It is believed that the seals may have been feeding on eels and fish that aggregate around the vertical relief provided by the standing gold coral colonies at Brooks Bank.  A no action alternative was rejected on the basis that it could lead to overharvesting of pink corals, as well as affecting the foraging success of monk seals.  An alternative that would have revised the Brooks Bed boundaries and classified as a refugium with a prohibition on the harvest of any precious coral was rejected.  It was rejected because of the economic impact on  fishermen who harvest dead gold and pink corals found mainly as rubble lying on the seabed.  It is believed that dead coral rubble, which have economic value, do not provide foraging habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal.
         The eighth change would be to classify the newly discovered NWHI precious coral bed near FFS as a conditional bed to be designated as the “French Frigate Shoals Gold Pinnacles Bed” with a zero harvest quota for all precious coral species.  This bed has an abundance of gold coral with an estimated standing stock of 3,000 kg (6,614 lb) and an estimated annual maximum sustainable yield of 80 kg (176 lb), but only a few small pink coral colonies that are less than 12.7 cm or 5 inches in height.  This classification would protect live pink and gold coral colonies that may be providing foraging habitat for the monk seals.  A no action alternative was rejected because without some type of classification, this bed would be included in the Hawaiian Islands exploratory permit area, which consists of all non-classified precious coral beds in Hawaii’s EEZ and subject to an area-wide annual quota of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb).  Under this scenario, the entire 1,000 kg (2,2000 lb) quota potentially could be harvested from the FFS Gold Pinnacles Bed with significant negative impact on pink and gold corals, and possible depletion of the foraging habitat of monk seals.  A second alternative would have classified the FFS Gold Pinnacles Bed as a refugium and prohibited the take of any corals, both living and dead.  This alternative was rejected because prohibiting the harvest of dead coral has significant economic impacts.  A third rejected alternative would have classified the Bed as a conditional bed and set the annual quota for gold coral at the Bed at 80 kg (176 lb).  This alternative was seen as failing to protect monk seal foraging habitat.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an IRFA describing the impact the proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  Due to the low level of participation in the western Pacific precious coral fishery (estimated to be less than 10 divers harvesting black coral and one firm using a submersible to harvest precious corals during the past 20 years), aggregate economic impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed measures will be minimal unless there is a significant increase in the number of participants in the fishery.  This analysis, however, found that those proposed measures that restrict the harvest of gold coral at the Makapuu Bed, establish a minimum harvest size for all pink corals, limit the harvest of pink coral and restrict the harvest of gold coral at the Brooks Bank Bed, and restrict the harvest of all precious corals from the FFS-Gold Pinnacles Bed would likely have a negative impact on potential fishery revenues.
        Maximum potential revenues forgone from the proposed restrictions on gold coral harvest at the Makapuu Bed would total approximately $100,000 annually in the short-run if the actual stock is of sufficient size to support such a harvest.  However, it is believed that the current standing stock of gold coral is low enough that this harvest level would not be sustainable.  The  cost of forgone short-term revenues would be recouped in the long-term through better management of the Makapuu Bed.
        Potential revenues lost from the universal application of size restrictions for pink corals are difficult to predict since there is a scarcity of size composition data on existing coral resources; nevertheless, it is believed that a minimum size would result in positive benefits for potential fishery participants through the long-term maintenance of maximum sustainable yields.

        Limitations on pink coral harvest from the Brooks Bank Bed is anticipated to result in the loss of potential short-run annual revenues of up to $146,000, but positive long-term benefits would be expected through the long-term maintenance of maximum sustainable yields.  Restrictions on gold coral harvest at the Brooks Bank Bed would result in forgone revenues of up to $44,000, while restrictions on the harvest of all precious corals from the FFS-Gold Pinnacles Bed would be projected to result in a short-run annual loss of $26,000 in potential revenues, primarily from a prohibition on the harvest of gold coral.  However, these latter two measures are considered vital to the protection of foraging habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal.
        Imposing a minimum harvest size for black corals could also have a negative economic impact on fishery revenues.  Given that the proposed rule would provide an exemption for historical participants who continue to rely on hand harvest methods, no effect on current participants would be expected.  However, new entrants into the fishery would have to adhere to the Council’s proposed minimum size governing the harvest of black coral.  It is estimated that 50 percent of the annual average 204.5 kg (450 lbs) of black coral annually harvested from the EEZ meets or exceeds the proposed minimum size.

        A prohibition on the use of non-selective gear could result in additional costs for future participants, although only selective gear (e.g., manned submersibles) is being considered by new businesses currently interested in entering this fishery.  Hand harvesters would be unaffected by this prohibition.  Future participants who wish to use other harvesting methods would be required to invest in manned submersibles, remotely operated vehicles or other new technologies.  The exact costs of these new technologies are unknown.  It is believed that a remotely operated vehicle can now be obtained for $50,000, which may be approximately equal to the cost of setting up a non-selective harvest operation using tangle nets.  Further, the effective yield is higher for submersibles compared to the wasteful practice of non-selective gear used to harvest precious corals.  A copy of the IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        NMFS has initiated consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for this proposed rule.  This consultation examines Hawaii’s precious coral fishery, managed under the proposed rule, and the likelihood of it having an adverse effect on Hawaiian monk seals.  This consultation is expected to be concluded soon.

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

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

        Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,  Fishing gear, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 28, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator  for Fisheries, 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 AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

           2.  In  §  660.12,  the  definitions  of  “dead  coral”,  “live  coral”,  paragraph  (2)(iii)  under  “Precious  coral  permit  area”,  and  paragraph  (3)  under  “Precious  coral  permit  area”  are  revised  and  a  new  paragraph  (2)(v)  under  “Precious  coral  permit  area” is added, to  read  as  follows:

            §  660.12
             Definitions.

              Dead  coral means  any  precious  coral  that  no  longer  has  any  live  coral  polyps  or  tissue.

              Live  coral means  any  precious  coral  that  has  live  coral  polyps  or  tissue.

              Precious coral permit area *  *  *
             (2)  *  *  *
            (iii)  Brooks  Bank,  Permit  Area C-B-3,  includes  the  area  within  a  radius  of  2.5  nm  of  a  point  23°58.8'  N.  lat.,  166°42.0'  W.  long.

             (v)  FFS-Gold  Pinnacles  Bed,  Permit  Area  C-B-5,  includes  the  area  within  a  radius  of  0.25  nm  of  a  point  at  23°55.0'  N.  lat.,  165°23.11'  W.  long.

             (3)  Refugia.  Westpac  Bed,  Permit  Area  R-1,  includes  the  area  within  a  radius  of  2.0  nm  of  a  point  at  23°18'  N.  lat.,  162°35'  W.  long.

           3.  In  §  660.82,  paragraph  (c) introductory  text  is  revised  to  read  as  follows:

             § 660.82
            Prohibitions.

             (c)  Take  and  retain,  possess,  or  land  any  live  pink  coral  or  live  black  coral  from  any  precious  coral  permit  area  that  is  less  than  the  minimum  height  specified  in  §  660.86  unless:

          4. Section  660.86  is  revised  to  read  as  follows:

            § 660.86
            Size  restrictions.
            The  height  of  a  live  coral  specimen  shall  be  determined  by  a  straight  line  measurement  taken  from  its  base  to  its  most  distal  extremity.  The  stem  diameter  of  a  living  coral  specimen  shall  be  determined  by  measuring  the  greatest  diameter  of  the  stem  at  a  point  no  less  than  1  inch  (2.54  cm)  from  the  top  surface  of  the  living  holdfast.
            (a)  Live  pink  coral  harvested  from  any  precious  coral  permit  area  must  have  attained  a  minimum  height  of  10  inches  (25.4  cm).
            (b)  Live  black  coral  harvested  from  any  precious  coral  permit  area  must  have  attained  either  a  minimum  stem  diameter  of  1  inch  (2.54  cm),  or  a  minimum  height  of  48  inches  (122  cm).
            (1)  An  exemption  permitting  a  person  to  hand  harvest  from  any  precious  coral  permit  area  black  coral  that  has  attained  a  minimum  base  diameter  of  3/4  inch  (1.91  cm),  measured  on  the  widest  portion  of  the  stem  at  a  location  just  above  the  holdfast,  will  be  issued  to  a  person  who  had  made  a  landing  of  black  coral  that  is  documented  by  the  State  of  Hawaii,  Department  of  Land  and  Natural  Resources,  within  5  years  before  the  effective  date  of  the  final  rule.
            (2)  A  person  seeking  an  exemption  under  this  section  must  submit  a  letter  requesting  an  exemption  to  the  NMFS  Pacific  Islands  Area  Office.

          5. Section  660.88  is  revised  to  read  as  follows:

            §  660.88
            Gear  restrictions.
            Only  selective  gear  may  be  used  to  harvest  coral  from  any  precious  coral  permit  area.

          6. Table  1  to  Part  660  is  revised  to  read  as  follows:

             TABLE  1  TO  PART  660—QUOTAS  FOR  PRECIOUS  CORALS  PERMIT  AREAS

              Name of coral bed
              Type of bed
              Harvest quota
              Number of years

              Makapuu (Oahu)
              Established
              P-2,000  kg G-Zero (0  kg)
                 B-500 kg

              2 n/a
                2

               Keahole Point (Hawaii)
              Conditional
              P-67  kg G-20  kg
                B-17  kg

              11
                1

              Kaena  Point  (Oahu)
              Conditional
              P-67  kg G-20  kg
                 B-17  kg

              11
                1

              Brooks Bank  (NWHI)
              Conditional
              P-200  kg G-Zero (0  kg)
                B-111  kg

              1n/a
                1

              180 Fathom Bank (NWHI)
              Conditional
              P-222  kgG-67  kg
                 B-56  kg

              11
                1

              FFS-Gold  Pinnacles Bed (NWHI)
              Conditional
              P-Zero (0  kg)G-Zero (0  kg)
                B-Zero (0  kg)

              n/an/a
                n/a

              Westpac  Bed  (NWHI)
              Refugium
               Zero (0  kg)
              n/a

              Hawaii,  American  Samoa,  Guam, U.S. Pacific  Island  possessions
              Exploratory
               X-1,000  kg (all  species  combined  except  black  corals)  per  area
              1

              1. Types  of  corals:  P=Pink  G=Gold  B=Bamboo

              2. No  authorized  fishing  for  coral  in  refugia.

      [FR Doc. 00-22667 Filed 9-1-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE: 3510-22 -S - -    -  -