        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0630; FRL-8215-8]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Monitoring and Volatile Organic Compound Rules

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing full approval of some revisions and a limited approval/limited disapproval of other revisions to the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern definitions, organic solvent controls, and various monitoring regulations. We are proposing action on state provisions that regulate emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (Act or CAA). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by October 2, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0630, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126.

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

          Table of Contents
          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What regulations did the State submit?
          B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?
          C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
          B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. What are the regulation deficiencies?
          D. EPA recommendations to further improve the regulations
          E. Proposed action and public comment
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What regulations did the State submit?

        The Governor's designee, the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), submitted a large revision to the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) on January 12, 2006. On March 23, 2006, the Nevada SIP submittal dated January 12, 2006 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

        The primary purpose of these revisions is to clarify and harmonize State and federally-enforceable requirements. Because these revisions incorporate so many changes from the 1970s and 1980s vintage SIP regulations, EPA has decided to review and act on the submittal in a series of separate actions. The first such action (mostly related to definitions, sulfur dioxide rules, and burning rules) was finalized in the Federal Register on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15040). A second action (related to state statutes) was proposed in the Federal Register on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413). The remaining portions of the submittal will be acted on in future Federal Register actions.
        The following table lists the provisions of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) addressed by this proposal with the dates they were submitted by NDEP. Some of these provisions were renumbered after their initial adoption. Two of these submitted rules would be new to the SIP: NAC 445B.084 (“Hazardous air pollutant”) and NAC 445B.153 (“Regulated air pollutant”), while the remainder would amend existing rules in the SIP.

          Submitted Provisions

            NAC No.
            NAC title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            445B.015
            “Alternative method” defined
            10/03/95
            01/12/06

            445B.062
            “Equivalent method” defined
            10/03/95
            01/12/06

            445B.063
            “Excess emissions” defined
            10/04/05
            01/12/06

            445B.084
            “Hazardous air pollutant” defined
            11/03/93
            01/12/06

            445B.134
            “Person” defined
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.153
            “Regulated air pollutant” defined
            10/04/05
            01/12/06

            445B.202
            “Volatile organic compounds” defined
            03/03/94
            01/12/06

            445B.22093
            Organic solvents and other volatile organic compounds
            10/04/05
            01/12/06

            445B.256
            Monitoring systems: Calibration, operation and maintenance of equipment
            10/03/95
            01/12/06

            445B.257
            Monitoring systems: Location
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.258
            Monitoring systems: Verification of operational status
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.259
            Monitoring systems: Performance evaluations
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.260
            Monitoring systems: Components contracted for before September 11, 1974
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.261
            Monitoring systems: Adjustments
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.262
            Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity
            09/18/03
            01/12/06

            445B.263
            Monitoring systems: Frequency of operation
            09/16/76
            01/12/06

            445B.264
            Monitoring systems: Recordation of data
            08/22/00
            01/12/06

            445B.265
            Monitoring systems: Records; reports
            04/26/84
            01/12/06

            445B.267
            Alternative monitoring procedures or requirements
            09/18/03
            01/12/06

        B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?
        Pursuant to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor of Nevada submitted the original Nevada SIP to EPA in January 1972. EPA approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other portions under CAA section 110(a). See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). For some of the disapproved portions of the original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions under CAA section 110(c).1
           This original SIP included various rules, codified as articles within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory provisions codified in chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified its air quality rules into sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality statutes in chapter 445B (“Air Pollution”) of title 40 (“Public Health and Safety”) of the NRS.

            1 Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA section 110(c) in substitution of disapproved State provisions are referred to as Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs).
        Nevada adopted and submitted many revisions to the original set of regulations and statutes in the SIP, some of which EPA approved on February 6, 1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975 at 40 FR 13306; on January 9, 1978 at 43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43 FR 3278; on August 21, 1978 at 43 FR 36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384; on April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April 13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June 18, 1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982 at 47 FR 27070; on March 27, 1984 at 49 FR 11626. Since 1984, EPA has approved very few revisions to Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted by the State Environmental Commission. As a result, the version of the rules enforceable by NDEP is often quite different from the SIP version enforceable by EPA.
        C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
        The purpose of this proposal is to bring the applicable SIP up to date. The regulations that are the subject of this proposal include certain definitions, organic solvent controls, and various monitoring rules.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
        Generally, SIP regulations must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Relevant EPA guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability include “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” dated September 23, 1987, from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al.
        B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?

        We believe the following provisions are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations: NAC 445B.015, NAC 445B.062, NAC 445B.063, NAC 445.084, NAC 445B.134, NAC 445B.153, NAC 445B.202, NAC 445B.22093, NAC 445B.256, NAC 445B.257, NAC 445B.258, NAC 445B.259, NAC 445B.260, NAC 445B.261, NAC 445B.263, NAC 445B.264, and NAC 445B.265. Generally, these submitted rules are unchanged from the older versions in the existing SIP other than for certain clarifications and enhancements. The Technical Support Document (TSD) dated August 16, 2006 has more information on our evaluation.
        C. What are the regulation deficiencies?
        The following provisions conflict with section 110 of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
        1. NAC 445B.262, Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity, This regulation lists the methods and procedures for measuring opacity. This regulation allows the director to approve equivalent and alternative opacity procedures without describing the criteria to be used. A new paragraph has been added that removes the director's ability to approve an equivalent or alternative method when determining compliance with standards and emission limits contained in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and affected sources in the acid rain program. This new paragraph limits the breath of the director's discretion; however, the director maintains the ability to approve equivalent and alternative methods for SIP sources. This constitutes a SIP deficiency and conflicts with section 110 of the CAA. A third paragraph can be added to NAC 445B.262 requiring that equivalent and alternative test methods for SIP sources be approved in advance by EPA.
        2. NAC 445B.267, Alternate monitoring procedures or requirements. This regulation lists situations when an alternative monitoring procedure or requirement can be approved by the director. A new paragraph has been added that removes the director's ability to approve an equivalent or alternative method when determining compliance with standards and emission limits contained in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and affected sources in the acid rain program. This new paragraph limits the breath of the director's discretion; however, the director maintains the ability to approve alternative methods for SIP sources and for ASTM test methods. This constitutes a SIP deficiency and conflicts with section 110 of the CAA. A third paragraph can be added to NAC 445B.267 requiring that equivalent and alternative test methods for SIP sources be approved in advance by EPA.
        D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Regulations
        The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the state modifies their rules.
        E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
        Pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing a full approval of the following provisions: NAC 445B.015, NAC 445B.062, NAC 445B.063, NAC 445.084, NAC 445B.134, NAC 445B.153, NAC 445B.202, NAC 445B.22093, NAC 445B.256, NAC 445B.257, NAC 445B.258, NAC 445B.259, NAC 445B.260, NAC 445B.261, NAC 445B.263, NAC 445B.264, and NAC 445B.265.
        In addition, EPA is proposing a limited approval of NAC 445B.262 and NAC 445B.267 to improve the SIP. This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the two provisions mentioned above. If we finalize this limited disapproval, we will not be imposing sanctions under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 because the state's submittal of NAC 445B.262 and NAC 445B.267, which represent updated versions of existing SIP rules, was not required under the Clean Air Act. If finalized as proposed, this action would incorporate the submitted provisions into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient.2

            2 Final approval of these rules would supersede the following rules in the applicable SIP (superseding rule shown in parentheses) upon the established compliance date for any new or amended requirements in the superseding rules: NAC 445.439 (NAC 445B.015); NAC 445.501 (NAC 445B.062); NAC 445.504 (NAC 445B.063); NAC 445.564 (NAC 445B.134); NAC 445.650 (NAC 445B.202); NAC 445.846, NAQR Articles 9.2.1, 9.2.1.1, and 9.2.1.2 (NAC 445B.22093); NAQR Articles 2.17.10 and 2.17.10.1 (NAC 445B.256); NAQR Articles 2.17.6, 2.17.7 (NAC 445B.257); NAC 445.685 (NAC 445B.258); NAC 445.686 (NAC 445B.259); NAC 445.687 (NAC 445B.260); NAC 445.688 (NAC 445B.261); NAC 445.689 (NAC 445B.262); NAC 445.690 (NAC 445B.263); NAC 445.691 (NAC 445B.264); NAC 445.692 (NAC 445B.265); and NAC 445.693 (NAC 445B.267).

        We will accept comments from the public on this proposed approval and limited approval/disapproval for the next 30 days.
        III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve state rules as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
        This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

        In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.

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

          Dated: August 21, 2006.
          Jane Diamond,
          Acting Regional Administrator,  Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 06-7320 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 08-2677; MB Docket No. 08-126; RM-11458]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Canton, Ohio

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a channel substitution proposed by Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc., d/b/a Trinity Broadcast Network (“Trinity”), the licensee of WDLI-DT, post-transition DTV channel 39, Canton, Ohio. Trinity requests the substitution of DTV channel 49 for post-transition DTV channel 39 at Canton.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before January 22, 2009, and reply comments on or before February 6, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Colby M. May, Esq., P.C., 205 3rd Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David Brown, david.brown@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-126, adopted December 8, 2008, and released December 10, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via e-mail http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television, Television broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Ohio, is amended by adding DTV channel 49 and removing DTV channel 39 at Canton.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Clay C. Pendarvis,
            Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

       [FR Doc. E8-30544 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 721
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0627; FRL-9983-81]
        RIN 2070-AB27
        Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 26 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to sections 5(e) and 5(f) of TSCA. This action would require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 26 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination. In addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0627, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

          Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In addition to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. For further information about the proposed significant new use rules, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: September 14, 2018.
          Jeffery T. Morris,
          Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

      [FR Doc. 2018-21191 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AE30
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period and Notice of Availability of Draft Economic Analysis on Proposed Critical Habitat Determination for the Tidewater Goby

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). We also provide notice of the reopening of the comment period for the proposal to allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal and on the draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public records as a part of this reopening and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          The original comment period on the critical habitat proposal closed on October 4, 1999. The first reopened comment period closed on November 30, 1999. The comment period is again reopened and we will accept comments until July 28, 2000. Comments must be received by the closing date. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at “http://pacific.fws.gov/crithab/tg” or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California, 92008 (telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-9618). Written comments should be sent to the Field Supervisor. You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to “fw1cfwogoecan@r1.fws.gov.” Please submit comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please include “Attn: RIN 1018-AE30” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above Service address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glen Knowles, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-9618).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The tidewater goby is a small, grayish brown fish approximately 2 inches long and which lives for about one year. It occurs in coastal brackish-water habitats such as lagoons, tidal bays, and estuaries of rivers and streams along the California coastline. This fish is threatened by habitat loss and degradation, predation by non-native species, and extreme weather and streamflow conditions. On August 3, 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a rule proposing critical habitat for the tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi in the Federal Register (64 FR 42250), a species Federally listed as endangered throughout its range. We proposed designation of approximately 11.8 miles of rivers, streams, and estuaries as critical habitat for the tidewater goby pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Proposed critical habitat is in Orange and San Diego counties, California, as described in the proposed rule.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for the tidewater goby and comments received during previous comment periods, we have conducted a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis is available at the above Internet and mailing address. In order to accept the best and most current scientific data regarding the critical habitat proposal and the draft economic analysis of the proposal, we reopen the comment period at this time. We will accept written comments during this reopened comment period. Previously submitted oral or written comments on this critical habitat proposal need not be resubmitted. The current comment period on this proposal closes on July 28, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to the Service office in the ADDRESSES section.

        Author: The primary author of this notice is Glen Knowles (see ADDRESSES section).

            Authority:

            The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 19, 2000.
          Don W. Weathers,
          Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

      [FR Doc. 00-16276 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket Nos. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 and FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107; 4500030113]
        RINs 1018-BD87 and 1018-BD88
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designation of Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment periods.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period on our October 28, 2013, proposed rules to list the Bi-State distinct population segment (DPS) of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Act) and to designate critical habitat for that DPS. We are reopening the proposed rules' comment periods for 60 days to give all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rules. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final rules. We will publish a final listing determination for the DPS in the Federal Register on or before October 1, 2019.

          DATES:
          The comment periods on the proposed rules that published October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358 and 78 FR 64328), are reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 11, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter either FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106, which is the docket number for the proposed listing determination and section 4(d) rule, or FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107, which is the docket number for the proposed critical habitat designation. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-deliver to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [enter appropriate docket number: Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 for the proposed listing determination and section 4(d) rule, or Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107 for the proposed critical habitat designation], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carolyn Swed, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Please refer to the October 28, 2013, proposed listing rule (78 FR 64358) and the 2015 Species Report (Service 2015) for information about taxonomy, habitat (sagebrush ecosystem), seasonal habitat selection, life-history characteristics, home range, life expectancy and survival rates, historical and current range distribution, population estimates and lek (sage-grouse breeding complex) counts, population trends, and land ownership information of the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse. Please also refer to our March 23, 2010, notice of 12-month petition findings (75 FR 13910) for the greater sage-grouse for a detailed evaluation of the Bi-State DPS under our DPS policy. For a detailed summary of previous public comment periods for the proposed listing with a section 4(d) rule and the proposed critical habitat designation for the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse, please see the Previous Federal Actions section of our 2015 withdrawal of those proposed rules (80 FR 22828; April 23, 2015).
        On October 28, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 64358) a proposed rule to list the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse in California and Nevada as a threatened species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act. On the same day, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 64328) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse. On April 23, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 22828) a withdrawal of the proposed rules to list the Bi-State DPS as a threatened species with a section 4(d) rule and to designate critical habitat for the DPS. This decision was based on our conclusion that the threats to the DPS as identified in the proposed listing rule were no longer as significant as believed at the time of publication of the proposed listing rule, and that conservation plans were ameliorating threats to the DPS. Thus, we concluded that the Bi-State DPS did not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
        On March 9, 2016, Desert Survivors, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watershed Project filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit challenged the withdrawal of the proposal to list the Bi-State DPS. On May 5, 2018, the court issued a decision. As the result of the court order, the April 23, 2015, withdrawal was vacated and remanded to the Service for further consideration consistent with the order.
        The court's action returns the process to the proposed rule stage, and the status of the Bi-State DPS has effectively reverted to that of a proposed species for the purposes of consultation under section 7 of the Act; it also reinstates the proposed 4(d) rule, as well as the proposed critical habitat designation for the Bi-State DPS (78 FR 64328; October 28, 2013). Therefore, this document notifies the public that we are reopening the comment periods on the October 28, 2013, proposed rules to list the Bi-State DPS as threatened with a section 4(d) rule (78 FR 64358), and the proposed critical habitat designation for the DPS (78 FR 65328). We also announce that we are initiating a new status review of the Bi-State DPS, to determine whether it meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Any listing determination we make must be made based on the best available information.
        Information Requested

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our October 28, 2013, proposed rules to list the Bi-State DPS as threatened with a section 4(d) rule (78 FR 64358), and the proposed critical habitat designation for the DPS (78 FR 65328). We also request new information regarding the Bi-State DPS that has become available since the publication of the proposed rules to inform the status review.
        We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
        (1) The Bi-State DPS's biology, distribution, population size and trend, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends.
        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)), which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this Bi-State DPS and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.

        (4) Information on current habitat conditions, including, but not limited to, quality of upland and meadow or riparian sites, presence and abundance of annual invasive grasses and weeds or other increasing plants (e.g., conifer trees), and recovery of previously burned sites. This information may include larger landscape-scale assessments or smaller site-specific investigations.
        (5) Application of the Bi-State Action Plan of March 15, 2012, to our determination of status under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, particularly comments or information to help us assess the certainty that the plan will be effective in conserving the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse and will be implemented.
        (6) Information concerning whether it would be appropriate to include in the 4(d) rule a provision for take of the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse in accordance with applicable State law for educational or scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the DPS, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes consistent with the Act.
        (7) Whether the Service should include in the scope of the proposed 4(d) rule the incidental take of sage-grouse within the Bi-State DPS if the take results from other agricultural activities not subject to the Sage Grouse Initiative or the Bi-state Action Plan, if those activities are compatible with the conservation of the Bi-State DPS.
        (8) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the Bi-State DPS, its habitat, or both.
        (9) Any new or updated information relative to our 2013 proposed designation of critical habitat for the Bi-State DPS.
        If you submitted comments or information on the October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list the Bi-State DPS as threatened with a section 4(d) rule (78 FR 64358), or on the October 28, 2013, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the DPS (78 FR 65328), during the initial comment period or on any of the subsequent comment periods in 2013 and 2014, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determinations.
        Our final determinations will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during all comment periods. The final decisions may differ from the proposed rules, based on our review of all information we receive during the rulemaking proceeding. If we receive significant new scientific information, we may need to reopen the public comment period so that the public can comment on the new information.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rules by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 for the proposed listing determination and section 4(d) rule, and Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107 for the proposed critical habitat designation. Supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rules is available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072 for the proposed listing determination and section 4(d) rule, or Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042 for the proposed critical habitat designation, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rules on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072 for the proposed listing determination and section 4(d) rule, or Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042 for the proposed critical habitat designation, or by mail from the Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Please note that the 2013 dockets contain documents and other information related to the proposed rules, as well as the comments received and the proposed rules themselves, while the 2018 dockets are the correct dockets for submission of comments during this public comment period (see DATES, above).
        Authors
        The primary author of this document is the Service's Reno Fish and Wildlife Office in Reno, Nevada, in coordination with the Service's Pacific Southwest Regional Office in Sacramento, California.
        Authority

        The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is the authority for this action.

          Dated: March 17, 2019.
          Margaret E. Everson,
          Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-07252 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0045; FRL-9124-4]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from operations associated with graphic arts coating, can coating, degreasing, and wood products coating. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 10, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0045], by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126, law.nicole@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This proposal addresses the following local rules: SMAQMD Rule 450 Graphic Arts, SMAQMD Rule 452 Can Coating, SMAQMD Rule 454 Degreasing Operations, and SMAQMD Rule 463 Wood Products Coating. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

        We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: February 5, 2010.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2010-8001 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 101108560-2413-01]
        RIN 0648-BA43
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revise Maximum Retained Amounts for Groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes a regulatory amendment to increase the maximum retainable amounts (MRAs) of groundfish using arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) and Kamchatka flounder (Atheresthes evermanni) as basis species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action would allow the use of BSAI arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder as basis species for the retention of species closed to directed fishing and is necessary to improve retention of otherwise marketable groundfish in these BSAI fisheries. This action also includes four regulatory amendments related to harvest management of Kamchatka flounder.
          Three amendments are necessary to manage Kamchatka flounder in the same manner as arrowtooth flounder in the BSAI and to aid in the recordkeeping, reporting, and catch accounting of flatfish in the BSAI. The fourth amendment is necessary to provide NMFS the flexibility to allocate arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder (and other species in the future) to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program in the annual harvest specifications. Through this proposed action, NMFS intends to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 15, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0044, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0044 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

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

          Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeff Hartman, 907-586-7442, or Tom Pearson, 907-481-1780.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone in the BSAI under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        Regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f), and Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 establish MRA percentages for groundfish species and species groups. An MRA is the maximum round weight of a species or species group closed to directed fishing that may be retained onboard a vessel. NMFS established MRAs to allow vessels engaged in fishing for species or species groups open to directed fishing (basis species) to retain a specified amount of species or species group closed to directed fishing. The percent of a species or species group closed to directed fishing retained in relation to the basis species must not exceed the MRAs listed in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679.
        MRA percentages serve as a management tool to slow the harvest rates and reduce the incentive for targeting species closed to directed fishing. MRAs allow for some retention of species closed to directed fishing instead of requiring regulatory discards of these species. MRA percentages reflect a balance between the recognized need to slow harvest rates and minimize the potential for discards, and, in some cases, provide an increased opportunity to harvest available total allowable catch (TAC) through limited retention.
        The NOAA Office for Law Enforcement or the United States Coast Guard may review production data to determine if vessels have complied with specified MRAs by comparing the estimated round weight of the retained species closed to directed fishing with the estimated round weight of the retained basis species. The amount of round weight of each retained species must not exceed the MRA, a specified percent, of the round weight of a basis species. For example, when Pacific cod is open to directed fishing and arrowtooth flounder is closed to directed fishing, a vessel operator may retain a round weight equivalent amount of arrowtooth flounder of up to 35 percent of the round weight equivalent of Pacific cod that is retained onboard the vessel. In this example, all incidental catch of arrowtooth flounder in excess of the 35 percent MRA, from Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679, must be discarded.
        To convert processed weight of groundfish to round weight equivalent, NMFS applies product recovery rates (PRRs) from Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679. Using the example above, during a fishing trip, a vessel operator engaged in catching and processing fish at sea during an open Pacific cod directed fishery would convert the processed weights of arrowtooth flounder and Pacific cod to the respective round weight equivalents. The vessel operator and NOAA Office for Law Enforcement can then determine if retained catch of arrowtooth flounder has exceeded the 35 percent MRA limit found in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679, by dividing the retained incidental catch of arrowtooth flounder by the retained Pacific cod caught during an open directed fishery and converting the proportion to a percentage.
        MRAs provide an increased opportunity to harvest available total allowable catch (TAC) through limited targeting activity. A vessel operator may have an incentive to target a species closed to directed fishing when the vessel operator determines that the retention of a species closed to directed fishing is less than or equal to the MRA limit specified for that species at § 679.20(e) and (f), and would provide economic benefits notwithstanding costs associated with finding, processing, and retaining the species closed to directed fishing. Prior to 1994, a vessel operator would target low-value basis species for the purpose of retaining up to the MRA limit of valuable incidental species closed to directed fishing. That led to the waste of some basis species for which there was no viable market. In 1994, NMFS published an emergency interim rule to prohibit the use of arrowtooth flounder as a basis species for the purpose of retaining groundfish closed to directed fishing (59 FR 6222, February 10, 1994). At the time the emergency rule was published, several vessel operators in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) were deliberately targeting arrowtooth flounder to use as a basis species for the retention of highly valued groundfish species, such as sablefish, which were closed to directed fishing. Because there was no market for arrowtooth flounder, the retained arrowtooth flounder was either discarded or made into fish meal. In 1995, NMFS made this prohibition permanent to prevent vessels from wasting arrowtooth flounder as a basis species (60 FR 40304, August 8, 1995).

        Arrowtooth flounder is now a valuable target fishery, and increasing MRAs for species closed to directed fishing when arrowtooth flounder is used as a basis species may result in a decrease in regulatory discards of the incidentally caught groundfish. For example, by 1995, limited markets for arrowtooth flounder had developed in the GOA. In 1997, NMFS increased the MRAs for pollock and Pacific cod from zero to 5 percent when arrowtooth flounder was the basis species. NMFS intended that the increase would reduce regulatory discards and provide for more efficient utilization of pollock and Pacific cod caught in the arrowtooth flounder fishery (62 FR 11109, March 11, 1997). That action reduced both the regulatory discards in the GOA and the number of violation notices issued by the NOAA Office for Law Enforcement for exceeding the MRAs of pollock and Pacific cod in the arrowtooth flounder fishery. On March 27, 2009, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 13348) to increase MRAs for groundfish caught in the GOA arrowtooth flounder fishery from zero to 20 percent for deep-water flatfish, rex sole, flathead sole, shallow-water flatfish, Atka mackerel, and skates; from zero to 5 percent for aggregated rockfish; and from zero to 1 percent for sablefish. These amendments also reduced regulatory discards in the GOA arrowtooth flounder fishery.
        As in the GOA, the retention of BSAI arrowtooth flounder fishery has increased as opportunities to market arrowtooth flounder products has expanded. During 2003 to 2010, the TAC for the arrowtooth flounder fishery increased from 12,000 metric tons (mt) in 2003, to 75,000 mt in 2010. Over this same period the total catch of arrowtooth flounder increased from 11,916 mt in 2007 to 30,367 mt in 2009, and the percent of arrowtooth flounder retained for processing increased from 21 percent in 2004, to 81 percent in 2010. Consequently, the Council has recommended additional management measures to better manage and reduce regulatory discards in the BSAI arrowtooth flounder fishery.
        MRAs for Groundfish in Arrowtooth Flounder Directed Fishery

        The Council recognized that efforts by the non-pelagic trawl fleet to improve retention of groundfish species in the BSAI arrowtooth flounder fishery are constrained by the current zero MRAs for groundfish for the arrowtooth flounder basis species. In October 2010, the Council recommended setting the MRAs for BSAI groundfish using arrowtooth flounder as the basis species at the same MRA percentages as those set for BSAI groundfish using Pacific cod as a basis species with two exceptions (Greenland turbot and the “other species” group). The EA/RIR/IRFA provided information demonstrating that most of the MRAs listed in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 for groundfish caught in the Pacific cod directed fishery would represent a conservative guide for managing incidental catch in the arrowtooth flounder fishery. MRAs for groundfish species in the Pacific cod directed fishery are lower than the MRAs for a number of groundfish species that are commonly caught by the non-pelagic trawl fleet in the arrowtooth and Kamchatka flounder complex fisheries.
        The Council recommended that the MRAs for Greenland turbot in the arrowtooth flounder directed fishery be based on the approximate average incidental catch between 2003 and 2009 because average gross earnings per pound of retained arrowtooth flounder increased during that time. The Council recommended that the MRAs for the aggregated “other species” group (skates, sharks, sculpins, and octopus) caught in the arrowtooth flounder fishery also be based on the approximate average incidental catch observed between 2003 and 2009. The Council intends these MRA modifications to allow vessels fishing in the arrowtooth flounder fisheries some retention of incidentally caught Greenland turbot and “other species.” At the same time, the proposed action sets these MRA limits for Greenland turbot at levels that minimize impacts on the Greenland turbot directed fisheries and that conserve stocks that comprise the “other species” group.
        Council Action on MRAs and Management of Groundfish in Arrowtooth Flounder and Kamchatka Flounder Directed Fisheries
        Prior to 2011, arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder were managed together with a single overfishing level (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and TAC in the BSAI. Arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder are caught at the same time in the non-pelagic trawl fishery, and are often difficult to distinguish from each other. Throughout most of the BSAI, however, Kamchatka flounder are less abundant than arrowtooth flounder. As the directed fishery for arrowtooth flounder and market prices for Kamchatka flounder have increased, Kamchatka flounder in the arrowtooth flounder fishery has been caught in disproportionately greater amounts relative to Kamchatka flounder biomass estimates. In 2010, the Council recommended that separate OFLs, ABCs, and TACs be established for arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder to protect the stock of Kamchatka flounder (76 FR 11138, March 1, 2011). Additionally, MRAs established for groundfish species closed to directed fishing in the Kamchatka flounder fishery will be the same as those set for the species closed to directed fishing in the arrowtooth flounder fishery. For prohibited species catch (PSC) management purposes and fishing seasons, the Council also recommended, and NMFS proposes, that Kamchatka flounder be managed as a fishery category with arrowtooth flounder, turbot, and sablefish.
        CDQ Allocations for Kamchatka Flounder
        In the final 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007), NMFS explained that the term “directed fishery” for purposes of section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act means a fishery for which sufficient TAC exists to to allow unlimited retention of that species or species group, and the species or species group is economically valuable enough for the CDQ groups to target them. In the proposed 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (75 FR 76362, December 8, 2010), NMFS requested comment about whether Kamchatka flounder should be considered a directed fishery in the BSAI for purposes of CDQ allocations, and specifically whether the CDQ groups intended to conduct directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in the future. NMFS received comments from all six of the CDQ groups that they did not intend to conduct directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in 2011, but that economic conditions may change in the future in a manner that may make it appropriate for NMFS to allocate Kamchatka flounder to the CDQ Program. Therefore, in the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (76 FR 11139, March 1, 2011), NMFS did not allocate a portion of the Kamchatka flounder TAC to the CDQ Program.
        Council Review of Draft Regulations To Combine Arrowtooth Flounder and Kamchatka Flounder Management Measures
        In June 2011, NMFS provided the Council a review of the proposed regulatory revisions described below for MRAs associated with the arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder directed fisheries, as well as the management, recordkeeping, reporting, and catch accounting of arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder. The Council concurred in NMFS' determination that the proposed regulatory provisions to combine many of the management measures for arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder are necessary for the management of these species. With the exception of establishing separate OFLs, ABC, and TACs, the Council intends that Kamchatka flounder be managed in the same manner as arrowtooth flounder.
        Proposed Regulatory Amendments
        Revisions to MRA Regulations
        This proposed rule would revise Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 to increase the MRAs for groundfish species and species groups closed to directed fishing using arrowtooth flounder as the basis species from zero percent to 20 percent for pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, Alaska plaice, yellowfin sole, other flatfish, rock sole, flathead sole, and squid; from zero percent to 7 percent for Greenland turbot; from zero percent to 1 percent for sablefish; from zero percent to 2 percent for shortraker rockfish and rougheye rockfish (combined); from zero percent to 5 percent for aggregated rockfish; zero percent to 7 percent for Greenland turbot; and zero percent to 3 percent for the “other species” group.

        Through this proposed action, NMFS would revise Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 to manage MRAs associated with the arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder directed fisheries in close coordination. This proposed rule would also revise Table 11 to eliminate language that is no longer relevant because of revisions implemented through prior actions. NMFS proposes to move Kamchatka flounder from “other flatfish” to the arrowtooth flounder category in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679. NMFS would revise Footnote 2 to Table 11, to include Kamchatka flounder to further clarify that Kamchatka flounder is not included with “other flatfish.” NMFS would revise footnote 4, which defines “other species,” to remove the sentence “Forage fish, as defined at Table 2c to this part are not included in the `other species' category.” This revision would eliminate an unnecessary clarification because capelin, eulachon, and smelt were removed from “other species” category and placed in a forage fish species category in 1998 (63 FR 13009, March 17, 1998). This proposed amendment would eliminate a potential source of confusion for the entities that would be subject to this rule and required to use the revised Table 11 to comply with groundfish MRAs.
        NMFS proposes that if either arrowtooth flounder or Kamchatka flounder closes to directed fishing then neither arrowtooth flounder nor Kamchatka flounder could be used as a basis species for the retention of groundfish in the BSAI. This revision is necessary because it is difficult to distinguish between arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder once the two species are processed. Without distinguishing catch between these two species, the fishing industry would not be able to comply with the application of different MRA percentages for incidental catch of arrowtooth flounder or Kamchatka flounder when only one of these species is open to directed fishing. In addition, footnote 9 would be added to Table 11 to clarify that when arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder are closed to directed fishing and caught incidentally in other directed groundfish fisheries, vessel compliance with MRA limits specified for these species would be calculated as the aggregate retained incidental catch of both arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder.
        Management Measures
        Four additional regulatory amendments are proposed to provide for the identical MRA, PSC, and harvest management measures for arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder. These amendments are necessary to facilitate recordkeeping, reporting, and catch accounting of arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder and would ensure consistent timing of the harvest of these two species.
        The first amendment would revise § 679.21(e)(3)(iv)(C) to include Kamchatka flounder in the same trawl fishery category for PSC management as arrowtooth flounder. Currently, Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish are in the same trawl fishery category for purposes of applying PSC limits. This revision is necessary because arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder are harvested in a mixed groundfish fishery and typically encounter similar PSC species.
        The second amendment would establish identical seasonal opening dates for arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder, and is necessary to manage the Kamchatka flounder fishery in the same time period as the arrowtooth flounder fishery. Arrowtooth and Kamchatka flounder have historically been managed together because they are mixed-stock species and are often targeted together. Initiating the fishing season for these two species on different dates would cause significant management difficulties and therefore NMFS recommends concurrent seasonal management. NMFS would revise the BSAI groundfish seasons at § 679.23(e)(1) to include Kamchatka flounder with arrowtooth flounder and Greenland turbot so that the season for all these species would open on May 1.
        The third amendment would revise Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679, which lists the product recovery rates (PRR) for groundfish species and conversion rates for Pacific halibut. These revisions would consolidate the eight flatfish species (including Kamchatka flounder) in Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679 into a single row, and apply identical PRRs to these eight flatfish species. This consolidation of flatfish into one row would simplify Table 3 and is necessary to facilitate recordkeeping, reporting, and MRA determination. Currently, identical PRRs are listed in Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679 for these eight individual species of flatfish, with the exception of yellowfin sole, which is also listed as having a PRR for surimi. NMFS proposes to establish one surimi PRR for all the species within the consolidated flatfish category because the similar morphology of the species within this category is likely to produce a similar proportion of utilized surimi product. NMFS proposes to use the surimi PRR currently listed for yellowfin sole for the consolidated flatfish category. If the consolidated flatfish category was not assigned a PRR for surimi, compliance with MRAs could not be determined for this product form.
        The fourth amendment would revise § 679.20(b)(1)(ii) to explain how NMFS will determine whether to allocate a portion of a new TAC category to the CDQ Program in the annual harvest specifications. NMFS implemented the current regulations § 679.20(b)(1)(ii) in the final rule for Amendment 80 to the FMP (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). These regulations state that if the groundfish harvest specifications change a TAC category allocated to a CDQ reserve by combining or splitting a species, species group, or management area, then the same percentage of the TAC apportioned to a CDQ reserve in § 679.20 (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) will apply to the new TAC category. However, section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act addresses allocations to the CDQ Program and provides more specific guidance, namely, “the allocation under the (CDQ) program in any directed fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (other than a fishery for halibut, sablefish, pollock, and crab) established after the date of enactment of this subclause shall be a total allocation (directed and nontarget combined) of 10.7 percent.”
        The creation of a new TAC category for Kamchatka flounder required NMFS, in the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (76 FR 11139, March 1, 2011), to determine if Kamchatka flounder was a “directed fishery” for purposes of the CDQ Program. If NMFS determined it was a directed fishery, 10.7 percent of the Kamchatka flounder TAC would be allocated to the CDQ Program. As described in more detail in the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications, NMFS determined that Kamchatka flounder was not a “directed fishery” for purposes of the CDQ Program. This proposed rule would amend § 679.20(b)(1)(ii) to explain how this determination will be made in future harvest specifications should new TAC categories be created.

        Specifically, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D) and remove regulations at § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(E) that govern CDQ allocations for TAC categories that are established when one species or species group is split from an existing species or species group to form a new TAC category. Paragraph (D)(2) would be added to § 679.20(b)(1)(ii) to state that, for all other groundfish species not specifically listed in § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D)(1), an amount equal to 10.7 percent of the BSAI TAC would be apportioned to a CDQ reserve if NMFS, after consultation with the Council, determines in the annual harvest specifications that a directed fishery in the BSAI exists for this species under section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The species specifically allocated to the CDQ Program in 50 CFR part 679 are pollock, sablefish, the “Amendment 80” species (Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, yellowfin sole, rock sole, and flathead sole), Bering Sea Greenland turbot, and arrowtooth flounder. In making a determination that a directed fishery exists in the BSAI, the Council and NMFS would consider whether sufficient TAC exists to open a directed fishery for that species in the BSAI and if the CDQ groups are likely to conduct directed fishing for that species. The 10.7 percent amount for Kamchatka flounder under § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D)(2) is the same as the 10.7 percent amount for arrowtooth flounder under § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D)(1), consistent with the Council's intent for similar management of the two species.

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) and 305 (d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Using earnings from all Alaska fisheries in 2009, there are 254 catcher vessels directly regulated by this action that had gross earnings less than $4.0 million, thus categorizing them as small entities based on the threshold that the Small Business Administration uses to define small fishing entities. For catcher/processors, 18 vessels had gross earnings less than $4 million, categorizing them as small entities. The preferred alternative also affects the six CDQ groups because it would revise regulations governing how allocations are made to the CDQ Program of TAC categories established by splitting existing quota categories, as has occurred with arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder. Due to their status as non-profit corporations, the CDQ groups are also considered to be small entities under the RFA.
        The Council evaluated three alternatives and three suboptions to increase the MRAs of groundfish in the arrowtooth flounder fishery in the BSAI. Alternative 1, the status quo or no action alternative, would leave the MRAs for groundfish in the BSAI arrowtooth flounder fishery unchanged from current levels, and would continue to require fishermen to discard otherwise marketable groundfish.
        Alternative 2 would set the MRAs for groundfish using arrowtooth flounder as a basis species at the same MRA levels for groundfish using Pacific cod as a basis species, with two suboptions to modify the Greenland turbot MRA at 15 percent or 7 percent, and one suboption to modify the “other species” group MRA to 3 percent.
        Alternative 3 would set the MRAs for groundfish using arrowtooth flounder as a basis species at the same MRA levels for groundfish using flathead sole as a basis species. The Council also considered a suboption to Alternative 3 to set the MRA for Greenland turbot using arrowtooth flounder as a basis species to 15 percent.
        To provide the opportunity to the arrowtooth flounder trawl fishing industry to reduce discards by allowing increased retention of groundfish, the Council recommended Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative, with suboptions 2.2 and 2.3 for Greenland turbot and the “other species” group. Alternative 2, combined with suboptions 2.2, and 2.3, would increase MRAs of groundfish closed to directed fishing for arrowtooth flounder as the basis species from zero percent to 20 percent for pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, Alaska plaice, yellowfin sole, other flatfish, rock sole, flathead sole, and squid; from zero percent to 7 percent for Greenland turbot; from zero percent to 1 percent for sablefish; from zero percent to 2 percent for shortraker and rougheye rockfish (combined); from zero percent to 5 percent for aggregated rockfish; and from zero percent to 3 percent for the “other species” group (consisting of skates, sharks, sculpins, and octopus in the aggregate). The Council recommended that the MRAs for Greenland turbot and aggregated “other species” be based on the approximate average incidental catch observed in the arrowtooth flounder fishery between 2003 and 2009. For Greenland turbot, an MRA of 7 percent would allow for increased retention of Greenland turbot for arrowtooth flounder as the basis species, when Greenland turbot is closed to directed fishing. Suboption 2.2 also would provide a more conservative MRA for Greenland turbot than suboption 2.1. Suboption 2.1, an MRA of 15 percent, would allow increased retention of Greenland turbot for arrowtooth flounder as the basis species. Constraining the MRA for Greenland turbot to 7 percent instead of 15 percent may reduce the amount of incidentally caught Greenland turbot in the Amendment 80 sector directed fishery for arrowtooth flounder, allowing for a greater amount of Greenland turbot to be available for small entities in the longline fishery. The longline fishery relies on access to the Greenland turbot directed fishery. Suboption 2.3 would conserve the stocks that comprise the “other species” group while allowing for some retained catch of these species in the arrowtooth flounder fishery when the species that comprise the “other species” group are closed to directed fishing.
        Alternative 3 would increase the MRAs of groundfish closed to directed fishing for arrowtooth flounder as the basis species from zero percent to 20 percent for pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, squid, and for the “other species” group (skates, sharks, sculpins, and octopus in the aggregate); from zero percent to 35 percent for Alaska plaice, yellowfin sole, other flatfish, flathead sole, and Greenland turbot; from zero percent to 15 percent for sablefish and aggregated rockfish; and from zero percent to 7 percent for shortraker and rougheye rockfish (combined).
        Under Alternative 3, the Council recognized a greater potential for development of fisheries that could increase harvests of species and adversely impact the ability of NMFS to effectively manage several groundfish species within the TAC, and therefore did not recommend this alternative. In general, the development of a fishery is dependent upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the price of the MRA species, whether a market exists, accessibility of the species, storage availability, and processing capacity. In addition, the potential for a vessel to harvest a specific species varies across vessels. A vessel operator has more discretion to harvest specific groundfish species if the operator has the ability to limit incidental catch or the ability to discard low-valued fish, while targeting arrowtooth flounder.

        Alternatives 2 and 3 would be beneficial to the affected small entities by providing an opportunity to retain additional, economically valuable groundfish species when arrowtooth flounder is a basis species. Under Alternative 2, the benefits to small entities would be slightly lower than under Alternative 3. However, Alternative 2 with suboptions 2.2 and 2.3 (the preferred alternative), that sets the MRA for Greenland turbot at 7 percent and the MRA for the species that comprise the “other species” group at 3 percent, reduces unintended impacts to the Greenland turbot directed fishery more effectively and provides greater protection for the species which comprise the “other species” group than does Alternative 3. Allowing a greater amount of Greenland turbot retained catch under Alternative 3 may result in earlier closure of the Greenland turbot directed fishery, as compared with Alternative 2 with suboption 2.2. No negative impacts on small entities are associated with either Alternative 2 or 3.

        Should the preferred alternative be implemented, the four additional amendments to the regulations proposed by NMFS are necessary. The purposes of these proposed amendments are: to provide management measures for Kamchatka flounder that are identical to those for arrowtooth flounder; to prevent the Kamchatka flounder fishery from having negative impacts on the arrowtooth flounder and Greenland turbot directed fisheries; to facilitate recordkeeping, reporting, and catch accounting of Kamchatka flounder as well as other flatfish species and species groups; and to provide the Council and NMFS greater flexibility in the annual harvest specifications process to allocate TAC (for such species as Kamchatka flounder) to the CDQ Program in the future. These proposed revised regulatory amendments are included in this proposed rule as they address the Council's intent to manage Kamchatka flounder with separate harvest specifications with the same management measures that apply to arrowtooth flounder because of the close association of these two species in the groundfish fisheries.
        No negative impacts on small entities are associated with these proposed regulatory amendments. Participants in the Amendment 80 sector are the primary entities that would be affected by this proposed action since only Amendment 80 sector operators have developed markets for arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder and have expressed interest in retaining these two groundfish species. These two species have become sufficiently important to some vessels in this sector so NMFS does not anticipate the catch rates and amounts of arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder would change under the preferred alternative to amend the MRAs for groundfish caught in the target fisheries. Thus, NMFS has no expectation that fishing location or intensity will be altered by the small increases in MRAs for incidental catch of groundfish in the directed fisheries of these two species. The primary effect of this action would be to reduce the amount of discarded groundfish catch. Small entities are unlikely to be disadvantaged by the opportunity to retain valuable incidental catch that would otherwise be discarded and made unavailable to sell as a marketable product.
        This proposed rule contains no additional collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries.

          Dated: September 11, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447.

          2. In § 679.20, remove paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E) and revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) to read as follows:

            § 679.20
            General limitations.

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (ii) * * *
            (D) CDQ reserves for other groundfish species. (1) An amount equal to 10.7 percent of the BSAI TACs for Bering Sea Greenland turbot and arrowtooth flounder, and 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocation of sablefish in the BS and AI is apportioned from the nonspecified reserve established under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section to a CDQ reserve for each of these species by management area, subarea, or district.
            (2) For all other groundfish species not specifically listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D)(1) of this section, an amount equal to 10.7 percent of the BSAI TAC will be apportioned to a CDQ reserve if NMFS, after consultation with the Council, determines in the annual harvest specifications process under paragraph (c) of this section that a directed fishery in the BSAI exists for this species under section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In making this determination, the Council and NMFS shall consider whether sufficient TAC exists to open a directed fishery for that species in the BSAI and if the CDQ groups are likely to conduct a directed fishery for that species.

            3. In § 679.21, revise paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(C) to read as follows:

            § 679.21
            Prohibited species bycatch management.

            (e) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (iv) * * *
            (C) Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/Kamchatka flounder/sablefish fishery. Fishing with trawl gear during any weekly reporting period that results in a retained aggregate amount of Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and sablefish that is greater than the retained amount of any other fishery category defined under this paragraph (e)(3)(iv).

            4. In § 679.23, revise paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

            § 679.23
            Seasons.

            (e) * * *
            (1) Directed fishing for arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and Greenland turbot. Directed fishing for arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and Greenland turbot in the BSAI is authorized from 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 1 through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, subject to the other provisions of this part.

            5. Revise Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679 to read as follows:
            BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

              EP14SE12.055

              EP14SE12.056

              EP14SE12.057

            6. Revise Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 to read as follows:

              EP14SE12.058

      [FR Doc. 2012-22721 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C