        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0564; FRL-10002-24-Region 9]
        Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from organic liquid and gasoline transfer and storage operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by December 20, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0564 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3004, newhouse.rebecca@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the 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 is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
          II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
          B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
          D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
          III. Incorporation by Reference
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        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 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          TABLE 1—Submitted Rules

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Amended
            Submitted

            MDAQMD
            461
            Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing
            01/22/2018
            05/23/2018

            MDAQMD
            462
            Organic Liquid Loading
            01/22/2018
            05/23/2018

            MDAQMD
            463
            Storage of Organic Liquids
            01/22/2018
            05/23/2018

        On November 23, 2018, the submittal of Rules 461, 462, and 463 for MDAQMD was deemed by operation of law 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?
        The MDAQMD regulates portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. On July 1, 1994, a portion of Riverside County left the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and joined the MDAQMD. The EPA-approved SIP for this portion of Riverside County remained the same when the area changed districts. As a result, the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD SIP retained the SCAQMD rules in place at that time.
        We approved earlier versions of MDAQMD Rules 461 and 462 into the SIP on May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21702). These rules applied in both the San Bernardino and Riverside County portions of the MDAQMD and replaced the existing versions of Rules 461 and 462 in place in the District at that time.
        On May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21702), we also approved a version of Rule 463 submitted by the San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District on November 2, 1992. This rule was only approved to apply in the San Bernardino County portion of the District. In the Riverside County portion of the MDAQMD, the EPA approved the June 1, 1984 version of SCAQMD Rule 463 on January 15, 1987 (52 FR 1627). For a more complete discussion of the SIP history of these rules, see the technical support documents (TSDs).
        The MDAQMD adopted revisions to all three rules on January 22, 2018, and CARB submitted them to us on May 23, 2018. In its submission, the District requested that in the San Bernardino County portion of the District the newly-adopted rules replace the versions of Rules 461, 462, and 463, approved in 1995, and that in the Riverside County portion of the District, the rules replace all versions of the rules that are applicable in Riverside County.
        C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

        Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of 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 VOC emissions. SIP-approved Rules 461, 462, and 463 limit VOC emissions from organic liquid storage tanks and during transfers at bulk terminals, bulk gasoline plants, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Major revisions to the SIP-approved versions of the rules include requiring CARB-certification for vapor recovery systems, requiring a minimum vapor recovery efficiency for gasoline transfers to mobile fuelers, lowering the threshold for determining vapor leaks, lowering the vapor pressure cut-off for stationary storage tanks, adding an emissions limit for organic liquid transfers at bulk terminals, adding backpressure requirements during organic liquid transfer, and strengthening recordkeeping and inspection requirements, among other changes. The EPA's TSDs have more information about these rules.
        Additionally, on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5921), the EPA partially conditionally approved MDAQMD's reasonably available control technology (RACT) demonstrations for the 1997 8-hr ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS (also referred to as the 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs) with respect to Rules 461, 462, and 463, based on commitments from MDAQMD and CARB to adopt and submit amendments to those rules to implement current RACT.1
           These rules were revised by the District and submitted to the EPA by CARB for incorporation into the SIP to ensure continued compliance with the CAA RACT requirement, and to fulfill commitments necessary for the EPA to convert the partial conditional approval of the District's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs into a full approval for the VOC source categories covered by Rules 461, 462, and 463.

            1 Letter dated September 25, 2017, from Brad Poiriez, Air Pollution Control Officer, MDAQMD, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX, and Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB; and letter dated October 3, 2017, from Jon Taylor, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX.

        II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
        SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
        Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The MDAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, these rules must implement RACT.
        Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

          1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
          2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
          3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
          4. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-77-036, December 1977.
          5. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-78-047, December 1978.
          6. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,” EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977.
          7. “Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,” EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977.
          8. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,” EPA-450/2-78-051, December 1978.
          9. “Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems-Gasoline Service Stations,” EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.
          10. “Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks,” EPA-453/R-94-001, January 1994.

        B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
        These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions, and fulfill the District's commitment to revise the rules to meet current RACT. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
        C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
        The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
        D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
        As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant requirements. In addition, we propose to convert the partial conditional approval of the District's RACT SIPs with respect to Rules 461, 462, and 463, as found in 40 CFR 52.248(d), to a full approval. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 20, 2019. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
        III. Incorporation by Reference

        In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the MDAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

        • 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);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: November 4, 2019.
          Deborah Jordan,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2019-25063 Filed 11-19-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 050325082-5082-01; I.D. 031705E]
        RIN 0648-AS90
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation Program for the Scallop Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (FMP), which would modify the gear endorsements under the license limitation program (LLP) for the scallop fishery. This action is necessary to allow increased participation by LLP license holders in the scallop fisheries off Alaska.  This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before May 31, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:
          • E-mail: Scallop10-PR-0648-AS90@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Scallop 10 PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Facsimile: 907-586-7557.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.
          Copies of Amendment 10 to the Scallop FMP, and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for the amendment are available from NMFS at the mailing address specified above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, phone: 907-586-7228 or e-mail: gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under the FMP, management of all aspects of the scallop fishery, except limited access, is delegated to the State of Alaska (State). Federal regulations governing the scallop fishery appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. State regulations governing the scallop fishery appear in the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 5 AAC Chapter 38--Miscellaneous Shellfish.
        State regulations establish guideline harvest levels (GHL) for different scallop registration areas, fishing seasons, open and closed fishing areas, observer coverage requirements, bycatch limits, gear restrictions, and measures to limit processing efficiency (including a ban on the use of mechanical shucking machines and a limitation on crew size). The gear regulations limit vessels to using no more than two 15 ft (4.5 m) dredges, except in State Scallop Registration Area H (Cook Inlet) where vessels are limited to using a single 6 ft (1.8 m) scallop dredge.
        The Council has submitted Amendment 10 for Secretarial review, and a Notice of Availability of the amendment was published on March 24, 2005, with comments on the FMP amendment invited through May 23, 2005 (70 FR 15063). Comments may address the FMP amendment, this proposed rule, or both, but must be received by May 23, 2005, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.

        Beginning in 2001, NMFS has required a Federal scallop LLP license on board any vessel deployed in the scallop fisheries in Federal waters off Alaska. The LLP was implemented through approval of Amendment 4 to the FMP by the Secretary on June 8, 2000, and the final rule implementing Amendment 4 was published December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78110). The LLP was established to limit harvesting capacity in the Federal scallop fishery off Alaska. NMFS issued a total of nine LLP licenses. Licenses were issued to holders of either Federal or State moratorium permits who used their permits to make legal landings of scallops in each of any two calendar years during the period beginning January 1, 1996, through October 9, 1998. The licenses authorize their holders to catch and retain scallops in all waters off Alaska that are open for scallop fishing.
        Two licenses were based on the legal landings of scallops harvested only from Cook Inlet during the qualifying period and therefore have a gear restriction endorsement that limits allowable gear to a single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge when fishing for scallops in any area. The other seven licenses, based on the legal landings of scallops harvested from areas outside Cook Inlet during the qualifying period, have no gear restriction endorsement, but are limited to two 15-ft (4.5 m) dredges under existing state regulations. The purpose of the gear restriction endorsement was to prevent expansion in overall fishing capacity by not allowing relatively small operations in Cook Inlet to increase their fishing capacity.
        Subsequent to LLP implementation, the Council has found that the gear restriction endorsement may create a disproportionate economic hardship for those LLP license holders restricted to 6 ft (1.8 m) dredges when they fish in Federal waters, especially in light of the State's observer requirements and their associated costs. In February 2004, the Council developed a problem statement and four alternatives for analysis of modifying or eliminating the gear restriction for the two licenses affected by the gear restriction.
        In October 2004, the Council voted unanimously to recommend to the Secretary Amendment 10 to change the single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement in the scallop LLP to two dredges with a combined width of no more than 20 ft (6.1 m) restriction endorsement. This change would allow the two LLP license holders with the current gear endorsement to fish in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet with larger dredges. The Council recommended this change because it found that it is not economically viable for vessels to operate outside Cook Inlet with the existing gear restrictions.
        The Council also recognized that economic conditions of the scallop fleet had changed since the LLP was approved. The change resulted from the formation of a harvesting cooperative by a majority of the LLP holders. The harvesting cooperative provides harvesting efficiency to participants without an increase in fishing capacity. Efficiency gains are realized when harvesting cooperative participants retire excess fishing capacity while being assured that the entry of additional capacity is prevented by the LLP. Without the LLP, a harvesting cooperative was unlikely because any efficiency gains through cooperation could be easily eroded by unrestricted entry of new vessels to the fishery. Hence, concern about the expansion of overall fishing capacity no longer exists with the combined effects of the LLP and harvesting cooperatives.
        In discussing the difference among the alternatives, the Council noted that allowing two vessels the ability to use two 10-ft dredges would give them a much greater ability to cover the costs of carrying an observer in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet. Public testimony by a vessel owner with a restricted license indicated that the use of larger dredges would allow the vessel to adequately cover its operational costs with the additional costs for an observer in statewide waters. The Council discussed the issue of increasing capacity in the fishery by this proposed action, but acknowledged that licenses already are limited by vessel length, and the two vessels impacted by this proposed action are among the smallest in the fishery. The Council acknowledged that these vessels, by their size, are precluded from fishing in inclement weather and thus are limited in their harvesting ability. The fishery currently is prosecuted in a slower manner than before 2000, due to the combination of the LLP and the harvesting cooperative in the fishery. The Council discussed the relative impacts of increasing harvesting ability on the two licences which are not part of this harvesting cooperative. Due to the small size of the vessels used by the license holders, however, this change is not expected to impact the operation of the harvesting cooperative.
        Therefore, the Council concluded that while these two vessels could increase their capacity, they would not increase overall fishing effort to the extent that it would interfere with the total fleet's ability to operate at a sustainable and economically viable level. Amendment 10 would provide the two vessels with a larger share of the total catch which would offset their observer costs and enhance their economic viability.
        Classification

        At this time, NMFS has not determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period (see DATES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Council prepared an EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendment 10, which describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the socio-economic impacts of the alternatives. It estimates the total number of small entities affected by this action, and analyzes the economic impact on those small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the IRFA follows.
        For purposes of the IRFA, the two LLP license holders, which currently are subject to the single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge gear restriction, are the only small entities (i.e., each having annual gross receipts of less than $3.5 million) directly regulated by the proposed rule.
        The LLP impacted the two small entities that fished exclusively inside of Cook Inlet during the qualifying period by limiting the size of dredge either vessel could operate to a single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge. The remaining seven LLP license holders may operate up to the State-authorized gear limit of two 15 ft dredges (4.5 m). The Council recommended Amendment 10 because it found that it is not economically viable for the two LLP license holders to operate outside Cook Inlet (as authorized by authority of the LLP license) with the existing 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge gear restrictions. The Council determined that, given existing observer requirements and their associated costs, the single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge restriction created a disproportionate economic hardship when fishing in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet.
        The Council considered the following four alternatives that could reduce impacts on small entities.

          Alternative 1: This alternative would retain status quo and maintain the current 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement on two LLP licenses. This alternative was rejected because it would not solve the problem of disproportionate hardship being experienced by two LLP license holders that are restricted to using a single 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge when fishing in Federal waters outside of Cook Inlet while other LLP license holders are limited to two 15 ft. (4.5 m) dredges.

          Alternative 2: This alternative would modify the 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement to allow vessels with the current endorsement to fish in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet with two dredges with a combined width of no more than 16 ft. This alternative was rejected because it did not provide enough relief to the two LLP license holders currently limited to using a single 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge in Federal waters outside of Cook Inlet. This alternative would allow slightly more than half of the fishing capacity of other scallop fishing operations outside of Cook Inlet.

          Alternative 3: This alternative is the preferred alternative. It would modify the current 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge restriction to allow vessels with the current endorsement to fish in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet with two dredges with a combined width of no more than 20 ft (6.1 m). This alternative appeared to ideally balance the Council's original concern of limiting fishing capacity for scallops while allowing the two LLP license holders that are restricted to using a single 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge to expand their production of scallops sufficiently to cover their costs and allow them to become competitive with other scallop fishing operations.

          Alternative 4: This alternative would eliminate the current 6-ft. (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement on the two LLP licenses. This alternative would allow the two LLP license holders that are restricted to using a single 6 ft. (1.8 m) dredge to expand their capacity to be equal to the current limit of two 15 ft. (4.5 m) dredges. This alternative was rejected because it is unnecessarily liberal.
        As proposed, Amendment 10 would change the single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement in the LLP to a restriction endorsement of two dredges with a combined width of no more than 20 feet (6.1 m). This change would allow the two LLP license holders with the current gear restriction endorsement the opportunity to fish in Federal waters, outside Cook Inlet, with larger gear. The Council also concluded that, because of changes to the fleet after the LLP was implemented, these two vessels could increase their capacity by using larger dredges without increasing fishing overall effort to the extent that it would interfere with the total fleet's ability to operate at a sustainable and economically viable level. Amendment 10 has the potential to provide these two vessels with an opportunity to capture a larger share of the total catch, thus allowing them to offset observer costs and enhance their income. Because of the maximum vessel length imposed on these vessels by the LLP license, neither operation has the potential to significantly impact the catch shares of the other operations in the fishery, so instability in the sector is not a serious concern associated with the proposed action. The most probable outcomes of implementing the preferred alternative would be some relatively modest redistribution of earnings to the two LLP license holders currently affected by the single 6 ft (1.8 m) dredge restriction.
        No known Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
        This proposed rule would impose no recordkeeping and reporting requirements on affected vessels.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 7, 2005.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For 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., and 3631 et seq.

        2. In § 679.4, paragraph (g)(3)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.4
          Permits.
          (g) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (ii) The gear specified on a scallop license will be restricted to two dredges with a combined width of no more than 20 feet (6.1 m) in all areas if the eligible applicant was a moratorium permit holder with a Scallop Registration Area H (Cook Inlet) endorsement and did not make a legal landing of scallops caught outside Area H during the qualification period specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 05-7448 Filed 4-12-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 110131079-1304-01]
        RIN 0648-BA79
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring 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 revising the reporting requirements for vessels issued Atlantic herring (herring) permits, because more timely catch information is necessary to monitor herring catch against the stock-wide herring annual catch limit (ACL) and herring management area sub-ACLs, to help prevent sub-ACLs overages, and to reduce the chance of premature fishery closures. This proposal would require limited access herring vessels to report catch daily via vessel monitoring systems (VMS), open access herring vessels to report catch weekly via the interactive voice response (IVR) system, and all herring-permitted vessels to submit vessel trip reports (VTRs) weekly.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on June 30, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for this regulatory amendment; it describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the regulatory amendment, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA79 by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov;

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
          • Mail to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Herring Catch Reporting Rulemaking.”

            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 (e.g., name, address) 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 fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule should be submitted to NMFS, at the address above, and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by e-mail at OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Atlantic herring harvest in the United States is managed by a fishery management plan (FMP) developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), and implemented by NMFS, in 2000. The FMP was most recently amended on March 2, 2011 (76 FR 11373), in Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP (Amendment 4), which established ACLs and accountability measures (AMs). Herring is not subject to overfishing; therefore, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), NMFS must have ACLs and AMs in the Herring FMP by 2011 (See 16 U.S.C. 1353(15)). Initially, in Amendment 4 the Council considered measures related to catch monitoring and reporting, interactions with river herring, access by midwater trawl vessels to groundfish closed areas, and interactions with the Atlantic mackerel fishery. In June 2009, the Council determined there was not sufficient time to develop and implement all the measures contemplated in Amendment 4 by 2011, so it decided to split Amendment 4 into two separate actions. The Council determined that Amendment 4 would continue to address ACL and AM requirements and specification issues, but that all other issues (e.g., catch monitoring and reporting, interactions with river herring and Atlantic mackerel, access to groundfish closed areas) would be considered in Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP (Amendment 5).
        The harvest of herring is managed by a stock-wide ACL that is divided between three management areas, one of which has two sub-areas. Area 1 is located in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and is divided into an inshore section (Area 1A) and an offshore section (Area 1B). Area 2 is located in the coastal waters between Massachusetts and North Carolina, and Area 3 is on Georges Bank (GB). The herring stock complex is considered to be a single stock, but it is comprised of inshore (GOM) and offshore (GB) stock components. The GOM and GB stock components segregate during spawning and mix during feeding and migration. Each management area has its own sub-ACL to allow greater control of the fishing mortality on each stock component.

        In order to monitor catch against management area quota allocations (i.e., sub-ACLs), reporting requirements for the herring fishery were implemented as part of the original Herring FMP in 2000, and are specified at § 648.7. Vessels report their herring catch via the IVR system. This information is supplemented by dealer-reported landings, and is monitored against management area sub-ACLs. IVR reports include the following information: Vessel identification; week in which herring was caught; pounds retained; pounds discarded; management areas fished; and pounds of herring caught in each management area. Owners/operators of vessels issued a limited access permit (Categories A-C) report catch weekly via IVR, and owners/operators of vessels issued an open access permit (Category D) report catch via IVR only if they harvest more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on a given trip. All herring-permitted vessels also complete vessel trip reports (VTRs). VTRs include such information as: Vessel identification; date fished; location fished; gear used, number of crew; total number of hauls; average tow duration; weight of species caught; and dealer information. VTRs are submitted on a monthly basis and are used to verify and/or supplement IVR and dealer data.

        To help ensure that herring catch does not exceed management area sub-ACLs, NMFS implements a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) per trip possession limit in a management area when 95 percent of that management area's sub-ACL is projected to be caught. This measure essentially closes the directed herring fishery in that management area. As catch approaches the sub-ACL's 95 percent closure threshold, NMFS coordinates the timing of implementing possession limit restrictions with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts to ensure consistency with state requirements. NMFS then publishes a notice in the Federal Register implementing the 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit.

        When approving and implementing Amendment 4, NMFS determined that weekly submission of IVR data and monthly submission of VTR data was sufficient to monitor herring catch against herring sub-ACLs. Between 2001 and 2009, herring catch exceeded individual management area closure thresholds (i.e., 95 percent of sub-ACL) on 8 of the 36 thresholds set over that period (or less than 25 percent of the time). In other words, the four herring management areas were monitored over 9 years, for a total of 36 management area thresholds, and those thresholds were exceeded 8 times. Because catch exceeded the management area closure threshold less than 25 percent of the time, NMFS concluded that existing catch reporting was sufficient to monitor herring catch against sub-ACLs.
        Although herring is not overfished and is not experiencing overfishing, the annual acceptable biological catch for herring established for fishing years 2010-2012 was reduced from previous years (55 percent reduction from 2009) due to concerns about a retrospective pattern in the 2009 herring stock assessment that over-estimates biomass (75 FR 48874, August 12, 2010). While the herring optimum yield for 2010-2012 was not reduced below the 2008 catch level, the management area sub-ACLs were reduced from 2009 levels by 20 to 60 percent.

        Fishing year 2010 was the first year that NMFS monitored herring catch against the recently reduced management area sub-ACLs. A few weeks prior to approving Amendment 4, NMFS experienced difficulty projecting herring catch to determine whether to close the directed herring fishery in Area 1B because of a pulse of fishing effort in that area. Specifically, in September 2010, catch in Area 1B exceeded its sub-ACL due to a pulse in fishing effort on a relatively small amount of unharvested herring. The 2010 sub-ACL for Area 1B was 4,362 mt. On August 28, herring catch equaled 49 percent of the Area 1B sub-ACL. The next week (September 4) catch equaled 82 percent of the Area 1B sub-ACL, and by the following week (September 11) catch equaled 114 percent of the Area 1B sub-ACL. On September 14, the directed fishery for herring was closed (i.e., 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit implemented) in Area 1B, but catch equaled 139 percent of the sub-ACL by September 18. More timely reporting of fishing levels may have allowed NMFS to close the fishery sooner, prior to it exceeding the sub-ACL.
        NMFS had similar difficulties projecting a closure date in Area 1A a few weeks after approving Amendment 4, because catch rates were highly variable. If data projections suggest that the catch rate in a management area is higher than the amount of fish actually being caught, NMFS may prematurely close the directed herring fishery in that management area, with a risk that some herring may go unharvested. In October and early November 2010, for example, catch in Area 1A was highly variable, ranging from 142 mt to 4,943 mt per week. Catch projections in early November indicated that 95 percent of the sub-ACL had been harvested; therefore, a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit was implemented in Area 1A on November 8. However, following a review of updated catch information, NMFS determined that the catch was not approaching 95 percent of the sub-ACL, and removed the 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit for the period between November 15 and November 17, and again for the period between November 29 and December 3, to allow catch to approach the 95 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL. While the fishery was eventually able to harvest the entire Area 1A sub-ACL, the premature implementation of the reduced possession limit unnecessarily interrupted fishing and processing operations and likely resulted in increased operational costs to the industry. If herring had moved out of the Area 1A for the year and were no longer available to the fishery by the time the premature possession limit was lifted, a percentage of the Area 1A sub-ACL may have gone unharvested. Ultimately, catch from Area 1B and Area 1A exceeded their respective allocations, and those overages will be deducted from the corresponding sub-ACL in fishing year 2012.
        These experiences suggest that NMFS needs more timely catch reporting to better monitor catch against sub-ACLs, help prevent sub-ACL overages, and to reduce the chance of premature fishery closures. As described previously, the Council is in the process of developing Amendment 5, which considers revisions to catch reporting requirements for the herring fishery, but that amendment, if approved, is not anticipated to be implemented before 2013.
        MSA section 402(a)(2), in conjunction with regulations at § 648.7, provide NMFS with the authority to revise fishery reporting requirements as necessary to monitor a FMP. NMFS recognizes the importance of timely catch information to monitor herring catch against the stock-wide herring ACL and management areas sub-ACLs, as well as to help catch achieve, but not exceed, sub-ACLs. Therefore, NMFS proposes that limited access herring vessels report herring catch daily via VMS, open access herring vessels report catch weekly via IVR, and all herring-permitted vessels submit VTRs weekly.
        Proposed Measures
        Reporting Requirements for Limited Access Herring Vessels

        Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP (Amendment 1) established a limited access program for the herring fishery in June 2007 (72 FR 11252, March 31, 2007) to better match the capacity of the fleet to the size of the herring resource. Amendment 1 created three limited access permit categories. The All Areas Limited Access Permit (Category A) is issued to fishery participants with the greatest amount of historical fishery participation (i.e., caught at least 500 mt of herring in a year) and enables the permit holder to fish in all four of the herring management areas. The Areas 2/3 Limited Access Permit (Category B) is issued to fishery participants that had caught at least 250 mt of herring in a year and enables the permit holder to fish in herring management areas 2 and 3. The Incidental Catch Limited Access Permit (Category C) is issued to fishery participants that had caught at least 15 mt of herring in a single year. The Category C herring permit enables the permit holder to fish in all of the herring management areas and retain up to 25 mt of herring per calendar day.

        Current regulations require limited access vessels to report herring catch weekly via IVR, submit monthly VTRs, and obtain and operate a VMS. Vessels declare their intent to participate in the herring fishery by entering a herring code into the VMS prior to leaving port on a fishing trip. This requirement facilitates compliance with herring management area requirements. Category A and B vessels fishing with midwater trawl or purse seine gear are required to provide a pre-landing notification to NMFS 6 hr prior to arriving in port at the conclusion of a fishing trip. This requirement allows NMFS personnel to meet vessels at the dock if issues such as bycatch, especially of haddock, or compliance with fishing restrictions warrant investigation.
        In 2010, 101 vessels were issued limited access herring permits; 42 were issued Category A permits, 4 were issued Category B permits, and 55 were issued Category C permits. Limited access vessels harvest more than 99 percent of the total annual herring catch, and the limited access fleet is capable of catching up to 5,000 mt of herring in a week.
        To ensure timely catch data are available to better inform management decisions, NMFS proposes that owners/operators of vessels issued limited access herring permits (Categories A-C) be required to report herring catch, retained and discarded, daily via VMS. Daily catch reports would include the following information: Vessel name; VTR serial number; date; and the amount of herring retained and discarded from each management area. During a declared herring trip, catch reports would be required to be submitted via VMS by 9 a.m., eastern time, for herring caught the previous calendar day (0000-2400 hr). If no fish were caught on a particular day during the trip, a negative report (0 lb) would be submitted. This requirement is consistent with daily VMS reporting requirements for owners/operators of vessels issued Northeast multispecies permits engaged in fishing in U.S./Canada management areas and special access programs.
        NMFS uses VTRs submitted by limited access herring vessels to verify vessel catch reports and resolve discrepancies between IVR and dealer data. VTRs are valuable tools for correcting reporting errors and improving the quality of data used to monitor management area sub-ACLs. While the monthly submission of VTRs is useful, receiving VTRs on a weekly basis would speed NMFS's ability to resolve issues with the herring data and, ultimately, help improve the monitoring of catch in the herring fishery. Therefore, NMFS proposes that owners/operators of vessels issued limited access herring permits be required to submit VTRs on a weekly basis. VTRs would be due by midnight each Tuesday, eastern time, for the previous week (Sunday-Saturday). This requirement would increase the frequency of information reporting from status quo, but the required content of the VTR would be unchanged. The submission of weekly VTRs is currently required for owners/operators of vessels issued Northeast multispecies permits.
        Reporting Requirements for Open Access Herring Vessels
        In addition to limited access permit categories, Amendment 1 created an open access herring permit. The open access herring permit is available to all fishery participants wanting to harvest small amounts of herring or retain herring encountered incidentally while prosecuting other fisheries. Vessels issued open access herring permits can retain up to 3 mt of herring per trip, and are limited to landing herring once per calendar day. In 2010, 2,258 vessels were issued herring open access permits. Despite the relatively large number of vessels issued an open access herring permit, Category D vessels harvest less than 1 percent of the total annual herring catch.

        Current regulations require Category D vessels to report herring catch via IVR only if harvest exceeds 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring in a single trip. If catch is less than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg), Category D vessels report catch monthly on VTRs. In the past, there have been misunderstandings about the 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) threshold triggering the requirement for Category D vessels to report catch via IVR. Some fishery participants understood the requirement to be a weekly limit, while others thought it a daily limit. The IVR system allows catch to be reported by herring management area. The location of fishing (i.e., latitude, longitude) is reported on the VTR, which allows NMFS to attribute catch to the appropriate herring management area, because VTRs do not allow catch to be reported by herring management area.
        If a pulse of fishing effort occurs or catch rates are highly variable, using VTR information that is updated monthly may not be timely enough to verify dealer data and resolve any discrepancies between IVR and dealer data. VTRs are valuable tools for correcting reporting errors and improving the quality of data used to monitor management area sub-ACLs. Receiving VTRs more frequently than monthly would speed NMFS's ability to resolve issues with the herring data and, ultimately, help improve the monitoring of catch in the herring fishery.
        In an effort to simplify reporting requirements, improve the timeliness of herring catch data, and more efficiently apportion catch to management areas, NMFS proposes that owners/operators of vessels issued open access herring permits be required to report catch weekly via the IVR system. An IVR report would be required by midnight each Tuesday (eastern time), for herring caught the previous week (Sunday-Saturday). If no herring was caught during a week, no IVR report would be required.
        Consistent with proposed VTR requirements for limited access vessels, NMFS proposes that owners/operators of vessels issued open access herring permits be required to submit VTRs on a weekly basis. VTRs would be due by midnight each Tuesday (eastern time) for the previous week (Sunday-Saturday). As described previously, VTRs are valuable tools for correcting reporting errors and improving the quality of data used to monitor management area sub-ACLs. This requirement would increase the frequency of information reporting from status quo, but the required content of the VTR would be unchanged. The submission of weekly VTRs is currently required for owners/operators of vessels issued Northeast multispecies permits.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP, other provisions of the MSA, 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 Orders 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA, which includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in the regulatory amendment and its accompanying EA/RIR/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, and are not repeated here.

        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply

        All participants in the herring fishery are small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration's size standards, as none grossed more than $4 million annually; therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. In 2010, 42 vessels were issued Category A herring permits, 4 vessels were issued Category B herring permits, 55 vessels were issued Category C herring permits, and 2,258 vessels were issued Category D herring permits. A complete description of the number of small entities to which this rule applies is provided in Section 3.1.5 of this action's EA/RFA/IRFA (see ADDRESSES).
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        The proposed action contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement will be submitted to OMB for approval under Control Numbers 0648-0202 and 0648-0212. The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives

        The proposed action would directly affect all participants in the herring fishery because it increases the reporting burden for owners/operators of vessels issued herring permits. A complete description of the economic impacts associated with the proposed action and the non-selected alternatives is provided in Section 4.3 of action's EA/RFA/IRFA (see ADDRESSES).
        In developing this rule, NMFS considered three alternatives: The no action alternative (status quo); the proposed action, which would require daily VMS reporting by limited access-permitted herring vessels, weekly IVR reporting by open access-permitted herring vessels, and weekly VTR reports from all herring-permitted vessels; and a non-selected action alternative, which would require both limited access and open access-permitted vessels to provide NMFS with trip-by-trip IVR reports and weekly VTR reports.

        The proposed action would increase reporting costs for herring fishery participants. VMS reporting and the submission of VTRs have a direct cost associated with the submission of the report. The cost of transmitting a catch report via VMS is $0.60 per transmission. In 2010, the average number of fishing days for a limited access herring vessel was 93. Therefore, the annual cost of daily VMS reporting is estimated to be $55.80 per vessel. The estimated annual VMS reporting burden (i.e., time) would be the submission of 93 reports per limited access vessel. Because the IVR system phone number is toll-free, there is no direct cost associated with reporting via IVR system. The estimated annual IVR reporting burden would be the submission of 52 reports per open access vessel. Additionally, the proposed action would require weekly VTR submissions, which would cost each vessel $17.60. This cost was calculated by multiplying 40 (52 weeks in a year minus 12 (number of monthly reports)) by $0.44 (cost of a postage stamp) to equal $17.60.) The annual VTR reporting burden would be would be the submission of 52 reports per vessel.
        Adding these costs together, the proposed action is estimated to have an annual increased reporting cost of approximately $73.40 per limited access herring vessel (submission of 145 VMS reports and VTRs), and approximately $17.60 per open access herring vessel (submission of 104 IVR reports and VTRs). The ex-vessel value of the herring fishery varies by permit category. For limited access vessels, the proposed action would increase reporting costs by less than 1.8 percent of the average ex-vessel value of the fishery (2008-2010). For vessels with open access herring permits, the proposed action would increase reporting costs by 7.2 percent of the average ex-vessel herring value. While the increased reporting costs associated with the proposed action may seem high for open access vessels, open access vessels typically operate in several fisheries and revenue from herring catch is likely only a small portion of their total ex-vessel value. Additionally, the majority of vessels issued open access herring permits (92 percent) are already paying these increased reporting costs, because they also possess a Northeast multispecies permit that requires weekly submission of VTRs.
        Under the proposed action, catch data would be updated more frequently and would likely better inform catch projections. If catch projections contain less uncertainty, ACL/sub-ACL overages, and the subsequent overage deduction, may become less likely. Additionally, the fleet may be allowed to harvest up to the 95 percent sub-ACL closure threshold without the management area being prematurely closed and herring potentially left unharvested. For limited access vessels, reporting via VMS is more flexible (reports can be made from sea or from land) than reporting via IVR (reports usually made only from land). For open access vessels, reporting weekly rather than trip-by-trip still provides timely catch data, but likely results in a lower reporting burden. For these reasons, there may be indirect positive impacts for fishery participants with the proposed action.
        As compared to the proposed action, the reporting burden under the no action alternative would be less. The no action alternative would require weekly reporting via IVR for limited access vessels, weekly reporting via IVR for open access vessels when catch was greater than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per trip, and monthly submission of VTRs for all vessels issued herring permits. The no action alternative is estimated to have an annual reporting cost of approximately $5.28 per limited access herring vessel (submission of 64 reports), and approximately $5.28 per open access herring vessel (submission of 19 reports). Under the no action alternative, there is the possibility that catch data may not be timely enough to inform catch projections increasing the likelihood of either an ACL/sub-ACL overage or a premature implementation of a reduced possession limit. Because of issues with phone reception, reporting via IVR is often not possible while at sea. Therefore, reporting for limited access vessels would be less flexible under the no action alternative than under the proposed action. For these reasons, there may be indirect negative economic impacts to fishery participants resulting from the non action alternative, including overage deductions, increased operational costs if fishing activities are interrupted by a premature closure, and the potential risk that a premature closure may result in a percentage of a management area sub-ACL left unharvested.

        The reporting burden under the non-selected action alternative would be less costly than reporting under the proposed action (because IVR is less costly than VMS), but the number of reports submitted may be higher than under the proposed action (because trip-by-trip reporting would likely result in the submission of more reports than weekly reporting). The non-selected action alternative would require trip-by-trip reporting via IVR and weekly submission of VTRs for all vessels issued herring permits. The non-selected action alternative is estimated to have an annual reporting cost of approximately $17.60 per herring vessel. Because trips can vary in length from 1 day to several days, the frequency of trip-by-trip reporting would be variable. Under the non-selected action alternative, IVR reporting and weekly VTR submission would result in a minimum annual submission of 104 reports per vessel. The ex-vessel value of the herring fishery varies by permit category. For limited access vessels, the non-selected action alternative would have increased reporting costs that are less than 0.0007 percent of the average ex-vessel value of the fishery (2008-2010). The non-selected action alternative would have increased reporting costs of 7.2 percent of the average ex-vessel value of the herring fishery for open access vessels. While the increased reporting costs associated with the non-selected action alternative may seem high for open access vessels, open assess vessels typically operate in several fisheries and revenue from herring catch is likely only a small portion of their total ex-vessel value. Additionally, the majority of vessels issued open access herring permits (92 percent) are already paying these increased reporting costs, because they also possess a Northeast multispecies permit that requires weekly submission of VTRs.
        Similar to the proposed action, catch data under the non-selected action alternative would be updated frequently and would likely be sufficient to inform catch projections. If catch projections contained less uncertainty, ACL/sub-ACL overages, and the subsequent overage deduction, may be less likely. Additionally, the fleet may be allowed to harvest up to the 95-percent sub-ACL closure threshold without the management area being prematurely closed and herring potentially left unharvested. For limited access vessels, reporting via IVR is less flexible than reporting via VMS, so reporting for limited access vessels would be less flexible under the non-selected action alternative than under the proposed action. For these reasons, there may be both indirect positive and indirect negative impacts for fishery participants under the non-selected action alternative.
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. As noted above, these collection requests will be submitted to OMB for approval under Control Numbers 0648-0202 and 0648-0212. Public reporting burden for catch reporting is estimated to average 5 min per individual per VMS response, 7 min per individual per IVR response, and 5 min per individual per VTR response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these, or any other aspects of the collection of information, to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and to the OMB by e-mail at OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

          Dated: June 10, 2011.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, 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 § 648.7, paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(i) are revised, and paragraph (b)(3) is added to read as follows:

            § 648.7
            Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

            (b) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (i) Atlantic herring owners or operators issued an open access permit. The owner or operator of a vessel issued an open access permit to fish for herring must report catch (retained and discarded) of herring to an IVR system for each week herring was caught, unless exempted by the Regional Administrator. IVR reports are not required for weeks when no herring was caught. The report shall include at least the following information, and any other information required by the Regional Administrator: Vessel identification; week in which herring are caught; management areas fished; and pounds retained and pounds discarded of herring caught in each management area. The IVR reporting week begins on Sunday at 0001 hrs (12:01 a.m.) local time and ends Saturday at 2400 hrs (12 midnight). Weekly Atlantic herring catch reports must be submitted via the IVR system by midnight each Tuesday, eastern time, for the previous week. Reports are required even if herring caught during the week has not yet been landed. This report does not exempt the owner or operator from other applicable reporting requirements of this section.
            (A) Atlantic herring IVR reports are not required from Atlantic herring carrier vessels.
            (B) Reporting requirements for vessels transferring herring at sea. A vessel that transfers herring at sea must comply with these requirements in addition to those specified at § 648.13(f).
            (1) A vessel that transfers herring at sea to a vessel that receives it for personal use as bait must report all transfers on the Fishing Vessel Trip Report.
            (2) A vessel that transfers herring at sea to an authorized carrier vessel must report all transfers weekly via the IVR system and must report all transfers on the Fishing Vessel Trip Report. Each time the vessel offloads to the carrier vessel is defined as a trip for the purposes of reporting requirements and possession allowances.
            (3) A vessel that transfers herring at sea to an at-sea processor must report all transfers weekly via the IVR system and must report all transfers on the Fishing Vessel Trip Report. Each time the vessel offloads to the at-sea processing vessel is defined as a trip for the purposes of the reporting requirements and possession allowances. For each trip, the vessel must submit a Fishing Vessel Trip Report and the at-sea processing vessel must submit the detailed dealer report specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
            (4) A transfer between two vessels issued open access permits requires each vessel to submit a Fishing Vessel Trip Report, filled out as required by the LOA to transfer herring at sea, and a weekly IVR report for the amount of herring each vessel lands.

            (3) VMS Catch Reports. (i) Atlantic herring owners or operators issued a limited access permit. The owner or operator of a vessel issued a limited access permit to fish for herring must report catches (retained and discarded) of herring daily via VMS, unless exempted by the Regional Administrator. The report shall include at least the following information, and any other information required by the Regional Administrator: Fishing Vessel Trip Report serial number; month and day herring was caught; pounds retained for each herring management area; and pounds discarded for each herring management area. Daily Atlantic herring VMS catch reports must be submitted in 24-hr intervals for each day and must be submitted by 0900 hr of the following day. Reports are required even if herring caught that day has not yet been landed. This report does not exempt the owner or operator from other applicable reporting requirements of this section.
            (A) The owner or operator of any vessel issued a limited access herring permit must submit an Atlantic herring catch report via VMS each day, regardless of how much herring is caught (including days when no herring is caught), unless exempted from this requirement by the Regional Administrator.
            (B) Atlantic herring VMS reports are not required from Atlantic herring carrier vessels.
            (C) Reporting requirements for vessels transferring herring at sea. The owner or operator of a vessel issued a limited access permit to fish for herring that transfers herring at sea must comply with these requirements in addition to those specified at § 648.13(f).
            (1) A vessel that transfers herring at sea to a vessel that receives it for personal use as bait must report all transfers on the Fishing Vessel Trip Report.
            (2) A vessel that transfers herring at sea to an authorized carrier vessel must report all catch daily via VMS and must report all transfers on the Fishing Vessel Trip Report. Each time the vessel offloads to the carrier vessel is defined as a trip for the purposes of reporting requirements and possession allowances.
            (3) A vessel that transfers herring at sea to an at-sea processor must report all catch daily via VMS and must report all transfers on the Fishing Vessel Trip Report. Each time the vessel offloads to the at-sea processing vessel is defined as a trip for the purposes of the reporting requirements and possession allowances. For each trip, the vessel must submit a Fishing Vessel Trip Report and the at-sea processing vessel must submit the detailed dealer report specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
            (4) A transfer between two vessels issued limited access permits requires each vessel to submit a Fishing Vessel Trip Report, filled out as required by the LOA to transfer herring at sea, and a daily VMS catch report for the amount of herring each vessel catches.

            (f) * * *
            (2) * * *

            (i) For any vessel not issued a NE multispecies or Atlantic herring permit, fishing vessel log reports, required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, must be postmarked or received by NMFS within 15 days after the end of the reporting month. If no fishing trip is made during a particular month for such a vessel, a report stating so must be submitted, as instructed by the Regional Administrator. For any vessel issued a NE multispecies or Atlantic herring permit, Fishing Vessel Trip Reports must be postmarked or received by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. If no fishing trip is made during a reporting week for such a vessel, a report stating so must be submitted and received by NMFS by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week, as instructed by the Regional Administrator. For the purposes of this paragraph (f)(2)(i), the date when fish are offloaded will establish the reporting week or month that the Fishing Vessel Trip Report must be submitted to NMFS, as appropriate. Any fishing activity during a particular reporting week (i.e., starting a trip, landing, or offloading catch) will constitute fishing during that reporting week and will eliminate the need to submit a negative fishing report to NMFS for that reporting week. For example, if a vessel issued a NE multispecies or Atlantic herring permit begins a fishing trip on Wednesday, but returns to port and offloads its catch on the following Thursday (i.e., after a trip lasting 8 days), the VTR for the fishing trip would need to be submitted by midnight Tuesday of the third week, but a negative report (i.e., a “did not fish” report) would not be required for either week.

      [FR Doc. 2011-14874 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 010903D]
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Atlantic Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Rescheduling of public hearings; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          Due to concern regarding the path of Hurricane Isabel, NMFS is canceling two public hearings that were previously published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2003, and scheduled for September 17, 2003, in Pawleys Island, SC and September 22, 2003, in Manteo, NC.  The public hearings are rescheduled for October 1, 2003, in Manteo, NC, and October 2, 2003, in Pawleys Island, SC.  These hearings are being held to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding proposed shark regulations and draft Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (Amendment 1).  Due to rescheduling the hearings, NMFS is also extending the comment period of the proposed rule for Amendment 1, published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2003, from September 30, 2003, to October 3, 2003.

          DATES:
          The public hearings will be held on:
          1.  Wednesday, October 1, 2003, from 7 - 9 p.m. in Manteo, NC, and
          2.  Thursday, October 2, 2003, from 7 - 9 p.m. in Pawleys Island, SC.
          Comments on the proposed rule for Amendment 1, published at 68 FR 45196, August 1, 2003, must be received no later than 5 p.m., on October 3, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearings will be held in:
          1.  North Carolina Aquarium, Roanoke Island, Airport Road, Manteo, NC 27954, and
          2.  Waccamaw Neck Branch Library, 24 Commerce Dr., Pawleys Island, SC 29585.

          Written comments on this action should be mailed to Christopher Rogers, Chief, NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or faxed to (301) 713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via email or Internet.  Copies of draft Amendment 1 can be obtained from the HMS website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hmspg.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Heather Stirratt, or Chris Rilling at (301) 713-2347 or Greg Fairclough at (727) 570-5741.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  The Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), finalized in 1999, is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.  On August 1, 2003 (68 FR 45196), NMFS published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would amend some of the regulations in the HMS FMP.  Complete descriptions of the measures, as well as the purpose and need for the proposed actions, are contained in the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        On August 12, 2003 (68 FR 47904), NMFS published in the Federal Register notice of six public hearings.  Due to concern regarding the path of Hurricane Isabel, NMFS is canceling and rescheduling two of those public hearings.  The hearing previously scheduled for September 17, 2003, in Pawleys Island, SC, is now scheduled for October 2, 2003, in Pawleys Island, SC (see DATES and ADDRESSES).  The hearing previously scheduled for September 22, 2003, in Manteo, NC, is now scheduled for October 1, 2003, in Manteo, NC (see DATES and ADDRESSES).  The schedule for the other public hearings remains unchanged.
        Additionally, in order to incorporate these rescheduled hearings during the public comment period, NMFS is extending the public comment period on the proposed rule until 5 p.m. on October 3, 2003.
        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately.  At the beginning of each public hearing, a NMFS representative will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another).  The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the hearing so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s).  Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the hearing.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heather Stirratt, (301) 713-2347, at least 7 days prior to the hearing in question.

          Dated:  September 16, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-24113 Filed 9-17-03; 1:54 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S