        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [OGC-2004-0004; FRL-7826-1]
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; amendments.

          SUMMARY:
          On April 14, 2003, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA issued national emission standards to control hazardous air pollutants emitted from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at new and existing coke oven batteries. This proposed action would amend the parametric operating limits and associated compliance provisions for capture systems used to control emissions from pushing. This action also would amend the requirements for mobile scrubber cars that capture emissions which occur during pushing and travel.
          In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are issuing the amendments as a direct final rule. We are making the amendments as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comments. We have explained our reasons for the amendments in the direct final rule.

          If we receive any significant, adverse comments on one or more distinct amendments in the direct final rule, we will publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public which amendments will become effective and which amendments are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule (should we decide to issue a final rule). If no significant adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken on the proposal, and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in that action.

          The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, see the direct final rule.

          DATES:

            Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2004, unless a hearing is held. If a hearing is held, comments must be received on or before November 29, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-1741.
          • Mail: Proposed Settlement Agreement in AISI/ACCCI Coke Oven Environmental Task Force vs. U.S. EPA, No. 03-1167 (D.C. Cir.) Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
          • Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC. 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov websites are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other information, such as copyrighted materials, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy form at the Proposed Settlement Agreement in AISI/ACCCI Coke Oven Environmental Task Force vs. U.S. EPA, No. 03-1167 (DC Cir.) Docket, Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Lula Melton, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C439-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2910, fax number (919) 541-3207, e-mail address: melton.lula@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does This Action Apply To Me?
        Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

            Category
            NAICS code 1

            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            331111, 324199
            Coke plants and integrated iron and steel mills.

            Federal government

            Not affected.

            State/local/tribal government

            Not affected.

            1 North American Industry Classification System.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.7281 of the national emission standards for coke ovens: Pushing, quenching, and battery stacks. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related Information?

        In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed amendments is also available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
        D. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
        If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by October 25, 2004, a public hearing will be held on October 27, 2004. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina or at an alternate site nearby.
        II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        For information regarding other statutory and executive order reviews associated with this action, please see the direct final rule located in the Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal Register.
        A. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The proposed action does not impose any new information collection burden. The costs of the information collection requirements associated with the new operating limit and operation and maintenance plan provisions related to the settlement agreement do not increase the existing burden estimates for the final rule. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0521, EPA ICR number 1995.02. A copy of the approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
        Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to U.S. Small Business Administration size standards for NAICS codes 331111 and 324199 ranging from 500 to 1,000 employees; (2) a government jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field.

        After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603-604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The proposed amendments make improvements to the existing standards by adding new compliance options for monitoring of capture systems operating parameters and by adding provisions for a type of control system not covered by the existing standards. We have, therefore, concluded that today's proposed amendments will have no adverse impacts on any small entities and may relieve burden in some cases.
        Although the proposed rule amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on small entities. We held meetings with the petitioners to discuss the proposed amendments related to the settlement agreement and have included provisions that address their concerns. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 4, 2004.
          Michael O. Leavitt,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 04-22870 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003; FRL-7906-1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Minor Revisions to the Fugitive Dust and Waiver Requirements

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to remove the application of oil as an acceptable alternative fugitive dust emissions reduction method, due to an existing prohibition on oil application, on land, found in the Virginia statute. In addition, the revision changes a specific reference from “Executive Director” to “Director”. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by May 31, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003 by one of the following methods:
          A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          B. Agency Web site: http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          C. E-mail: Morris.Makeba@epa.gov.
          D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
          E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the RME index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by e-mail at miller.linda@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information on the approval of minor revisions to Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust standards, 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 Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

          Dated: April 20, 2005.
          Donald S. Welsh,
          Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 05-8605 Filed 4-28-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 120405263-3517-01]
        RIN 0648-BB76
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Tanner Crab Area Closure in the Gulf of Alaska and Gear Modification Requirements for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes regulations that would implement Amendment 89 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) and that would revise current regulations governing the configuration of modified nonpelagic trawl gear. First, this proposed rule would establish a protection area in Marmot Bay, northeast of Kodiak Island, and close that area to fishing with trawl gear except for directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear. The proposed closure would reduce bycatch of Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) in Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries. Second, this proposed rule would require that nonpelagic trawl gear used in the directed flatfish fisheries in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be modified to raise portions of the gear off the sea floor. The proposed modifications to nonpelagic trawl gear used in these fisheries would reduce the unobserved injury and mortality of Tanner crab, and would reduce the potential adverse impacts of nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat. Finally, this proposed rule would make a minor technical revision to the modified nonpelagic trawl gear construction regulations to facilitate gear construction for those vessels required to use modified nonpelagic trawl gear in the GOA and Bering Sea groundfish fisheries. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 17, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0294, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0294, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • 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.

            Instructions: 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) 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 Amendment 89, the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for the Area Closures for Tanner Crab Protection in Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries (Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA), and the EA/RIR/IRFA for Trawl Sweep Modification in the Flatfish Fishery in the Central Gulf of Alaska (Trawl Sweep EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7006.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and under the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs 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 FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

        The Council submitted Amendment 89 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a notice of availability of Amendment 89 was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2013, with comments invited through August 2, 2013. Comments may address Amendment 89 or this proposed rule, but must be received by 1700 hours, A.D.T. on August 2, 2013 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 89. All comments received by that time, whether specifically directed to Amendment 89, or to this proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 89.
        Background

        Since the implementation of the FMP for Groundfish of the GOA (GOA FMP) in 1978, the Council and NMFS have adopted various measures intended to control the catch of species taken incidentally in groundfish fisheries. Certain species are designated as “prohibited” in the FMP, because they are the target of other, fully utilized domestic fisheries. The GOA FMP and implementing regulations at § 679.21 require that catch of these species and species groups must be avoided while fishing for groundfish, and when incidentally caught, they must be immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury. These species and species groups include Pacific halibut, Pacific herring, Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, king crab, and Tanner crab. The incidental catch of prohibited species is referred to as “bycatch” under the Magnuson-Stevens Act because prohibited species must not be sold or kept for personal use and are required to be discarded under § 679.21, or retained but not sold under the Prohibited Species Donation Program at § 679.26.

        The Council has recommended, and NMFS has implemented, measures to: (1) Close areas with a high occurrence of prohibited species, or where there is a relatively high level of prohibited species catch; (2) require the use of gear specifically modified to minimize prohibited species catch and effects on bottom habitat; and (3) establish prohibited species catch (PSC) limits in specific Alaska groundfish fisheries in both the BSAI and GOA. A summary of these measures is in Section 1 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) and in the notice of availability for Amendment 89 to the FMP.
        This proposed rule would implement two actions to reduce the injury and mortality of Tanner crab and the potential adverse impacts of nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat in the Central GOA. First, this proposed rule would establish a closure to vessels using trawl gear, with an exemption for vessels using pelagic trawl gear to directed fish for pollock. Second, this proposed rule would require that nonpelagic trawl gear used in the directed flatfish fisheries in the Central GOA Regulatory Area (Central GOA) be modified to raise portions of the gear off the sea floor. This proposed rule also would make a minor technical revision to the modified nonpelagic trawl gear construction regulations to facilitate gear construction for those vessels required to use modified nonpelagic trawl gear in the GOA and BSAI groundfish fisheries as recommended by the Council.
        Amendment 89 to the FMP for Groundfish of the GOA
        In October 2009, the Council chose to initiate an analysis of potential protection measures for Tanner crab in the Central GOA. In April 2010, the Council initially reviewed alternative bycatch control measures, subsequently revised and refined these alternatives, and in October 2010, recommended Amendment 89, which contains two protection measures for Tanner crab in the Central GOA groundfish fisheries.
        The Council identified several reasons for these protection measures for Tanner crab in the GOA groundfish fisheries:
        • Tanner crab is identified in the FMP as a prohibited species which is incidentally caught in the Central GOA groundfish trawl, pot, and longline fisheries. Tanner crab is incidentally caught in relatively high proportion by vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear in the Central GOA.
        • Directed fisheries for Tanner crab in the Central GOA are fully allocated under the current limited entry system managed by the State of Alaska. Details of this crab fishery are described in Section 3.5 in the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA.
        • No specific conservation measures exist in the Central GOA to address adverse interactions with Tanner crab by vessels using trawl gear to directed fish for groundfish.
        • Tanner crab is a bottom-dwelling species, and limits on the use of nonpelagic trawl gear may reduce Tanner crab PSC and adverse effects on Tanner crab habitat.
        The protection measures recommended by the Council for Amendment 89 would: (1) Establish a habitat protection area in Marmot Bay near Kodiak, AK, and close the area to most trawl fishing to reduce Tanner crab PSC in the Central GOA groundfish fisheries and potential adverse effects on bottom habitat; and (2) require the use of modified pelagic trawl gear when directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA. Additional detail for each of these measures follows.
        Proposed Action 1: Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area
        This proposed rule would establish a year-round closure for a portion of Marmot Bay to vessels using trawl gear to directed fish for groundfish. This closure area would be called the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area (Marmot Bay Area). The proposed Marmot Bay Area is northeast of Kodiak Island and would extend westward from 151 degrees 47 minutes W longitude to State waters between 58 degrees N latitude and 58 degrees 15 minutes N latitude. The proposed Marmot Bay Area would share borders with two existing areas, the Marmot Flats Area and the Outer Bay Area. The southern and eastern borders of the Marmot Bay Area would be the same latitude and longitude as the northern and eastern borders, respectively, of the existing Marmot Flats Area. The Marmot Flats Area is closed to directed fishing with nonpelagic trawl gear (see § 679.22(b)(1)(i) and Figure 5 to part 679). Under current regulations, the Outer Marmot Bay Area is open to directed fishing with nonpelagic trawl gear unless otherwise closed. The proposed Marmot Bay Area overlaps with a portion of the Outer Marmot Bay Area. In this area of overlap, the more restrictive measures that would be implemented for the Marmot Bay Area would apply. The proposed Marmot Bay Area, and the existing Marmot Flats and Outer Marmot Bay Areas, are shown in the proposed Figure 5 to part 679. State of Alaska waters to the west of both the proposed Marmot Bay Area and the existing Marmot Flats Area are closed year-round to the use of nonpelagic trawl gear under existing State regulations (5 AAC 39.164).
        With one exception, this proposed rule would close the Marmot Bay Area year-round to directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using trawl gear. The term “directed fishing” is defined in regulation at § 679.2. Directed fishing for pollock by vessels using pelagic trawl gear would be exempt from this closure. Overall, the effect of the proposed Marmot Bay Area closure would be to extend closures on the use of nonpelagic trawl gear to north and east of existing State and Federal waters closed to nonpelagic trawl gear. The Marmot Bay Area closure also would prohibit the use of all trawl gear, other than pelagic trawl gear used in the directed fishery for pollock. The Council recommended this exemption due to the limited potential reductions of Tanner crab PSC that would occur if the pelagic trawl pollock fishery were subject to the closure. The use of pelagic trawl gear for species other than pollock was not identified in the Marmot Bay Area; therefore, the Council determined that no additional exemptions to the trawl closure were warranted. (See Section 3.3.2 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail.)

        The Council recommended the Marmot Bay Area trawl gear closure based primarily on the high observed rate of Tanner crab mortality by nonpelagic trawl gear in the Marmot Bay Area relative to other areas in the Central GOA. See Section 3.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the area closures for additional detail. The areas with the greatest abundance of crab are the Marmot Bay Area, northeast of Kodiak Island; the Chiniak Gully east of Kodiak Island; and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Statistical Areas 525702 and 525630, southeast of Kodiak Island. The Marmot Bay Area had the highest average mortality rate of crab per metric ton (mt) of groundfish catch by vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear in the Kodiak District between 2001 and 2009 (the most recent years of available data) at 7.68 crab/mt groundfish. (See Section 3.3 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail.)
        The Council considered a range of alternative closure areas to limit the use of nonpelagic trawl gear and pot gear in the Marmot Bay Area, ADF&G Statistical Areas 525702 and 525630, and the Chiniak Gully. Ultimately, the Council determined that limiting the closure to trawl gear in the Marmot Bay Area is necessary and appropriate based on: (1) The high rate of Tanner crab mortality in the Marmot Bay Area relative to other areas; (2) the observation of mature male and female Tanner crab populations within the Marmot Bay Area; (3) the occurrence of known Tanner crab habitat within the Marmot Bay Area; (4) the high rate of Tanner crab bycatch by vessels using trawl gear relative to pot gear; and (5) the limited impact that the Marmot Bay Area closure would likely have on existing nonpelagic trawl participants relative to closures in other areas. See Section 3.1 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail of the alternatives considered. The Council considered but rejected closing areas to pot, longline, and pelagic trawl gear in the directed pollock fishery given the small amount of Tanner crab bycatch by these gear types relative to Tanner crab bycatch by nonpelagic trawl gear. (See Section 3.3.3 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail.)
        The Marmot Bay Area closure implemented under Amendment 89 would be consistent with past measures the Council has recommended, and NMFS has implemented, to limit impacts of nonpelagic trawl gear on crab populations directly by limiting injury and mortality, and indirectly by reducing potential adverse habitat impacts. Overall, observed Tanner crab mortality in the Central GOA accounts for less than two fifths of one percent of the assessed crab population in the Central GOA. (See Section 3.3.3 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail.) Because overall crab bycatch in the GOA groundfish fisheries can be small in relation to crab population, but potentially concentrated in certain areas or at certain times, time and area closures are more effective than Tanner crab PSC limits in reducing the potential impacts of nonpelagic trawl gear on crab stocks. The proposed closure to nonpelagic trawl gear in the Marmot Bay Area may assist in the conservation of the Tanner crab stock by reducing injury and mortality and potential adverse effects of nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat used by Tanner crab.
        In October 2010, the Council also recommended that NMFS incorporate statistically robust observer information from specific areas near Kodiak, AK (ADF&G Statistical Area 525702, and Chiniak Gully). Overall, the intent of the Council's recommendation was to improve estimates of Tanner crab bycatch data in the GOA groundfish fisheries. At the same meeting that the Council recommended enhanced observer coverage for these three areas, the Council recommended Amendment 86 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 76 to the GOA FMP to comprehensively restructure the funding and deployment of onboard observers under the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). Aware of its decision on Amendments 86 and 76, the Council included as part of its recommendation for improved estimates of Tanner crab bycatch that NMFS “incorporate, to the extent possible, in [the restructured Observer Program], an observer deployment strategy that ensures adequate coverage to establish statistically robust observations” in the three specific areas near Kodiak, AK.
        NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendments 86 and 76 to the FMPs on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15019), and a proposed rule for the restructured Observer Program on April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23326). On June 7, 2012, the Secretary of Commerce approved Amendments 86 and 76 to the FMPs for the restructured Observer Program in the Alaska groundfish fisheries and the final rule to implement the amendments, effective January 1, 2013, was published on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 70062). Details of the restructured Observer Program are available in the proposed and final rules for that action.
        The restructured Observer Program improves the quality of fisheries data, including Tanner crab bycatch information in the GOA groundfish fisheries. Vessels under the restructured Observer Program are either fully or partially observed. A detailed list of vessels in the full and partial observer coverage categories is provided in the restructured Observer Program proposed rule (77 FR 23326, April 18, 2012). A randomized system for the assignment of observer coverage throughout the GOA for partially observed vessels is used to reduce potential bias in the observer data. Selecting specific locations in the Central GOA for increased observer coverage would reduce the ability to randomize observer assignments and therefore potentially bias observer data. Because the restructured Observer Program incorporates an observer deployment strategy that ensures adequate coverage to establish statistically robust observations for the GOA, NMFS has determined that the Council's recommendation has been implemented by Amendments 86 and 76 and no additional measures are needed with GOA Amendment 89. NMFS intends to use the regulations and deployment process established under the restructured Observer Program to obtain fishery catch and bycatch data without specifying specific observer coverage requirements in specific areas in the GOA. In order to ensure that the Council's desire to obtain better observer data is being met, NMFS will present a deployment plan for observers annually for the Council's review.
        Proposed Action 2: Modification of Nonpelagic Trawl Gear Used in the Central GOA Directed Flatfish Fisheries

        When the Council recommended the Marmot Bay Area closure in October 2010, it directed its staff to review the practicality of requiring the use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear by vessels directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA. The Council recommended this review as a first step in considering additional measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat and to reduce unobserved Tanner crab injury and mortality. The Council's recommendation was based on past experience with the use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear to reduce potential adverse effects on bottom habitat in Bering Sea flatfish fisheries. In 2008, NMFS, including its Office of Law Enforcement, and the fishing industry tested modified nonpelagic fishing gear in the Bering Sea under normal fishing conditions to determine if this gear could be used safely and effectively in ways that may reduce potential adverse effects on bottom habitat while maintaining effective catch rates for flatfish target species. These initial tests were successful, and in October 2009, the Council recommended Amendment 94 to the BSAI FMP to require vessels directed fishing for flatfish in the Bering Sea subarea to use modified nonpelagic trawl gear. In 2010, NMFS published final regulations implementing Amendment 94 (75 FR 61642, October 6, 2010). In February 2012, the Council reviewed an analysis of potential impacts of expanding the required use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear to vessels participating in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries. After additional review in April 2012, the Council recommended requiring that vessels directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA use modified nonpelagic trawl gear. This Council recommendation was the second proposed action included in Amendment 89.
        The proposed action would require vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear when directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA to comply with the same performance standard and gear construction requirements required for vessels in the Bering Sea flatfish fisheries (see regulations at § 679.24(f)). Central GOA flatfish fisheries include directed fisheries for shallow-water flatfish, deep-water flatfish, arrowtooth flounder, rex sole, and flathead sole.

        The Council considered but rejected alternatives that would have required the use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear in other GOA nonpelagic trawl fisheries (e.g., Pacific cod), and the use of nonpelagic trawl gear in the Eastern and Western GOA flatfish fisheries. Flatfish fisheries in the Central GOA contribute the greatest proportion of Tanner crab PSC, while other nonpelagic trawl gear fisheries in the GOA account for only a modest proportion of Tanner crab PSC. (See Sections 1.1 and 1.5 of the Trawl Sweep EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail (see ADDRESSES)). The Council determined and NMFS agrees that proposed action 2 targets the specific fisheries that consistently have the highest bycatch of Tanner crab in the GOA.
        The primary effect of the proposed action would be to require modifications to a specific component of the gear. Nonpelagic trawl gear uses a pair of long lines called “sweeps” to herd fish into the net. The sweeps drag across the bottom and may adversely impact benthic organisms (e.g., crab species, sea whips, sponges, and basket stars). Approximately 90 percent of the bottom contact of nonpelagic trawl gear used in directed fishing for flatfish is from the sweeps, which can be more than 1,000 feet (304.8 m) in length.
        Studies in the Bering Sea have shown that elevating the trawl sweeps can reduce the adverse effects of nonpelagic trawl gear on Tanner, snow, and red king crabs by reducing the unobserved mortality and injury of these species. In addition, elevating the trawl sweeps can reduce impacts on benthic organisms, such as basketstars and sea whips. Further research was conducted in 2011 in the GOA to identify the appropriate construction of modified nonpelagic trawl gear, and to identify and resolve any implementation issues specific to the GOA. Field testing in the GOA of the modified nonpelagic trawl gear demonstrated that the participants in the GOA flatfish fisheries can meet the same performance standard and construction requirements that apply to the Bering Sea flatfish fisheries under regulations at § 679.24(f). Additional information on these studies and tests is provided in Section 1.5.5 of the Trawl Sweep EA/RIR/IRFA.
        The proposed action would require that vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear when directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA must comply with the performance standard to raise the elevated section of the sweeps at least 2.5 inches, as specified in § 679.24(f). Elevating devices would be placed on the sweeps to meet this performance standard. Section 679.24(f) requires elevating devices along the entire length of the elevated section of the sweeps to be spaced no less than 30 feet (9.1 m) apart. To allow for construction flexibility and to allow for wear and tear that might occur during a tow, two different sweep configurations are provided that specify the maximum spacing of elevating devices. The first configuration uses elevating devices that have a clearance height of 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) or less with spacing between the elevating devices of no more than 65 feet (19.8 m). The second configuration uses elevating devices that have a clearance height greater than 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) with spacing between the elevating devices of no more than 95 feet (29 m). Either configuration combined with the minimum spacing for elevated devices of no less than 30 feet (9.1 m) would meet the combined gear construction requirements and performance standard for modified nonpelagic trawl gear.
        As noted in Section 1.8 of the Trawl Sweep EA/RIR/IRFA, NMFS cannot quantify a benefit to crab stocks in the Central GOA from modified nonpelagic trawl gear without further testing to understand how sediment conditions in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries compare to the areas in which the Bering Sea experiments occurred. However, the general similarity of GOA trawl gear to that used in the Bering Sea indicates that while the benefits may be smaller due to different sediment conditions in the GOA, they would still be substantial. While requiring this gear modification for vessels fishing in Central GOA flatfish fisheries could provide benefits to crab stocks by reducing unobserved injury and mortality, it likely would not change reported crab PSC totals from nonpelagic trawl fishing, which account only for crabs that come up in the trawl net. As noted in Section 2.9 of the Trawl Sweep EA/RIR/IRFA, the proposed action is not expected to result in a net decrease in the catch rates in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries.
        Proposed Action 3: Technical Revision to the Modified Nonpelagic Trawl Gear Construction Requirements in the BSAI
        This proposed rule would revise one component of the regulations at § 679.24(f) concerning construction requirements for modified nonpelagic trawl gear. The proposed regulatory change is based on experience gained in 2011 with constructing this gear for use in the Bering Sea flatfish fisheries. This minor technical revision would increase the limit for the lines that connect the doors and the net to the elevated portions of the sweeps from 180 feet (54.8 m) to 185 feet (56.4 m). This limit is shown on proposed Figure 26 to part 679. Specifically, the revision would slightly increase the maximum length to 185 feet (56.4 m) for the lines between the door bridles and the elevated section of the trawl sweeps, and between the net, or headline extension, and the elevated section of the trawl sweeps. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that the additional proposed length would allow for the space required to use standardized cable lengths that are 90 feet (27.4 m), and add connecting devices to attach the trawl doors and net to the sweeps without further trimming the cables. This revision would apply to the construction requirements for modified nonpelagic trawl gear currently required in the BSAI groundfish fisheries and proposed in this rule for the Central GOA flatfish fisheries. Section 2.10 of the Trawl Sweep EA/RIR/IRFA notes that there would be no additional effects from this revision other than reducing the costs of constructing the modified nonpelagic trawl gear.
        Summary of Proposed Regulatory Revisions Required by the Actions

        In order to implement the proposed actions described above, the following changes to regulations would have to be made. NMFS proposes to revise two definitions and add one definition in regulations at § 679.2. The definition of “federally permitted vessel” would be revised to include the application of this definition to those vessels required to use modified nonpelagic trawl gear in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries. This revision would identify vessels required to comply with the modified nonpelagic trawl gear requirements and would be consistent with existing modified nonpelagic trawl gear requirements.
        The definition of “directed fishing” would be revised to add a definition of the directed flatfish fisheries in the GOA. This revision would list the flatfish target species that would be used in determining when modified nonpelagic trawl gear would be required under § 679.24(f) based on directed fishing for flatfish. This proposed revision is necessary to identify the target species that would determine when a vessel is directed fishing for flatfish so the requirement to use modified nonpelagic trawl gear can be applied. A definition of the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area would be added to § 679.2. This proposed definition is necessary to identify the location of the area and to define this area consistent with other fishery management areas with similar restrictions.
        NMFS proposes to revise § 679.7(b) to add a prohibition on directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA without using modified nonpelagic trawl gear. This proposed revision is necessary to require the use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear for directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA Regulatory Area and to ensure that the modified nonpelagic trawl gear meets the performance standard and construction requirements specified at § 679.24(f).
        NMFS proposes to revise § 679.22 to add the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area as an area closed to trawling in the GOA. The closure would include an exemption for vessels directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear. This proposed revision is necessary to identify the area closed, the applicable gear type, and the target fishery exempted from the closure.
        NMFS proposes to revise § 679.24(f) to include reference to the Central GOA flatfish fisheries. This proposed revision is necessary to require vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear to directed fish for flatfish in the Central GOA to comply with the modified nonpelagic trawl gear requirements in this section.
        NMFS proposes to revise Figure 5 to part 679 to add an illustration and definition of the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area. This area would include Federal waters westward from 151 degrees 47 minutes W longitude to State waters between 58 degrees 0 minutes N latitude and 58 degrees 15 minutes N latitude. Use of trawl gear, other than pelagic trawl gear used in directed fishing for pollock, would be prohibited at all times in the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area. This proposed revision is necessary to identify the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area as recommended by the Council in proposed Amendment 89. Due to the revision of Figure 5 to part 679, the table of coordinates for this figure would be revised to reflect the removal of letters that identified coordinate locations on several, already established protection areas. In addition, this proposed rule would correct the coordinates in the current table from degree, minutes, seconds, to degree, decimal minutes. This revision would improve the clarity of the table coordinates in combination with the revised figure and ensure the correct coordinates are listed in the consistent format used for other closure areas in the regulations.
        NMFS proposes to modify Figure 26 to part 679 to show the 185 foot (56.4 m) limit for the lines connecting the elevated section of the sweeps to the door bridles and to the net or headline extensions. The proposed revision to Figure 26 is necessary to illustrate the proposed changes to the construction requirements for modified nonpelagic trawl gear.
        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 Amendment 89, 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 the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

        IRFAs were prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFAs describe the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for the proposed action is contained at the beginning of this section and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and are not repeated here. A summary of the analysis follows. Copies of the complete analyses are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Proposed Action

        Information regarding ownership of vessels that would be used to estimate the number of small entities that are directly regulated by this action is limited. Two IRFAs were prepared to support this action. The IRFA prepared for the area closure (Proposed Action 1), and the IRFA prepared for the trawl modification requirement (Proposed Action 2) and the gear construction requirement revision (Proposed Action 3) estimated the number of small versus large entities, gross earnings from all fisheries of record for 2009 by vessel, the known ownership of those vessels, and the known affiliations of those vessels in the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries for that year. The entities directly regulated by Proposed Action 1 are those entities that participate in the groundfish fisheries using trawl gear in the proposed Marmot Bay Area (except for pelagic trawl vessels directed fishing for pollock). From 2003 through 2009, 68 vessels used nonpelagic trawl gear in the Central GOA and therefore would be directly regulated by Proposed Action 1. Of these 68 vessels, 26 vessels had gross earnings of less than $4.0 million, thus categorizing them as small entities based on the threshold that the Small Business Administration (SBA) uses to define small fishing entities. For Proposed Action 2, 51 vessels participated in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries in one or more years between 2003 and 2010, making these vessels directly regulated under Proposed Action 2. Of these vessels, 2 catcher processors and 8 catcher vessels that participate in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries had gross earnings of less than $4.0 million, thus categorizing them as small entities. For Proposed Action 3, these same 10 GOA vessels that are small entities under Proposed Action 2 also would be small entities for the correction to the modified nonpelagic trawl gear construction requirements for the Bering Sea and Central GOA flatfish fisheries. From 2000 to 2008, approximately 46 vessels operated in the directed flatfish fisheries in one or multiple years in the Bering Sea subarea. All of the catcher processors directed fishing for flatfish in the Bering Sea exceeded the $4.0 million threshold, when considering their combined groundfish revenues, and would be considered large entities for purposes of the RFA. None of the four catcher vessels that participated in the Bering Sea flatfish fisheries met the threshold, based on their combined groundfish revenues, and these four vessels are considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. It is likely that some of these vessels also are linked by company affiliation, which may then qualify them as large entities, but information is not available to identify ownership status of all vessels at an entity level. Therefore, the IRFA for Proposed Action 3 may overestimate the number of small entities in the Bering Sea directly regulated by Proposed Action 3.
        Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
        No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified.
        Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
        For Proposed Action 1, the Council evaluated three alternatives with components and options for area closures in the Central GOA to reduce Tanner crab PSC. Alternative 1 is the status quo or no action alternative, which would not change the nonpelagic trawl gear closures currently established in the Central GOA, or require the use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear when directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA. This alternative did not meet the Council's intent to provide further protection to Tanner crab from the potential effects of the groundfish fisheries.
        Alternative 2 would close one or more of the following areas to pot and trawl groundfish fisheries; a portion of Marmot Bay (Marmot Bay Area), northeast of Kodiak; a portion of the Chiniak Gully, east of Kodiak, and ADF&G Statistical Areas 525702 and 525630, southeast of Kodiak. These areas were considered for closure because of the relatively high abundance of Tanner crab occurring there. Alternative 2 also considered closure timing for these areas as either year-round or from January 1 through July 31. Suboptions considered under Alternative 2 (which could be combined together) included closures to pot gear and trawl gear individually and exemptions for vessels with modified nonpelagic trawl gear, vessels using pelagic trawl gear, or vessels using pelagic trawl gear when directed fishing for pollock. As described above, the Marmot Bay Area had a high rate of Tanner crab mortality compared to the other areas considered, and closing the Marmot Bay Area would have limited adverse impact to participants in the nonpelagic trawl fishery compared to the additional closures considered. Data presented in the Section 3.3.2 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for area closures indicated that closures to pot gear would not contribute substantially to the objective to reduce Tanner crab PSC, therefore pot gear vessels were not included in the Council's recommendation. Section 3.3.3 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA indicates that year-round closures would minimize bycatch and potential adverse effects on Tanner crab habitat relative to seasonal closures. Section 5.3 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA notes that exemptions to the closure area for vessels using modified nonpelagic trawl gear presents a difficult enforcement challenge because it is not possible to easily distinguish between modified and non-modified nonpelagic trawl gear under current fishery management practices. Section 3.3.3 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA notes that exempting vessels using pelagic trawl gear to directed fish for pollock would have very limited impact on Tanner crab bycatch.
        Alternative 3 considered allowing pot gear and trawl gear to target groundfish in the areas considered for closure provided they had additional observer coverage, compared to existing observer requirements, when fishing in these areas. Vessels using trawl gear would be required to carry observers 100 percent of the days fished in the area(s) selected. This additional coverage would not apply towards meeting the existing coverage requirements outside the tanner crab protection areas. Vessels using pot gear less than 125 feet (38.1 m) length overall would be required to carry observers 30 percent of the days fished in the area(s) selected. These additional coverage requirements were considered because the Council desired more robust estimates of PSC to further develop management protection measures for Tanner crab. Section 5.5 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA notes that with the anticipated implementation of the restructured Observer Program, a randomized system for the assignment of observer coverage throughout the GOA for partially observed vessels would be used to reduce potential bias in the observer data. Selecting specific locations in the Central GOA for increased observer coverage would reduce the ability to randomize observer assignments and therefore potentially bias observer data.
        Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative), which was recommended by the Council and would be implemented by this proposed rule, is a modification of Alternative 2. Under Alternative 4, the Council recommended the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area for year-round closure to vessels directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear, with the exception of vessels using pelagic trawl gear to directed fish for pollock. Under Alternative 4, the Council also recommended that NMFS incorporate, to the extent possible, an observer deployment strategy under the anticipated restructured Observer Program that ensures adequate coverage to establish statistically robust observations in the specific areas considered for closure under Alternative 2. As noted earlier in the preamble, in October 2010 the Council recommended enhanced observer coverage under Amendment 89, Amendment 86 to the BSAI FMP, and Amendment 76 to the GOA FMP to restructure the Observer Program. The Council was aware of these concurrent actions, and recommended as part of Amendment 89 that NMFS “incorporate, to the extent possible, in [the restructured Observer Program], an observer deployment strategy that ensures adequate coverage to establish statistically robust observations” in the specific areas near Kodiak, AK. Amendments 86/76 were approved by the Secretary of Commerce on June 7, 2012. NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendments 86/76 on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 70062) with an effective date of January 1, 2013. In order to ensure that the Council's desire to obtain better observer data is being met, NMFS will present a deployment plan for observers annually for the Council's review.
        Under Alternative 4, NMFS anticipates that the imposition of this trawl closure will not prevent the GOA groundfish fisheries from achieving the annual total allowable catch (TAC) for these species. The impact on vessels will be proportional to the extent that they rely on the Marmot Bay Area, the success they have in offsetting forgone catch from fishing outside of the Marmot Bay Area in the remaining open areas, and the net cost of making the adjustment. Because catch from the Marmot Bay Area represents only a small proportion of the total groundfish catch by vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear, NMFS anticipates that vessels will be able to catch the TAC of species that have been caught in the Marmot Bay Area in neighboring areas not closed to this gear. (See Section 6.6 of the Area Closures EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail.) Alternative 4 meets the objectives of the action to protect Tanner crab while minimizing the economic impact on gear types and fisheries that are not as likely to adversely impact Tanner crab.

        For Proposed Action 2, the Council evaluated two alternatives. Alternative 1, the status quo or no action alternative, would not require the use of modified nonpelagic trawl gear by vessels directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA. Alternative 1 does not meet the Council's objective to protect Tanner crab.
        Alternative 2, the Council's preferred alternative, would require vessels directed fishing for flatfish in the Central GOA to use modified nonpelagic trawl gear. This proposed action has identical performance standard and gear construction requirements as those implemented under Amendment 94 to the BSAI FMP, which requires modified nonpelagic trawl gear for vessels directed fishing for flatfish in the Bering Sea subarea (75 FR 61642, October 6, 2010).
        The average initial cost of gear modification for participants in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries is approximately $12,600, and requires approximately $3,000 in annual maintenance. For vessels using main line winches to set and haul back the modified nonpelagic trawl gear, there also may be a one-time cost for modifying the vessel to accommodate the modified nonpelagic trawl gear. Depending on a vessel's configuration, the cost may be $20,000 to $25,000 or higher. This cost may be offset if the modification to the nonpelagic trawl gear extends the useful life of the sweeps, and reduces the frequency with which new gear must be purchased. The owners of nonpelagic trawl gear vessels, not dependent on revenues derived from the Central GOA flatfish fisheries, may decide to forego the modified nonpelagic trawl gear and not participate in the Central GOA flatfish fisheries.
        For Proposed Action 3, the technical revision to nonpelagic trawl gear construction requirements, the revision would reduce the cost of gear construction by approximately $2,000.00. The proposed change would facilitate the use of the 90 feet (27.4 m) standard length of cables used in constructing the modified nonpelagic trawl gear by allowing for the additional length needed for the connecting devices. This would allow for the gear to be constructed within the construction requirements without further labor and materials costs to trim the standard length of cables. No other alternative to Proposed Action 3 is identified that would reduce costs to small entities and meet the Council's objective to improve the construction requirements for modified nonpelagic trawl gear.

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

          Dated: June 11, 2013.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, performing the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 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 § 679.2, revise the definitions of “directed fishing” and “Federally permitted vessel” and add in alphabetical order the definition of “Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area” to read as follows:

          § 679.2
          Definitions.

            Directed fishing means:

          (6) With respect to the harvest of flatfish in the Central GOA Regulatory Area, for purposes of modified nonpelagic trawl gear requirements under §§ 679.7(b)(9) and 679.24(f), fishing with nonpelagic trawl gear during any fishing trip that results in a retained aggregate amount of shallow-water flatfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, and flathead sole that is greater than the retained amount of any other trawl fishery category as defined at § 679.21(d)(3)(iii).

            Federally permitted vessel means a vessel that is named on either a Federal fisheries permit issued pursuant to § 679.4(b) or on a Federal crab vessel permit issued pursuant to § 680.4(k) of this chapter. Federally permitted vessels must conform to regulatory requirements for purposes of fishing restrictions in habitat conservation areas, habitat conservation zones, habitat protection areas, and the Modified Gear Trawl Zone; for purposes of anchoring prohibitions in habitat protection areas; for purposes of requirements for the BS and GOA nonpelagic trawl fishery pursuant to § 679.7(b)(9), § 679.7(c)(5), and § 679.24(f); and for purposes of VMS requirements.

            Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area means a habitat protection area of the Gulf of Alaska specified in Figure 5 to this part that is closed to directed fishing for groundfish with trawl gear, except directed fishing for pollock by vessels using pelagic trawl gear.

        3. In § 679.7, add paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:

          § 679.7
          Prohibitions.

          (b) * * *
          (9) Conduct directed fishing for flatfish, as defined in § 679.2, with a vessel required to be federally permitted in the Central GOA Regulatory Area, as defined in Figure 3 to this part, without meeting the requirements for modified nonpelagic trawl gear specified at § 679.24(f) and illustrated in Figures 25, 26, and 27 to this part.

        4. In § 679.22, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

          § 679.22
          Closures.

          (b) * * *
          (3) Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area. No federally permitted vessel may fish with trawl gear in the Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area, as described in Figure 5 to this part, except federally permitted vessels directed fishing for pollock using pelagic trawl gear.

        5. In § 679.24, revise the introductory text in paragraph (f) to read as follows:

          § 679.24
          Gear limitations.

          (f) Modified nonpelagic trawl gear. Nonpelagic trawl gear modified as shown in Figure 26 to this part must be used by any vessel required to be federally permitted and that is used to directed fish for flatfish, as defined in § 679.2, in any reporting area of the BS or in the Central GOA Regulatory Area or directed fish for groundfish with nonpelagic trawl gear in the Modified Trawl Gear Zone specified in Table 51 to this part. Nonpelagic trawl gear used by these vessels must meet the following standards:

        6. Revise Figure 5 to part 679 to read as follows:
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP17JN13.008

          EP17JN13.009

        7. Revise Figure 26 to part 679 to read as follows:

          EP17JN13.010

      [FR Doc. 2013-14328 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 061227341-6341-01; I.D. 120406A]
        RIN 0648-AU99
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Hawaii Shallow-set Longline Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would permanently remove the 7-day delay in effectiveness when closing the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery as a result of reaching interaction limits for sea turtles. This action would allow immediate closure of the fishery, and would enhance protection of sea turtles.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by January 31, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “AU99” by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: AU99Swordfish@noaa.gov. Include “AU99” in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.

          In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, a Biological Opinion, dated February 23, 2004, was prepared for the longline fishery, which operates under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP). Copies of the Biological Opinion are available from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES).
          Copies of the regulatory amendment may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), 1164 Bishop St. 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the World Wide Web at the Office of the Federal Register: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
        Background
        The Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery for swordfish, tunas, and related species is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP). The Pelagics FMP was developed by the WPFMC under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Pelagics FMP appear at 50 CFR part 665 and subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
        The regulations at § 665.33(b)(1) establish maximum annual limits on the numbers of interactions that occur between longline fishing operations and sea turtles. These limits apply to physical interactions experienced by vessels registered under Hawaii longline limited-access permits while engaged in shallow-set longline fishing. There are calendar-year annual limits on physical interactions for two species of sea turtles, one for leatherback sea turtles set at 16, and one for loggerhead sea turtles set at 17.
        NMFS is required by the 2004 Biological Opinion to maintain 100-percent observer coverage in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery. Interactions with turtles are monitored using data from scientific observers placed by NMFS aboard all vessels engaged in shallow-set longline fishing.
        The current regulations at § 665.33(b)(2) prescribe that as soon as the physical interaction limit for either of the two turtle species has been determined to have been reached in a given year, the shallow-set component of the Hawaii-based longline fishery must be closed by NMFS for the remainder of the calendar year, after giving permit holders at least seven days advance notice. Once that component of the fishery is closed, no vessel registered under a Hawaii longline limited-access permit may engage in shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator.

        The 7-day delay was intended to give NMFS adequate time to notify permit holders and vessel operators of the fishery closure. Based on the best information available on fishing activity levels and anticipated turtle interaction rates at the time when the regulations were first implemented, the 7-day delay in effectiveness offered by the advance notice provision was thought to provide adequate protection to sea turtles, while also providing adequate notice of the fishery closure to vessels at sea. At the time when the current regulations were implemented, NMFS observers placed aboard longline vessels were not issued satellite telephones, and other communication methods were considered ineffective for notifying vessels at sea of a closure. More effective means of providing notification to active fishermen now exist; NMFS observers carry satellite telephones that enable effective communications between NMFS and each shallow-set vessel at sea.
        Fishing activity levels and rates of turtle interactions in early 2006 were higher than expected, resulting in the fishery quickly reaching the limit on turtle interactions. To respond to the greater fishing activity and turtle interaction rates, and to prevent additional adverse impacts to turtles, fishery closure was facilitated by issuance of an emergency rule that suspended the 7-day delay in effectiveness for closing the fishery. The emergency rule that suspended the delay in effectiveness in closing the fishery was effective on March 20, 2006 (71 FR 14416, March 22, 2006). When the 2006 fishery was closed, NMFS notified the operator of each Hawaii-based shallow-set longline vessel, directly via the satellite telephone carried by the NMFS observer placed on the vessel. This allowed for immediate closure of the fishery. The limit on turtle interactions was not exceeded, maximizing protection to the turtles. To implement the closure, NMFS published a notice that closed the fishery, effective from March 20, 2006, through December 31, 2006 (71 FR 14824, March 24, 2006). NMFS subsequently published a notice extending until March 19, 2007, the emergency rule that suspends the advance notice provision (71 FR 54759, September 19, 2006).

        At its 135th meeting on October 18, 2006, the WPFMC voted to recommend to NMFS that the regulations governing the notification to close the fishery be amended to permanently remove the 7-day delay in effectiveness. The amended regulations would close the shallow-set fishery immediately upon reaching either limit on turtle interactions. The WPFMC developed a regulatory amendment, which may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds (see ADDRESSES). Copies of the regulatory amendment, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) may be obtained from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Pelagics FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if promulgated, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for the rule are described at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. There are no recordkeeping or reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule considered four alternative management measures including the proposed Alternative 2, which modifies existing regulations to close the shallow-set fishery immediately upon reaching a turtle interaction limit. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would continue to include a 7-day delay in effectiveness when closing the fishery. Alternative 3 would modify existing regulations to close the fishery immediately upon reaching the turtle interaction limit, plus change the fishing year with regards to monitoring the limit on sea turtle interactions. Alternative 4 would modify existing regulations to close the fishery immediately upon reaching the turtle interaction limit, plus utilize short-term time/area closures to decrease the number of turtle interactions and lengthen the fishing season.
        Based on recent levels of participation in the shallow-set longline fishery, it is estimated that approximately 35 shallow-set longline vessels may be affected by this rulemaking. All are considered to be small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as follows: any fish-harvesting business is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation and has annual receipts not in excess of $4 million.
        Because all vessels are considered to be small entities, there are no disproportionate economic impacts between small and large vessels resulting from this proposed rule. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate impacts among the affected population of small entities based on vessel size, fishing gear, or geographical considerations, e.g., home port.
        Based upon an estimated net revenue of $3,099 per set, and assuming that one set per day is the norm, the range of potential reduction in net revenues to individual swordfish vessels resulting from the implementation of the proposed Alternative 2 would be from $0 to $21,693 per closure, associated with a potential loss of 0-7 fishing days per vessel, respectively.
        The relative impact of a closure on annual returns from the swordfish fishery would depend on how quickly the fishery is closed in any one year. For example, if the fishery was closed after 63 days, there would be an estimated 10 percent reduction in potential annual net revenues. If the fishery was closed after 133 days, there would be an estimated 5.0 percent reduction. After 273 days, an estimated 2.5 percent reduction would result, and so on. These projections assume that all shallow-set certificates were being utilized.
        The loss in revenues could be mitigated by providing vessels with an early warning of projected closures, thus allowing the affected vessels to better plan for fishing operations. Better planning would avoid unnecessary trip preparation and allow the opportunity to change gear for fishing in alternative longline fisheries, such as the Hawaii-based deep-set (tuna) longline fishery. Alternative 1 (no action) would prevent direct economic losses to affected vessels. However, this alternative would not provide adequate protection to sea turtles. Alternatives 3 and 4 could partially mitigate the economic impacts to small entities associated with the proposed alternative by lengthening the fishing season, which would distribute landings to avoid flooding the market and allowing for price stability. The small entities also would be better able to plan their fishing operations, especially if they participate in another fishery when not targeting swordfish, and mitigate adverse economic impacts, such as unreasonably low prices, which can arise from the market becoming flooded as the fishery is closed and all vessels return to port. Because the high turtle interaction rates experienced in the 2006 fishing year may have been an anomaly, and in future years the fishery may not reach either turtle interaction limit, the time/area closures as proposed in Alternative 4, and the shifting of the shallow-set fishing season as proposed in Alternative 3 are not preferred at this time.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665

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

          Dated: January 10, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

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

          2. In § 665.22, revise paragraphs (ss) and (tt) to read as follows:

            § 665.22
            Prohibitions.

            (ss) Engage in shallow-setting from a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit after the shallow-set component of the longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.33(b), in violation of § 665.33(i).
            (tt) Fail to immediately retrieve longline fishing gear upon receipt of actual notice that the shallow-set component of the longline fishery has been closed pursuant to § 665.33(b), in violation of § 665.33(i).

            3. In § 665.33, remove paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv), and revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:

            § 665.33
            Western Pacific longline fishing restrictions

            (b) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (i) As soon as practicable, the Regional Administrator will file for publication at the Office of the Federal Register a notification of the sea turtle interaction limit having been reached. The notification will include an advisement that the shallow-set component of the longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached. Coincidental with the filing of the notification, the Regional Administrator will also provide actual notice that the shallow-set component of the longline fishery shall be closed, and that shallow-set longline fishing north of the Equator by vessels registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, to all holders of Hawaii longline limited access permits via telephone, satellite telephone, radio, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or post.

            (ii) Beginning on the fishery closure date indicated by the Regional Administrator in the notification provided to vessel operators and permit holders and published in the Federal Register under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, until the end of the calendar year in which the sea turtle interaction limit was reached, the Hawaii-based shallow-set component of the longline fishery shall be closed.

      [FR Doc. E7-459 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S