        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 032800B]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendments 61/61/13/8 to Implement Major Provisions of the American Fisheries Act

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent; scoping period; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on proposed Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area, proposed Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, proposed Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab, and proposed Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (FMPs). These fishery management plan (FMP) amendments would incorporate the provisions of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) into the FMPs and their implementing regulations. The scope of the analysis will include all proposed regulations and activities that would be implemented under the proposed FMP amendments.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted through May 8, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and requests to be included on a mailing list of persons interested in the EIS should be sent to Lori Gravel, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, or delivered to the Federal Office Building, Room 457-1, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, and marked Attn: Lori Gravel.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kent Lind, NMFS, (907) 586-7228 or kent.lind@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the FMPs for groundfish in the respective areas. With Federal oversight, the State of Alaska (State) manages the commercial king crab and Tanner crab fisheries in the BSAI and the commercial scallop fishery off Alaska under the FMPs for those fisheries. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
          seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        EISs were prepared and filed when the FMPs for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA were prepared and approved by NMFS in 1978 and 1981, respectively. On October 1, 1999, NMFS announced its intent to prepare a programmatic supplemental environmental impact statement that defined the Federal action under review as, among other things, all activities authorized and managed under the FMPs and all amendments thereto, and that addresses the conduct of the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries as a whole. Work on this programmatic SEIS is ongoing. However, the programmatic SEIS will not examine in detail a range of alternatives specific to proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8 and implementation of the AFA.
        The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires preparation of EISs for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA regulations state: “Environmental impact statements may be prepared, and are sometimes required, for broad Federal actions such as the adoption of new agency programs or regulations” (40 CFR 1502.4). NMFS has determined that the new management programs mandated by the AFA and proposed to be implemented under Amendments 61/61/13/8 are of sufficient magnitude to warrant preparation of a separate EIS for these amendments.
        The AFA, Div. C, Title II, Subtitle II, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998), made profound changes in the management of the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and, to a lesser extent, the groundfish fisheries of the GOA, crab fisheries of the BSAI, and scallop fishery off Alaska, and requires the adoption of new agency programs and regulations. With respect to the groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska, the AFA—
        (1) Established a new allocation scheme for BSAI pollock that allocates 10 percent of the BSAI pollock total allowable catch (TAC) to the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, and after allowance for incidental catch of pollock in other fisheries, allocates the remaining TAC as follows: 50 percent to vessels harvesting pollock for processing by inshore processors, 40 percent to vessels harvesting pollock for processing by catcher/processors, and 10 percent to vessels harvesting pollock for processing by motherships;
        (2) Provided for the buyout of nine pollock catcher/processors and the subsequent scrapping of eight of these vessels through a combination of $20 million in Federal appropriations and $75 million in direct loan obligations;
        (3) Required a fee of six-tenths (0.6) of one cent for each pound round weight of pollock harvested by catcher vessels delivering to inshore processors for the purpose of repaying the $75 million direct loan obligation;
        (4) Listed by name and/or provided qualifying criteria for those vessels and processors eligible to participate in the non-CDQ portion of the BSAI pollock fishery;
        (5) Increased observer coverage and scale requirements for AFA catcher/processors;
        (6) Established limitations for the creation of fishery cooperatives in the catcher/processor, mothership, and inshore industry sectors of the BSAI pollock fishery;
        (7) Required that NMFS grant individual allocations of the inshore BSAI pollock TAC to inshore catcher vessel cooperatives that form around a specific inshore processor and agree to deliver the bulk of their catch to that processor;
        (8) Required harvesting and processing restrictions (commonly known as “sideboards”) on fishermen and processors who have received exclusive harvesting or processing privileges under the AFA to protect the interests of fishermen and processors who have not directly benefitted from the AFA; and
        (9) Established excessive share harvesting caps for BSAI pollock and directed the Council to develop excessive share caps for BSAI pollock processing and for the harvesting and processing of other groundfish.
        Since the passage of the AFA in October 1998, NMFS has begun to implement specific provisions of the AFA through a variety of mechanisms. For the 2000 fishing year, NMFS implemented AFA-related permit requirements through an emergency interim rule published on January 5, 2000 (65 FR 380). AFA-related pollock allocations, monitoring requirements, and sideboard restrictions were implemented through a second emergency rule published January 28, 2000 (65 FR 4520). Required changes to the CDQ program were implemented through an emergency interim rule (64 FR 3877, January 26, 1999; extended at 64 FR 34743, June 29, 1999). Since the passage of the AFA, the Council also has taken an active role in the development of management measures to implement the various provisions of the AFA. The Council began consideration of the implications of the AFA during a special meeting in November 1998, during which it discussed AFA-related actions that were required for the 1999 fishing year. At its December 1998 meeting, the Council began an analysis of a suite of AFA-related management measures that subsequently became known as Amendments 61/61/13/8. The Council conducted an initial review of Amendments 61/61/13/8 and related AFA measures at its April 1999 meeting, and took final action on these amendments at its June 1999 meeting. At its December 1999 meeting, the Council reviewed the status of Amendments 61/61/13/8 and recommended that NMFS proceed immediately with an emergency interim rule to implement the Council's June 1999 recommendations so that AFA regulations could be in place prior to the start of the 2000 fisheries while Amendments 61/61/13/8 and the proposed rule to implement the amendments are under continued development and review by the Council and NMFS. In accordance with the Council's recommendation, NMFS has implemented the main provisions of Amendments 61/61/13/8 through the two emergency interim rules cited here to meet the statutory deadlines contained in the AFA for most management measures.
        With this document, NMFS announces its intent to prepare an EIS on proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8 that defines the proposed Federal action under review as the suite of regulations and management measures that, taken as a whole, would implement the required provisions of the AFA as recommended by the Council under proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8. NMFS will present in the EIS an overview and an assessment of all impacts (including environmental, biological, economic, and socio-economic) that result from fishing and processing activities that would be conducted under proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8 and all reasonable alternatives. The Responsible Program Manager for this EIS is Steven Pennoyer, Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS.
        Alternatives
        The EIS will consider a range of alternative management measures to implement the requirements of the AFA. The EIS will not consider detailed alternatives that are inconsistent with the statutory requirements of the AFA, or alternatives that would expand the provisions of the AFA into other groundfish or crab fisheries under the authority of the Council. This EIS also will not consider alternatives for the buyout and scrapping of ineligible catcher/processors or the 0.6 cent/lb fee on inshore pollock because these two provisions of the AFA have already been permanently implemented by NMFS through separate actions.

        Alternatives will be grouped into three categories of management measures for the purpose of analysis: (1) Alternatives for allocating the BSAI pollock resource among industry sectors, vessels and processors, (2) alternatives for harvesting and processing sideboard limits for AFA vessels and processors in other fisheries, and (3) alternatives for monitoring and enforcement.

          Alternatives for allocating the BSAI pollock resource. The AFA provides an explicit formula for allocating the BSAI pollock resource among the CDQ, inshore, mothership, and catcher/processor sectors. The AFA further defines which vessels and processors are eligible to participate in the inshore, mothership, and catcher/processor sectors and sets an overall harvesting excessive share cap of 17.5 percent of the BSAI pollock directed fishery which no individual, corporation, or other entity may exceed. The AFA also provides guidelines for the formation of fishery cooperatives and for the allocation of BSAI pollock to fishery cooperatives. The EIS will examine the environmental and economic effects of proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8 that would allocate pollock according to the formulas set out in the AFA and contrast this allocation alternative against the no-action alternative (i.e., the pre-AFA regime). The EIS also will analyze various alternative mechanisms for allocating BSAI pollock to fishery cooperatives that have been proposed by the Council including alternatives that would modify the restrictions on inshore cooperative membership and requirements that tie inshore cooperatives to specific processors. However, the EIS will not examine, in detail, different sector allocation formulas or alternative qualification criteria for vessels and processors that would be inconsistent with the AFA and that would be outside the authority of the Council to recommend or NMFS to implement.

          Alternatives for harvesting and processing sideboards. Since November 1998, the Council has examined a wide range of alternative measures for harvesting and processing sideboards. At its June 1999 meeting, the Council considered various options for establishing groundfish harvesting sideboard amounts for catcher/processors and groundfish and crab sideboard amounts for catcher vessels. The Council also considered various methods by which harvesting sideboards would be managed and considered various exemptions for catcher vessels that meet certain criteria. The full range of harvesting sideboard alternatives considered by the Council will be analyzed in the EIS including the Council's preferred alternative under proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8. The EIS will also examine the crab processing sideboard alternatives developed by the Council. However, the EIS will not examine alternatives for groundfish processing sideboards and excessive processing shares. The Council is currently examining groundfish processing sideboards and excessive processing share limits as a separate action and is preparing a separate analysis to examine those issues for initial review at its June 2000 Council meeting.

          Alternatives for monitoring and enforcement. A suite of new monitoring and enforcement measures are required to implement the limited access allocation program effectively for BSAI pollock and the accompanying sideboard measures proposed under Amendments 61/61/13/8. The AFA sets out new observer and scale requirements for catcher/processors but is silent with respect to monitoring and enforcement of both BSAI pollock and sideboard fisheries in the mothership and inshore sectors. The EIS will examine a range of monitoring and enforcement options including electronic recordkeeping and reporting requirements, observer coverage requirements, and scale and catch weighing requirements for all three sectors of the BSAI directed pollock fishery.
        Issues
        The environmental consequences section of the EIS will examine the impacts of fishing and processing under pre-AFA management regulations and under a range of representative alternative management alternatives to implement the requirements of the AFA. The environmental issues to be examined include: (1) marine habitat and water quality, (2) major fish species, (3) bycatch, (4) marine mammals, (5) seabirds, and (6) cumulative and synergistic impacts on species across the food web. In addition, the environmental consequences section will contain summary, interpretation, and predictions for economic and socioeconomic issues associated with the conduct of the BSAI pollock fishery on the following individuals and groups: (1) Those who participate in harvesting the fishery resources off Alaska, (2) those who process and market the fishery resources harvested off Alaska, (3) those who are involved in allied support industries, (4) those who consume these fishery products, (5) those who rely on these fishery resources for subsistence or recreational needs, (6) those who benefit from non-consumptive uses of these living marine resources, (7) those involved in managing and monitoring these fisheries, and (8) affected fishing communities.
        NMFS requests public input on the range of environmental, economic and socioeconomic issues that should be considered in this EIS on proposed Amendments 61/61/13/8.
        Public Involvement
        Scoping for the EIS begins with publication of this document. The Council will receive a presentation of the EIA project and the public will have opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS at the Council's April 2000 meeting (Anchorage, AK, Hilton Hotel, April 12-17, 2000). Additional scoping meetings are not scheduled. The proposed action has already been subject to a lengthy development process that has included early and meaningful opportunity for public participation in the development of the proposed action including eight Council meetings beginning with a special Council meeting on the AFA in November 1998, and including every Council meeting since that date. The Council also has formed special committees to examine specific aspects of the AFA in detail including the structure and management of inshore cooperatives and the issue of processor sideboards. The Council provided notice of these meetings and they were open to the public.

          Dated: April 3, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-8576 Filed 4-5-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0327; FRL-9964-96-Region 5]
        Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 2008 Ozone Transport

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a May 26, 2016, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Minnesota that is intended to demonstrate that the Minnesota SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP as containing adequate provisions to ensure that Minnesota emissions do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0327 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to aburano.douglas@epa.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, 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. 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489, svingen.eric@epa.gov.

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

          I. Background.
          II. EPA's Analysis of Minnesota's Submittal
          III. What action is EPA taking?
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

        I. Background
        On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.
        II. EPA's Analysis of Minnesota's Submittals

        On May 26, 2016, the State of Minnesota submitted a revision to its SIP to address the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, Minnesota's submission asserts that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. The SIP submission highlights rules and statutes already in Minnesota's SIP that limit emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursor pollutants contributing to ozone formation. Minnesota primarily limits VOC emissions through emission limitations in state-issued part 70 permits. Minnesota has also incorporated by reference EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which further limit VOC emissions. See Minn. R. 7011.7000-9990. Minnesota limits NOX emissions through application of Minn. R. 7011.0500-0553, “Indirect Heating Fossil Fuel Burning Equipment,” as well as Minn. R. 7011.1700-1705, “Nitric Acid Plants.” Additionally, an administrative order issued to the Xcel Energy Sherburne County Generating Station (Sherco) as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP imposes additional limits on NOX emissions in Minnesota. Finally, Minnesota sources are also subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) at 40 CFR 52.1240, and are required to reduce annual emissions of NOX in support of the 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
        EPA developed technical information and a related analysis to assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and used this technical analysis to support the CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (“CSAPR Update”).1
           As explained below, this analysis supports the conclusion of Minnesota's analysis regarding interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

            1 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).

        In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected nonattainment or maintenance areas would be and whether emissions from a state would contribute to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors. Specifically, EPA determined whether a state's contributing emissions were at or above a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of the ozone NAAQS). If a state's contribution did not exceed the one percent threshold, the state was not considered “linked” to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state's contribution was equal to or exceeded the one percent threshold, that state was considered “linked” to the downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

        As discussed in the CSAPR Update, the air quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipates nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (these are identified as nonattainment and maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in 2017. See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74526. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous states in the U.S. and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. Id. at 81 FR 74526-74527. The modeling data released to support the final CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See “Air Quality Modeling TSD for the Final CSAPR Update” in the docket for CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74504 for more details regarding EPA's modeling analysis.

        Consistent with the framework established in the original CSAPR rulemaking, EPA's technical analysis in support of the CSAPR Update applied a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. See CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74518-74519. EPA considered states to be “linked” to a specific downwind receptor if emissions from that state meet or exceed that one percent threshold. EPA analyzed emissions from those “linked” states to determine whether emissions reductions were required for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA determined that one percent was an appropriate threshold to use in that analysis because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at that threshold. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for the CSAPR Update to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. EPA's analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed that application of a lower threshold would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one percent at the majority of the receptors. Id.; see also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the Final CSAPR Update, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. This approach is consistent with the use of a one percent threshold to identify those states “linked” to air quality problems with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. 76 FR 48208, 48236-48237 (August 8, 2011).

        EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update projects that Minnesota emissions are projected to contribute amounts less than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS to all receptors. The modeling indicates that Minnesota's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.40 ppb and Minnesota's largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.47 ppb. 80 FR 46271, 46277 (August 4, 2015). These values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages between Minnesota and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites. In Minnesota's submission, the state provides data demonstrating that statewide NOX and VOC emissions have been decreasing in recent years. This indicates that existing controls have been sufficient in meeting Minnesota's transport obligations for ozone. This further suggests that Minnesota will likely continue to have insignificant contributions to downwind nonattainment and maintenance problems for ozone.
        EPA agrees with the state's technical information and conclusion. EPA's modeling also confirms this finding. Based on the modeling data and the information and analysis provided in Minnesota's SIP, we are proposing to approve Minnesota's interstate transport SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements as to the 2008 ozone standard. EPA's modeling confirms the results of the state's analysis: Minnesota does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state.
        III. What action is EPA taking?
        EPA is proposing to approve Minnesota's interstate transport SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements of the 2008 ozone standard.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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);

        • 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 CAA; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable 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 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

          Dated: July 6, 2017.
          Cheryl L. Newton,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2017-14939 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 030128021-3021-01; I.D. 121602A]
        RIN:  0648-AQ45
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Opening Waters to Pacific Cod Pot Fishing off Cape Barnabas and Caton Island

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule to open waters to Pacific cod pot fishing around Cape Barnabas and Caton Island located in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).  Waters out to 3 nautical miles (nm) around these sites are currently closed to Pacific cod fishing by federally permitted vessels as a Steller sea lion protection measure.  State of Alaska regulations do not implement these same closures in State waters.  This action is necessary to provide consistency between State and Federal fishing restrictions and to relieve a potential burden on the Pacific cod pot fishing sector.  The regulatory amendment is intended to meet the objectives in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and further the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before March 20, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall,  or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 W 9th St., Juneau, Alaska.  Comments may also be faxed to 907-586-7557, marked Attn:  Lori Durall.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action and the Steller sea lion supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) may also be obtained from the same address, from the Alaska Region, NMFS, Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at  907-586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, (907) 586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries of the GOA under the FMP.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the GOA appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        At its October 2001 meeting, the Council recommended Steller sea lion (SSL) protection measures for 2002 and beyond.  These measures were developed by a Council-appointed committee (hereafter referred to as the SSL Committee but was formerly called the “RPA Committee”).  In developing its recommendations, the SSL Committee first assessed the needs of Steller sea lions to avoid jeopardy to their continued existence or destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat based on the best scientific information available.  The SSL Committee then crafted groundfish fisheries management measures that provided adequate protection for Steller sea lions in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        These recommendations included a revised harvest control rule for pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel; closed areas and seasons based on the location, fishery, and gear type; critical habitat harvest limits for the pollock and Atka mackerel fisheries in certain areas of critical habitat; and requirements to allow for monitoring of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel directed fishing.  The recommendations of the SSL Committee were further modified by the Council.  The complete set of recommendations by the Council is detailed in the preamble to the emergency interim rule implementing Steller sea lion protection measures and groundfish harvest specifications in 2002 (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).

        NMFS formally consulted under section 7 of the ESA on the Steller sea lion protection measures.  A biological opinion (2001 BiOp) was appended to the Steller sea lion SEIS which evaluated the effects of the preferred alternative on ESA listed species (see ADDRESSES).  The agency determined in the 2001 BiOp that the protection measures proposed by the Council were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat.  Based on the 2001 BiOp and the environmental impacts disclosed in the Steller sea lion SEIS, the Council adopted the preferred alternative (with modifications) and forwarded it to NMFS for approval and implementation.  NMFS implemented the preferred alternative by emergency interim rule prior to the start of the 2002 fishing year (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002, amended 67 FR 21600, May 1, 2002, 67 FR 45671, July 10, 2002, 67 FR 47472, July 19, 2002, and extended 67 FR 34860, May 16, 2002).  These protection measures were published as a proposed rule for 2003 and beyond (67 FR 56692, September 4, 2002) and the final rule became effective January 1, 2003 (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003).On December 18, 2002, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington remanded to NMFS the biological opinion (“2001 BiOp”) NMFS prepared for the groundfish fisheries managed pursuant to the Stellar sea lion protection measures published on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 204).  Greenpeace, et al. V. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. C98-492Z (W.D. Wash.).  The Court held that the biological opinion's findings of no jeopardy to the continued existence of endangered Stellar sea lions and no adverse modification of their critical habitat were arbitrary and capricious.  On December 30, 2002, the Court issued an Order declaring that the 2001 BiOp “shall remain effective until June 30, 2003,” while NMFS complies with the remand.
        In order for the Steller sea lion protection measures to be fully implemented, in November 2001, the State of Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) adopted parallel regulations providing for an extension of Steller sea lion protection measures in State waters (0-3 nm) during the State parallel fishery.  The parallel groundfish fishery is defined as the Pacific cod, walleye pollock, and Atka mackerel fisheries in State waters opened by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). The opening was effected under emergency order authority to correspond with the times, area, and, unless otherwise specified, the gear of the Federal season in adjacent Federal waters (Alaska Administrative Code 5 AAC 28.087(c), January 3, 2002).
        As part of its November 2001 action, the BOF adopted a series of fishery closure areas that almost mirrored those areas requested by the Council under the Steller sea lion protection measures.  The Federal regulations (implementing the Council's preferred alternative) contained closures for Pacific cod fisheries using pot gear at Caton Island (King Cove area) and Cape Barnabas (Kodiak) within 3 nm of those ESA listed haulouts.  However, the BOF action did not contain these closures for the parallel fishery, and this allowed vessels without a Federal fishing permit to fish in those areas under Alaska State law.  This resulted in conflicting Federal and State regulations.  In November 2001, NMFS informally consulted on allowing Pacific cod fisheries using pot gear at Caton Island and Cape Barnabas within 3 nm of those ESA listed haulouts and determined that these changes to the Steller sea lion protection measures were not of sufficient extent to re-initiate formal ESA consultation.
        In October 2002, the Council recommended proposed regulations to remove Pacific cod pot fishing restrictions in waters within 3 nm of Cape Barnabas and Caton Island for federally permitted vessels.  These proposed regulations remove the restrictions from Table 5 of part 679 for these two locations.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the opening of closed Pacific cod pot fishing within 3 nm miles of Caton Island and Cape Barnabas  is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Under Executive Order 12612, this proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.  Because no federalism issues are implicated with this action, the mandatory requirements contained in Executive Order 13132 for consultation on federalism issues among Federal, State, and local governments are not triggered.
        Nothing in this action results in any changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
        Species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are present in the action area.  This action is not expected to result in increases of Pacific cod harvest beyond those experienced with the opening of the State parallel fishery in these areas.  With no additional removals of Pacific cod expected, informal ESA consultation concluded that this action is not likely to adversely affect listed species.
        The analysis for this action did not reveal any existing Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this action may have on small entities.  Earlier sections of this preamble describe the reasons why action by the agency is being considered and provide a succinct statement of the objectives of, and the legal basis for, the proposed rule.  This action is expected to affect six regulated small entities by removing a fishing restriction.  These entities are the pot vessels fishing for Pacific cod in the waters within 3 nm of the two haulouts.  This action does not impose new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on regulated small entities.  No Federal rules exist that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.  This action does not have any adverse impacts on regulated small entities.  No significant alternatives to the proposed rule exist that would have lower economic impacts on these entities.
        Two alternatives were considered for the Caton Island and Cape Barnabas pot fishing vessels:  (1) No exemption for these vessels (status quo) and (2) exempt pot fishing vessels from SSL closures from 0 to 3 nm around Caton Island and Cape Barnabas.
        Alternative 1 is the baseline alternative, and federally permitted vessels using pot gear for Pacific cod directed fishing would continue to be prohibited from fishing within 3 nm of the Caton Island and Cape Barnabas haulouts.  Also, the status quo would not provide consistency between Federal and State regulations governing fishing restrictions within Steller sea lion protection areas.  The preferred alternative would allow     federally permitted vessels used to participate in the GOA Pacific cod pot fishery to fish within 3 nm of the haulouts at Caton Island and Cape Barnabas.  This would reduce the Pacific cod revenues placed “at risk” by the restrictions of the status quo alternative by up to $63,000.  The areas in question are small parts of larger fishing areas, and fishermen may currently be making up a large part of the harvest foreclosed by the restrictions by fishing elsewhere.  This alternative is not believed to create jeopardy for the Steller sea lions or adversely modify its critical habitat.  This alternative would not trigger Executive Order 12866 significance criteria since the maximum revenue impact is likely to be $63,000 at the outside.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: February 6, 2003.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service.

           For the reasons discussed 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 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

            Table 5 to Part 679 [Amended]
          2. Table 5 to part 679 is revised as follows:

            EP18FE03.000

            EP18FE03.001

            EP18FE03.002

            EP18FE03.003

            EP18FE03.004

            EP18FE03.005

            EP18FE03.006

            EP18FE03.007

      [FR Doc. 03-3589 Filed 2-14-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-AY10
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse With Special Rule

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State distinct population segment (DPS) of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, with a special rule. We are taking this action based on new information received regarding population trends, and recent State and Federal agency funding and staffing commitments for various conservation efforts associated with the Bi-State Action Plan, making it necessary to solicit feedback by reopening the comment period for 30 days. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final listing determination. We anticipate publishing a final listing determination on or before April 28, 2015.

          DATES:

          The comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358), is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before September 4, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and associated documents and letters discussed in this supplement to the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072, or contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate the document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For information on the proposed listing rule, proposed special rule, and proposed critical habitat designation, contact Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300; or facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On October 28, 2013, we published a proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in California and Nevada as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (78 FR 64358), with a special rule. We concurrently published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat (78 FR 64328). We received requests to extend the public comment periods on the rules beyond the December 27, 2013, due date. In order to ensure that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on our proposed rules, we extended the comment periods for an additional 45 days to February 10, 2014 (78 FR 77087; December 20, 2013).

        On April 8, 2014, we reopened the comment period on our October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS, the special rule, and the proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR 19314). We also announced two public hearings that were subsequently postponed (79 FR 26684, May 9, 2014) to May 28, 2014, and May 29, 2014, respectively. The April 8, 2014, document also announced a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether or not to list the bi-State DPS as a threatened species, which will automatically delay any decision we make regarding critical habitat for the bi-State DPS. The comment period was reopened and extended to June 9, 2014, and our decision to delay the final listing action was because of substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed listing, making it necessary to solicit additional information. Thus, we announced that we will publish a listing determination on or before April 28, 2015. On June 3, 2014, we announced an extension of the comment period on the proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR 31901), the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the bi-State DPS, and an amended required determinations section of the proposed critical habitat rule (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042).

        Since publication of the proposed listing rule, we have received new information on the population trends of the bi-State DPS. The publication models population growth and trajectory of the bi-State DPS across its range as well as within individual subpopulations contained within the DPS. These data may characterize risk to the bi-State DPS and predict future population trends. This information is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072).

        In addition to this new trend information, we have continued to work closely with our interagency partners to implement and plan conservation actions that benefit the bi-State DPS and its habitat. These conservation efforts are embodied primarily in the formalized Bi-State Action Plan (Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee 2012), which is a multiagency management plan that outlines approximately 80 specific actions needed to address ongoing and future threats to the Bi-State DPS and its habitat. We recently received State and Federal agency letters (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) that document commitments for the necessary funding and staff required to implement conservation actions in the Bi-State Action Plan. We note that the necessary regulatory mechanisms to implement these conservation efforts are currently in place; in some cases, associated management plans are being revised to ensure the conservation efforts are successfully implemented to address threats that may be acting on the DPS or its habitat. As part of our final listing determination, we will examine the various conservation efforts that are currently in progress and anticipated in the future throughout the range of the bi-State DPS. We will evaluate existing regulatory mechanisms (and associated management plans) and volunteer efforts for their biologically meaningful contribution to the conservation of the bi-State DPS and its habitat.
        Information Requested

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing (and special 4(d) rule) for the bi-State DPS that published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
        We are particularly interested in new information and comments regarding:

        (1) New population trend information and analysis (currently available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072).

        (2) Whether there is scientific information in addition to that considered in our proposed rule and the new population trends data currently available as supporting information (on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) that may be useful in our analysis.
        (3) The scope of the proposed 4(d) rule.

        (4) Consideration of the various conservation commitments (as outlined in the State and Federal agency letters available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072), which are consistent with the Bi-State Action Plan.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 FR 64358) during the initial comment period from October 28, 2013, to February 10, 2014, or the subsequent comment period from April 8, 2014, to June 9, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the listing and special rule will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.

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

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed listing and special rule will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072, or at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

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

          Dated: July 17, 2014.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-18180 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        RIN 0648-BH36
        Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; Amendment 4 to Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fisheries (HMS FMP); Revisions to the Biennial Management Cycle

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce. The intent of Amendment 4 is to bring descriptions of the management context for highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries up to date, better describe the Council's role in the process of making stock status determinations including evaluations of the best scientific information available (BSIA), and change the schedule of the Council's three-meeting biennial management cycle for HMS stocks. The amendment is administrative in nature and is not expected to affect activities authorized under the FMP or their harvest levels.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 4 must be submitted received by March 26, 2018 to be considered in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 4.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Amber.Rhodes@noaa.gov, NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138” in the comments.

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

          Copies of the draft Amendment 4 and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2017-0138, or contact Amber Rhodes, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-3231, Amber.Rhodes@noaa.gov or Heidi Taylor, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-4039, Heidi.Taylor@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Amber Rhodes, NMFS, 562-980-3231, Amber.Rhodes@noaa.gov or Heidi Taylor, NMFS, 562-980-4039, Heidi.Taylor@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        During the Council's 2016 biennial management cycle meetings for HMS and considerations for recent revisions to agency guidelines for National Standard 1 (81 FR 71858, October 18, 2016), key differences have become evident regarding the management of HMS stocks versus other Council-managed stocks for which management activities are largely or fully within the scope of Council jurisdiction. In contrast to NMFS-conducted assessments for other Council-managed stocks, HMS assessments are conducted by teams of regional fishery management organization (RFMO) science providers, which may include scientists from the United States and other participating nations in Pacific HMS fisheries or international science providers who work at RFMOs. Additionally, alternative peer review processes are used to determine whether the output of these international HMS assessments constitute BSIA (81 FR 54561; August 16, 2016), consistent with BSIA determinations for most U.S.-targeted stocks subject to international agreements. Following these steps, NMFS uses assessment outputs, which meet the BSIA standard, to determine stock status by following the status determination criteria (i.e., maximum fishing mortality thresholds and minimum stock size thresholds) in the HMS FMP.
        The proposed changes to the HMS FMP are administrative in nature, do not involve the issuance of any permits, and are described in further detail below:
        • The description of the stock status determination process in Chapter 4 of the current HMS FMP has been revised to account for the fact that the HMS management unit species are internationally assessed and that these stock assessments are not routinely subject to Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review for purposes of determining BSIA, unlike assessments for domestically-managed stocks.
        • Additionally, to better align the Council's biennial management schedule with the NMFS' process for conducting HMS stock status determinations, the schedule described in Chapter 5 of the FMP would be changed under the proposed amendment to the HMS FMP. The three-meeting biennial management cycle would take place during September, November, and March Council meetings instead of during June, September, and November meetings; however, the schedule would continue to start on even years.
        • Chapters 1 and 6 in the FMP also have been substantially revised to better describe the management context (Chapter 1) and the types of measures available and in use to manage U.S. West Coast HMS fisheries (Chapter 6).
        • Chapter 8 (Research and Data Needed for Management) is proposed to be deleted, because it is out of date. This information may be periodically updated and presented in the HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report produced by the HMS Management Team and the Research and Data Needs Report produced periodically by the Council's SSC.
        NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on proposed revisions to regulations to implement Amendment 4 in the near future. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 4 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received during the comment period for Amendment 4, whether specifically directed to the amendment, or the proposed rule, will be considered in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 4.

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

          Dated: January 18, 2018.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-01180 Filed 1-22-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 122200C]
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Fishery; Scoping Process

          AGENCY:

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and notice of scoping process; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) announces its intent to prepare a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the northeast region skate complex and to prepare an EIS to analyze the impacts of any proposed management measures.  The FMP would be developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The Council also formally announces the initiation of a public process to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental impact analysis.  The purpose of this notice is to alert the interested public of the scoping process and to provide for public participation in compliance with environmental documentation requirements.

          DATES:

          The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings in January and February 2001.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times.  Written scoping comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number, (See ADDRESSES), on or before 5:00 p.m. local time, February 21, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and requests for copies of the scoping document and other information should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, Telephone (978) 465-0492.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 465-3116.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The seven species in the northeast region skate complex currently include:  winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata), barndoor skate (Dipturis laevis), thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata), smooth skate (Malacoraja senta), little skate (Leucoraja erinacea), clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria), and rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani).  The northeast skate complex is generally distributed along the coast of the eastern United States from near the tide line to depths exceeding 700 m (383 fathoms).  In the northeast region, the center of distribution for the little and winter skates is Georges Bank and Southern New England.  The barndoor skate is most common in the Gulf of Maine, on Georges Bank, and in Southern New England.  The thorny and smooth skates are commonly found in the Gulf of Maine.  The clearnose and rosette skates have a more southern distribution, and are found primarily in the Chesapeake Bight.
        Status of the Stocks

        A benchmark assessment of the northeast skate complex was completed at the 30th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 30) in November 1999.  Conclusions about the status of the seven species in the northeast region skate complex are based mainly on standardized research trawl survey data collected by the U.S. and Canada during 1963-1999.  Taken as a group, the skate biomass for the seven species in the northeast region is at a medium level.  The large increase in skate biomass in the mid to late 1980s was dominated by winter and little skate.  The biomass of large-sized skates (>100 cm maximum length; barndoor, winter, and thorny) has steadily declined since the mid-1980s.  The recent increase in aggregate skate biomass has been due to an increase in small-sized skates (<100 cm maximum length; little, clearnose, rosette, and smooth), mainly little skate.
        At SAW 30, each species in the northeast skate complex was individually assessed.  SAW scientists developed status determination criteria to evaluate whether overfishing was occurring and whether or not a species is in an overfished condition.  Based on the SAW 30 criteria, overfishing was found to be occurring on one species of skate (winter skate), and four species were found to be in an overfished condition (winter skate, thorny skate, barndoor skate, and smooth skate).

        On June 21, 1999, a notice regarding barndoor skate was published by NMFS in the Federal Register.  This notice indicated that NMFS had received a petition to add the barndoor skate to the list of threatened and endangered wildlife and to designate critical habitat for barndoor skate, and was seeking information and comments.  At the SAW 30 in November 1999, assessment scientists reviewed each of the ESA listing criteria relative to barndoor skate and provided an assessment with recommendations and comments regarding the potential ESA listing.  The Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) found that there was no evidence that the barndoor skate is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.  As of the date of publication of this notice, NMFS has not published a decision.
        In March 2000, NMFS informed the Council of its decision to designate the Council as the responsible body for the development and management of the seven species included in the northeast region skate complex.  Based on work completed at SAW 30, NMFS identified four species of skates as overfished: barndoor, smooth, thorny, and winter skate.  The overfished status of these species necessitates development of an FMP to end overfishing and rebuild these stocks in accordance with Section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Purpose
        The purpose of the proposed Skate FMP is to establish conservation and management measures to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks in the northeast skate complex.
        Management Options
        The Skate FMP may establish mechanisms to obtain better information about individual skate species and directed and incidental skate fisheries.  With the implementation of the Skate FMP, vessels may be required to obtain a Federal permit to fish for skates.  Vessels with skate permits may be required to submit Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs or logbooks) for all trips.  To collect better information about the skate fisheries, the Council may also require that vessels report landings and discards of skates by species and/or by fishery (wings/bait).
        The low abundance level and current overfished status of barndoor skate will likely require a significant reduction in fishing mortality.  Because the barndoor skate is not a primary component of either the bait fishery or the wing fishery, the Council may consider prohibiting its possession.
        Clearnose and rosette skate are distributed considerably further south than the other five skates in the northeast complex, the northern extent of their ranges reaching only to waters off the New Jersey coastline.  These two species are not overfished and are not known to be a component of either the bait or wing fishery in the northeast region.  Including these two species as part of the northeast skate complex for management purposes could complicate the development of management measures and could pose unnecessary burdens on fisheries that do not interact with the other five species of skates.  Therefore, the Council is considering eliminating clearnose and rosette skate from the northeast complex for management purposes.

        The Council may consider developing a limited access program for directed and/or incidental skate fishing.  This could include the establishment of a control date for skate fishing.  The Council will consider other management measures (e.g., minimum sizes, gear restrictions, area closures, quotas, trip limits, fishing seasons, Skate days-at-sea, etc.) as appropriate, based on comments received through the scoping process.
        Scoping Process
        Scoping meetings for the Skate FMP are as follows:
        1. January 23, 2001, 6 p.m., Sheraton Ferncroft Hotel, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA  01923, (978) 777-2500; fax (978) 750-7991;
        2. February 2, 2001, 10 a.m., Provincetown Town Hall, 260 Commercial Street, Provincetown, MA  02657, (508) 487-7013; fax (508) 487-9560;
        3. February 6, 2001, 7 p.m., Wyndham Hotel, 700 King Street, Wilmington, DE  19801, (302) 655-0400; fax (302) 429-5979; and
        4. February 12, 2001, 6 p.m., Tiverton Community Center, 346 Judson Street, Tiverton, RI  02878, (401) 625-6704; fax (401) 625-6705.
        Additional meetings of the Council, Skate Committee, or Advisory Panel during the scoping period will provide opportunities for public comment on specific issues identified in the respective agendas.

        All persons affected by or otherwise interested in skate fisheries management are invited to participate in determining the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed by submitting written comments (see ADDRESSES).  Alternatives include not developing a management plan, developing amendments to existing plans, or other reasonable courses of action.  Impacts of this proposed action to be considered in this process may be direct, indirect, individual, or cumulative.  The scoping process will also identify and eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant.  Once a draft FMP and an Environmental Assessment or an EIS is developed, the Council will hold public hearings to receive comments.

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

          Dated: December 26, 2000.
          Valerie Chambers,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,  National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-33452 Filed 12-29-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
        Bureau of Prisons
        28 CFR Part 524
        [BOP-1131-P]
        RIN 1120-AB32
        Classification and Program Review

          AGENCY:
          Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

          ACTION:
          Proposed Rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to revise its regulations on classification and program review to remove unnecessary regulations and to ensure that classification and program review procedures adequately address inmate needs.

          DATES:
          Comments due by January 3, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Our e-mail address is BOPRULES@BOP.GOV. Comments should be submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. You may view an electronic version of this rule at http://www.regulations.gov. You may also comment via the Internet to BOP at BOPRULES@BOP.GOV or by using the http://www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically you must include the BOP Docket No. in the subject box.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In this document, we revise and streamline the regulations which set forth the classification and program review rules, which currently describe procedure, practice, and general statements of policy, to remove an unnecessary level of operational details with regard to the classification and program review process.
        Details removed from the regulations will be addressed in our corresponding policy statement on the classification and review program. We do not, by this rule, intend to make any substantive changes to the current rules or to the classification and program review system. We merely intend to clarify and streamline the existing rules.
        Executive Order 12866
        This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director, Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
        Executive Order 13132
        This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
        This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

          List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524
          Prisoners.

          Harley G. Lappin,
          Director, Bureau of Prisons.

        Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we propose to amend 28 CFR part 524 as set forth below.
        Subchapter B—Inmate Admission, Classification, and Transfer

          PART 524—CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES
          1. Revise the authority citation for 28 CFR part 524 to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21 U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.

          2. Revise subpart B to read as follows:

            Subpart B—Classification and Program Review of Inmates

            Sec.
            524.10
            Purpose.
            524.11
            Process for classification and program reviews.

            Subpart B—Classification and Program Review

              § 524.10
              Purpose.
              The purpose of this subpart is to explain the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) process for classifying newly committed inmates and conducting program reviews for all inmates except:
              (a) Pretrial inmates, covered in § 551.107 of this chapter; and
              (b) Inmates committed for study and observation.

              § 524.11
              Process for classification and program reviews.
              (a) When:

              (1) Newly committed inmates will be classified within 28 calendar days of arrival at the institution designated for service of sentence.
              (2) Inmates will receive a program review at least once every 180 calendar days. When an inmate is within twelve months of the projected release date, staff will conduct a program review at least once every 90 calendar days.
              (b) Inmate appearance before classification team:

              (1) Inmates will be notified at least 48 hours before that inmate's scheduled appearance before the classification team (whether for the initial classification or later program reviews).
              (2) Inmates may submit a written waiver of the 48-hour notice requirement.
              (3) The inmate is expected to attend the initial classification and all later program reviews. If the inmate refuses to appear at a scheduled meeting, staff must document on the Program Review Report the inmate's refusal and, if known, the reasons for refusal, and give a copy of this report to the inmate.
              (c) Program Review Report: Staff must complete a Program Review Report at the inmate's initial classification. This report ordinarily includes information on the inmate's apparent needs and offers a correctional program designed to meet those needs. The Unit Manager and the inmate must sign the Program Review Report, and a copy must be given to the inmate.
              (d) Work Programs: Each sentenced inmate who is physically and mentally able is assigned to a work program at initial classification. The inmate may choose not to participate in the offered program unless the program is a work assignment or required by Bureau policy, court order, or statute.

      [FR Doc. 05-21967 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4410-05-P