        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0075; 96100-1671-0000-B6; 1018-AT56]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Petition To Reclassify the Argentine Population of the Broad-Snouted Caiman From Endangered to Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the Argentine population of the broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris) from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of reclassifying the broad-snouted caiman in Argentina from endangered to threatened status under the Act may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of the broad-snouted caiman to determine if reclassification of the population in Argentina, as petitioned, is warranted under the Act. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are requesting submission of any new information on the broad-snouted caiman since its original listing as an endangered species in 1976. At the conclusion of our status review, we will make the requisite recommendation under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act and issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:
          To be considered in the 12-month finding on this petition, we will accept comments and information from all interested parties until September 15, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information, materials, and comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0075]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive; Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. 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 Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Marie T. Maltese, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone: 703-358-1708; facsimile: 703-358-2276; e-mail: ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Information Solicited
        We intend that any final action resulting from this status review will be as accurate and effective as possible based on the best available scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we solicit information, comments, or suggestions on the broad-snouted caiman from the public, concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. We are opening a 90-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the Argentine population of the broad-snouted caiman, as well as the status of the species throughout its range, including:
        (1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and use, food habits, population density and trends, habitat trends, and effects of management on broad-snouted caimans in the wild;
        (2) Information on broad-snouted caiman ranching programs in Argentina and throughout the caiman's range; including efficacy of programs, origin of parental stock, stock supplementation for any purpose, including genetic purposes, growth rates, birth and mortality rates in captivity, location of ranches in comparison to wild populations, effects of ranching on the species' natural habitats and wild populations, wastewater management, and any other factors occurring from ranching activities that might negatively affect or reduce the species' natural habitat or range;

        (3) Information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, trends in domestic and international trade, illicit hunting of wild broad-snouted caimans, illegal trade and enforcement efforts and current and/or future solutions to poaching and illegal trade, products resulting from caiman ranching programs, current identification systems for products including tagging and marking, and use of the species by the scientific community;
        (4) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, including contaminants, changes in the distribution and abundance of wild populations, disease outbreaks within ranching programs, large mortality events, or negative effects resulting from the presence of invasive species;
        (5) Information on management programs for broad-snouted caiman conservation in the wild, including private or government-funded conservation programs that benefit broad-snouted caimans; and
        (6) Information relevant to the possibility that the Argentine population of the broad-snouted caiman may qualify as a distinct population segment.
        We will base our finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period.

        You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax.

        Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, 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 this 90-day finding, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority (see previous section: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        We received a petition from the Government of Argentina dated November 5, 2007, requesting that we reclassify the broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris) in Argentina from endangered to threatened. The petition contained detailed information about the natural history and biology of the broad-snouted caiman, including the species' current status and distribution.
        The broad-snouted caiman is a medium-sized crocodilian reaching no more than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in total length at maturity. Species distribution includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Uruguay. The species is found mostly in freshwater marsh, swamp, and mangrove habitats. Recent surveys in Argentina indicate that much of the original broad-snouted caiman's habitat remains, and healthy wild populations have been located. Experimental caiman ranching programs have proven successful, indicating that the establishment of ranching programs could yield commercial-scale results if properly managed.
        On May 22, 1975, the Fund for Animals, Inc. (Fund) submitted a request to the Service to list as endangered species 216 taxa of animals and plants that were listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, or Convention) and that did not already appear on the U.S. Lists of Endangered Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Fund contended that signature and ratification of CITES by the United States was an acknowledgment of the endangered status of these species and that they therefore should appear on the Lists pursuant to the Act (40 FR 44329).
        CITES is an international treaty for the conservation of wild fauna and flora subject to trade; it was drafted in 1973 and had been ratified by enough nations by 1975 to enter into force. The United States ratified the treaty on September 13, 1973 (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976). Accession to CITES is open to all nations that wish to reduce the impact of international trade on wildlife and plants. CITES includes three Appendices that list species meeting specific criteria. Depending on the Appendix in which they are listed, species are subject to permitting requirements intended to ensure that international trade in them is legal and does not threaten their survival. Appendix-I species are those that are threatened with extinction and which are, or may be, affected by trade. Commercial trade in Appendix-I species is strictly prohibited. On July 1, 1975, the date the Convention was entered into force, Appendix I of the Convention included over 200 species, including the broad-snouted caiman.

        As a result of the Fund's listing request, the Service published a proposed rule on September 26, 1975: “Proposed Endangered Status for 216 Species Appearing on Convention on International Trade” (40 FR 44329). The proposed rule requested public comments regarding amendment of the Lists through the addition of species included in CITES Appendix I. On June 14, 1976, a final rule entitled “Endangered Status for 159 Taxa of Animals” was published in the Federal Register (41 FR 24062). These species included some, but not all, of the Appendix-I species that had been listed under CITES and whose listing under the Act had been requested by the Fund. In 1976, the Convention had only been ratified for one year, and ratification by additional member nations was necessary for CITES to become a stronger international trade measure. Until the number of Parties to CITES increased, however, the commercial importance of the species that were determined to be endangered in the listing rule and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to control international trade continued to be factors of major concern. It was believed that the listing action was imperative, to provide an interim regulatory mechanism to restrict U.S. trade in listed species and, ultimately, as a supportive measure to further address the conservation purposes of CITES.

        The broad-snouted caiman is currently listed in Appendix I of CITES, range-wide except in Argentina (http://www.cites.org). The Argentine population was downlisted to Appendix II in 1997, with support from the United States. In addition, under CITES Resolution 11.12: Universal Tagging System for the Identification of Crocodilian Skins, all crocodilian skins must be affixed with a non-reusable tag from the country of origin prior to entering international trade (http://www.cites.org). Tagging crocodilian skins allows individual countries to track quotas, prevent illegal trade, and ensure that annual take is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Through a system of permits, the CITES Appendix-II listing allows international trade in Argentine broad-snouted caiman parts and products throughout the world, with one exception: Trade in Argentine broad-snouted caiman specimens is prohibited in the United States because the species is listed as endangered (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976) under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

        With this petition, the Government of Argentina requests reclassification of the species from endangered to threatened in their country only, because populations are healthy, habitat remains plentiful, and caiman ranching programs have proven successful. Reclassification of the species may allow the establishment of trade in ranched specimens of broad-snouted caimans from Argentina to the United States and re-export from other CITES Parties.
        Finding
        On the basis of the information provided in the petition, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information that reclassifying the broad-snouted caiman from endangered to threatened in Argentina may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if reclassification of the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species. Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a finding as to whether reclassification of the broad-snouted caiman is warranted within 12-months of receipt of the petition.
        Author

        The primary author of this document is Marie T. Maltese of the Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: June 4, 2008.
          Kenneth Stansell,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-13162 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.: 201103-0288]
        RIN 0648-BK05
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Framework Adjustment To Modify the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Risk Policy

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to approve and implement changes to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Risk Policy. The purpose of this action is to adjust the Council's risk policy by accepting a higher level of risk for stocks at or above biomass targets. These adjustments could lead to increases in catch limits for healthy fisheries managed by the Council.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by November 26, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes and analyzes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. Copies of the draft Risk Policy Omnibus Framework Adjustment (framework), including the EA and information on the economic impacts of this proposed rulemaking, are available upon request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at http://www.mafmc.org.

          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0143, by the following method:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          • Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0143;

          • Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields; and
          • Enter or attach your comments.

            Instructions: 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 by NMFS. 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.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In 2011, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council implemented its current risk policy. The risk policy specifies the Council's acceptable tolerance of risk for its managed resources. The risk policy also works in conjunction with the Scientific and Statistical Committee's application of the Council's acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule to account for scientific uncertainty to determine an ABC for a specific stock. Five years after implementation, the Council conducted a review of its risk policy to determine if any modifications were necessary to meet the Council's goals and objectives for its managed fisheries. From this review, the Council determined there were two elements of the current policy that warranted modifications. The Council took final action on this framework to modify its risk policy in December 2019 and submitted the action to us in early August 2020.
        Proposed Action

        The purpose of this action is to adjust the Council's risk policy by accepting a higher level of risk (i.e., the probability of overfishing, P*) for stocks that are healthy and either at or above biomass targets. For stocks not subject to a rebuilding plan that have a ratio of biomass (B) to biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) of 1.0 or lower, the maximum P* as informed by the overfishing limit (OFL) distribution would decrease linearly from a maximum value of 45 percent until the P* becomes zero at a B/BMSY ratio of 0.10. For stocks with biomass that exceeds BMSY and the B/BMSY ratio is greater than 1.0, the P* would increase linearly from 45 percent to a maximum of 49 percent when the B/BMSY ratio is equal to 1.5 or greater. Under the current risk policy, the maximum allowed P* is capped at 40 percent for stocks with a B/BMSY ratio of 1.0 or higher, with this probability decreasing linearly until P* becomes zero at the B/BMSY ratio of 0.10. The Council made no adjustments for stocks under a rebuilding plan or stocks with no OFL or proxy OFL. The increased tolerance of risk could lead to increases in ABC allocations for healthy fisheries the Council manages. The Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee used this modified risk policy in recommending ABCs for scup and black sea bass for the 2021 fishing year that begins on January 1, 2021.
        This action would also remove the typical/atypical species designation when applied to the current risk policy. This designation was intended to provide for less risk to those species whose life histories make them more vulnerable to over-exploitation; however, it has rarely been used and is currently only applied to ocean quahog. This would allow the Council to better use improvements in stock assessment and modeling approaches that can more appropriately account for and address such vulnerability.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with all applicable Fishery Management Plans that the Council manages, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The Council evaluated the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures as part of the EA. As noted in the EA, according to the ownership database, 1,462 affiliate firms landed 1 or more of the managed resources during the 2016-2018 period, with 1,451 of those business affiliates categorized as small business and 11 categorized as large business. During this time period in the commercial fishery, for all small entities, managed resources revenues contributed approximately 25 percent of the total gross receipts, and managed resources revenues contributed approximately 17 percent of the total gross receipts of the large entities. For the recreational fishery, 336 affiliate firms, all of which are categorized as small businesses, held a for-hire Federal permit for one or more of the managed resources and generated revenues from recreational fishing for these managed resources during 2016-2018. It is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues for these for-hire firms came from fishing activities for an individual species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of the managed resources as recreational species in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, revenues generated from these managed resources are likely to be important for many of these firms at certain times of the year.
        No immediate direct economic impacts are expected from the actions proposed in this framework, because these actions are not expected to result in changes to the manner in which Council-managed commercial and recreational (for-hire) fisheries operate. The adjustments proposed in this framework are largely administrative in nature, and, as such, are not expected to directly impact the landings levels, fishery distribution or fishing methods and practices of Council-managed fisheries. However, these actions may have indirect positive impacts on Council-managed fisheries. This action proposes to change the Council's risk policy to meet the objectives of continuing to prevent overfishing and minimize the risks of a stock declining to low levels, while, at the same time, increasing fishery yield across all stock biomass levels, where possible, with the resulting economic benefits. Specifically, this proposed rule would allow for increased risk under very high stock biomass conditions, which would provide increased access and fishing opportunities for robust stocks, leading to economic benefits associated with increased fishery yield. Thus, indirect impacts of this proposed rule are likely to lead to positive economic benefits for all fishery participants, including small entities. Because this proposed rule is administrative in nature, having no direct impacts on fisheries, and because indirect impacts are likely to lead to positive economic benefits for fishery participants, we have concluded that that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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

          Dated: November 3, 2020.
          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 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.21, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (c)(1) to read as follows:

          § 648.21
          Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council risk policy.

          (b) * * *

          (1) For stocks with a ratio of biomass (B) to biomass at MSY (BMSY) of 1.0 or lower, the maximum probability of overfishing as informed by the OFL distribution shall decrease linearly from a maximum value of 45 percent until the probability of overfishing becomes zero at a B/BMSY ratio of 0.10.
          (2) For stocks with biomass that exceeds BMSY and the B/BMSY ratio is greater than 1.0, the probability of overfishing shall increase linearly from a probability of overfishing of 45 percent to a maximum probability of overfishing of 49 percent when the B/BMSY ratio is equal to 1.5 or greater.
          (c) * * *

          (1) Unless otherwise allowed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, for instances in which the application of the risk policy approaches in paragraph (b) of this section using OFL distribution results in a more restrictive ABC recommendation than the calculation of ABC derived from the use of FREBUILD at the MAFMC-specified overfishing risk level as outlined in paragraph (a) of this section, the SSC shall recommend to the MAFMC the lower of the ABC values.

      [FR Doc. 2020-24944 Filed 11-10-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 020724175-2175-01; I.D. 062602E]
        RIN 0648-AP71
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment 69 To Revise American Fisheries Act Inshore Cooperative Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Supplemental proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes additional changes related to an earlier proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).  This proposed amendment would allow an American Fisheries Act (AFA) inshore cooperative to contract with a non-member vessel to harvest a portion of the cooperative's pollock allocation.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 69 to provide greater flexibility to inshore catcher vessel cooperatives to arrange for the harvest of their pollock allocation, and to address potential emergency situations, such as vessel breakdowns, that would prevent a cooperative from harvesting its entire allocation.  This action is designed to be consistent with the environmental and socioeconomic objectives of the AFA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before October 7, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to Federal Building, Fourth Floor, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, and marked Attn: Lori Gravel.  Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendment 69 may be obtained from NMFS at the above address.  Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to the NMFS, Alaska Region and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn:  NOAA Desk Officer).  Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, and in the final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, which is available from NMFS at the addresses noted above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kent Lind, 907-586-7650, or kent.lind@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) under the FMP.  The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the AFA (Div. C, Title II, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998)).  Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.  General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 69 for Secretary of Commerce review and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44794), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through September 3, 2002.  Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by September 3, 2002, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.  All comments received by that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
        Background Information on the AFA
        The AFA established a limited access program for the inshore sector of the BSAI pollock fishery that is based on the formation of fishery cooperatives around each inshore pollock processor.  Under the AFA, if at least 80 percent of the catcher vessels that delivered the majority of their BSAI pollock catch to a specific inshore processor during the previous year form a fishery cooperative, and agree to deliver at least 90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch to that same processor, then NMFS must grant the cooperative an exclusive allocation of BSAI pollock based on the member vessels' catch histories from 1995-1997.  NMFS issues a single pollock allocation to each cooperative and the cooperative may make sub-allocations of pollock to each individual vessel owner in the cooperative.
        All the inshore cooperative agreements implemented to date have provided each member of the cooperative an allocation of pollock that is proportionate to the member vessel's catch history in a manner determined by the cooperative (generally, the best 2 of 3 years from 1995-1997).  In effect, the inshore cooperative program functions as a privately run individual fishing quota in which NMFS assigns overall cooperative allocations and each member vessel is granted by the cooperative the exclusive right to harvest its portion of the cooperative's annual pollock allocation.  Each cooperative allows its members to harvest their individual allocations or to “lease” their individual allocations to other members of the cooperative.
        NMFS first implemented this inshore cooperative allocation program in 2000 through emergency interim rule (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000).  The program was renewed for 2001 with modifications recommended by the Council that allowed inactive vessels to remain eligible to join fishery cooperatives even if they did not fish for pollock during the previous year (66 FR 7327, January 22, 2001) and again in 2002 (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).

        During the time period when the provisions of the AFA were implemented through interim regulations, the Council and NMFS also undertook the development of a comprehensive FMP amendment package to implement the provisions of the AFA on a permanent basis.  These amendments to implement the AFA included:  Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area, Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab, and Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (Amendments 61/61/13/8).  This proposed Amendment 69 would supersede paragraphs 210(b)(1)(B) and 210(b)(5) of the AFA, to the extent that these paragraphs affect the BSAI groundfish fisheries, which would be implemented by Amendments 61/61/13/8 and currently prohibit such contracts with outside vessels.  Amendments 61/61/13/8 were partially approved on February 27, 2002, and a proposed rule to implement the amendments, which includes the operating regulations for inshore catcher vessel cooperatives, was published on December 17, 2001 (66 FR 65028).

        Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8 (66 FR 65028; December 17, 2001), and in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, which is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Purpose and Need for Amendment 69
        Several existing regulations and administrative limitations prevent inshore cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels to harvest a portion of the cooperative's BSAI pollock allocation.  First, NMFS recordkeeping and reporting requirements specify that all landings from the BSAI directed pollock fishery that are made by the member vessels of a cooperative must accrue against that cooperative's annual allocation.  The NMFS database in its present form automatically assigns a single cooperative code to each AFA catcher vessel (the code representing the cooperative of which the vessel is a member) and therefore precludes a vessel from reporting landings using any different cooperative code during a fishing year.  Second, regulations at 50 CFR 679.7(k)(5)(i) prohibit a catcher vessel listed on an AFA inshore cooperative permit to harvest pollock in excess of the cooperative's allocation.  This prohibition prevents the member vessels in one cooperative from contracting to harvest a portion of the allocation of another cooperative.
        These restrictions, which have the effect of preventing inshore cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels, are required by subparagraph 210(b)(1)(B) of the AFA, which states:

          Effective January 1, 2000. . . upon the filing of a contract implementing a fishery cooperative under subsection (a) which. . . specifies, except as provided in paragraph (6), that such catcher vessels will deliver pollock in the directed pollock fishery only to such shoreside processor during the year in which the fishery cooperative will be in effect and that such shoreside processor has agreed to process such pollock, the Secretary shall allow only such catcher vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) to harvest the aggregate percentage of the directed fishing allowance under section 206(b)(1) in the year in which the fishery cooperative will be in effect that is equivalent to the aggregate total amount of pollock harvested by such catcher vessels (and by such catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) in the directed pollock fishery for processing by the inshore component during 1995, 1996, and 1997 relative to the aggregate total amount of pollock harvested in the directed pollock fishery for processing by the inshore component during such years and shall prevent such catcher vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) from harvesting in aggregate in excess of such percentage of such directed fishing allowance.

        And also by the last sentence of paragraph 210(b)(5) of the AFA which states:

          . . .A catcher vessel eligible under section 208(a) the catch history of which has been attributed to a fishery cooperative under paragraph (1) during any calendar year may not harvest any pollock apportioned under section 206(b)(1) in such calendar year other than the pollock reserved under paragraph (1) for such fishery cooperative.

        The Council developed Amendment 69 to modify these limitations in response to requests from the inshore pollock industry to provide greater harvest flexibility to members of inshore pollock cooperatives.  Amendment 69 has three objectives:  (1) Increase efficiency and provide catcher vessel owners with a more functional market for leasing of individual pollock allocations, (2) ensure that an inshore cooperative is able to harvest its entire allocation in the event of vessel breakdowns or other unanticipated emergencies, and (3) improve safety by providing greater flexibility for larger catcher vessels to harvest cooperative allocations during hazardous weather in winter months and when Steller sea lion conservation measures require that fishing be done further offshore.
        With respect to the first objective, the AFA currently limits the lease market for pollock quota to only those vessels that are members of the same cooperative.  In cooperatives where a substantial number of the vessels are owned or controlled by the associated processor, owners of independent catcher vessels may have limited opportunities to lease quota to other independent vessel owners in the same cooperative.  The problem could become even more acute at certain times of the year when only plant-owned vessels are operating.  In this hypothetical case, an independent catcher vessel owner could have only one potential customer willing to lease his quota and, therefore, may be in a weak bargaining position.  This independent catcher vessel owner likely would benefit from a broader market for his pollock allotment.  Efficiency could improve if the vessel that is being contracted to harvest the pollock has lower operating costs than the vessel initially granted use rights to the pollock by the cooperative, depending upon the cost and terms of the lease contract.
        With respect to the second objective, under existing regulations, if one or more vessels in a cooperative break down or are otherwise out of commission, and the other vessels in the cooperative are already operating at full capacity, a catcher vessel owner could be unable to contract with a replacement vessel to harvest his portion of the cooperative's pollock allocation.  An unexpected emergency such as a dockside fire or accidents that disable or destroy several member vessels of a cooperative at the same time could result in the cooperative being unable to harvest a large portion of its annual allocation.  This proposed rule would give cooperatives the means to deal with such emergency situations and facilitate their ability to harvest their entire annual allocations.
        With respect to the third objective, safety could be improved if the owners of smaller catcher vessels have greater flexibility to enter into contracts with larger (presumably safer) vessels to harvest the smaller vessel's allocation during the more hazardous weather conditions common during winter months and when Steller sea lion protection measures require that fishing be conducted further offshore.  Under existing regulations, the owner of a smaller catcher vessel could be under greater pressure to fish in less than safe conditions if he is unable to contract with larger vessels within his cooperative to harvest some or all of his pollock allocation.
        Council Authority to Supersede the AFA

        Subsection 213(c) of the AFA provides the Council with the following authority to recommend management measures to supersede certain provisions of the AFA:

          (c) CHANGES TO FISHERY COOPERATIVE LIMITATIONS AND POLLOCK CDQ ALLOCATION. The North Pacific Council may recommend and the Secretary may approve conservation and management measures in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
          (1) that supersede the provisions of this title, except for sections 206 and 208, for conservation purposes or to mitigate adverse effects in fisheries or on owners of fewer than three vessels in the directed pollock fishery caused by this title or fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery, provided such measures take into account all factors affecting the fisheries and are imposed fairly and equitably to the extent practicable among and within the sectors in the directed pollock fishery;
          (2) that supersede the allocation in section 206(a) for any of the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, upon the finding by such Council that the western Alaska community development quota program for pollock has been adversely affected by the amendments in this title; or
          (3) that supersede the criteria required in paragraph (1) of section 210(b) to be used by the Secretary to set the percentage allowed to be harvested by catcher vessels pursuant to a fishery cooperative under such paragraph.

        Any measure recommended by the Council that supersedes a specific provision of the AFA must be implemented by FMP amendment in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  In developing Amendment 69, the Council determined that all three objectives for Amendment 69 meet the criteria established in paragraph 213(c)(1) of the AFA, which states that the Council may recommend measures that supersede the AFA “to mitigate adverse effects . . . on owners of fewer than three vessels in the directed pollock fishery...”
        Elements of the Proposed Rule
        The proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 contains the following requirements for inshore cooperatives that wish to contract with non-member vessels to harvest a portion of a cooperative's annual BSAI pollock allocation.

          Application process.  A cooperative that wishes to contract with a vessel that is a member of another inshore cooperative would be required to complete and submit to NMFS a completed vessel contract form.  The form would be provided by NMFS and would require that the cooperative identify the contract vessel, the contact vessel's home cooperative, and describe how pollock landings by the contract vessel are to be assigned between cooperatives.  Cooperatives would be allowed to contract with a non-member vessel to fish for the cooperative for a certain period of time, or to harvest a certain tonnage of pollock.  The contract form also must indicate how any harvest overages by the contract vessel will be treated.  A vessel contract form would not be valid unless it was signed by the cooperative's designated representative, the contracted vessel owner, and the designated representative for the vessel's home cooperative.  These signatures are necessary to ensure that all affected parties are in agreement as to the terms of the contract and to avoid any disputes about how a contract vessel's catch is to be attributed.

          Fishing for multiple cooperatives.  Under the proposed rule, a vessel owner could enter into simultaneous contracts with more than one cooperative.  This could occur, for example, at the end of a fishing season when several cooperatives have very small remaining allocations and it is more cost-effective for a single vessel to conduct “mop up” operations for several cooperatives at one time than for each individual cooperative to send a separate vessel to harvest the small remaining tonnages of pollock.  If a vessel owner wishes to enter into contracts with more than one cooperative at the same time, then all the affected cooperatives would be required to submit their contract applications together and the contract applications would need to specify how the contracted vessel's harvest and any overages are to be assigned among the various cooperatives.

          Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  Inshore processors are currently required to report in their shoreside electronic delivery reports the name and co-op code of each vessel that makes a delivery to that processor.  Under the proposed rule, this requirement would not change.  However each vessel operator would be obligated to correctly identify for the processor the co-op code that should be assigned to each delivery.  In the event that a vessel is making a single delivery on behalf of more than one cooperative, the processor would submit a separate delivery report for each cooperative that identifies the tonnage of pollock that is assigned to each cooperative.  Cooperatives would be required to report any contracted landings by non-member vessels on their weekly reports to NMFS.  Cooperatives also would be required to provide a summary of all contracted fishing by non-member vessels in their preliminary and final annual reports.

          Liability.  For the purpose of liability, a non-member vessel under contract to a cooperative would be considered to be a member of the cooperative for the duration of the terms of the contract.  This means that the members of the cooperative could be held jointly and severally liable for any fishing violations made by the operator of the contracted vessel.

          Effects of contract fishing on future qualification for membership.  Under the proposed rule, BSAI pollock landings made by a vessel while under contract to another cooperative would not be used to determine the vessel's qualification for future membership in a cooperative.  Only landings attributed to the vessel's home cooperative would be used to determine which cooperative the vessel is eligible to join in a future year.   The purpose of this measure is to prevent contracted fishing activity from affecting which cooperative a vessel is eligible to join in the subsequent fishing year.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and in the IRFA.   Implementation of this proposed rule would involve a modification to an existing form to allow a cooperative to identify a non-member vessel with which the cooperative intends to contact.  This modification would have no impact on small entities because the reporting and record-keeping burden would be fulfilled entirely by cooperatives, none of which are small entities.  NMFS is aware of no existing relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
        The IRFA concluded that no small entities would be directly affected by this proposed rule.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the action would result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of directly regulated small entities.  The basis for this conclusion is set out below:

        A total of 100 inshore catcher vessels, six inshore processors (owning eight AFA plants), four communities that are home to those processors, 18 communities where the owners of these vessels reside, and other industry support businesses that could be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed regulations.  Only those entities “directly regulated” under the proposed alternatives are appropriately included in the RFA, based upon Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines for completion of the IRFA and FRFA.  SBA guidelines require that affiliated entities be considered as a single entity when making determinations about size.  Because all of the vessels that are members of a cooperative are affiliates of the cooperative (which also includes the processor associated with the cooperative), each cooperative itself is considered a single entity for purposes of size determination.  Furthermore, because each cooperative has combined gross revenues exceeding $3.5 million, no such cooperative meets the “small entities” criterion for IRFA purposes.  In addition to the catcher vessel cooperatives described above, the remaining entities directly affected by this regulation are the eight AFA inshore processors that receive pollock from catcher vessel cooperatives.  All of these processors are considered large entities because they exceed the SBA size criterion for fish processing facilities.  Therefore, none of the entities directly regulated by this action are considered small entities for IRFA purposes.
        All six of the inshore processors are considered large entities because they employ more than 500 people in their worldwide operations.  The processors are also affiliated with their associated cooperative's catcher vessel fleet and that would also cause them to be classified as large entities.
        None of the communities involved in the BSAI pollock fishery are directly regulated by this proposed amendment.  Therefore, they are not appropriately subjects of the IRFA under SBA guidelines.
        In conclusion, the Council's preferred alternative would not likely result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of directly regulated small entities.  This proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and takes into consideration the BSAI groundfish regulations under part 679 in order to be consistent with the objectives of the FMP.
        This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement not subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the total universe of respondents is less than 10.  Under AFA, the number of inshore cooperatives is limited to no more than 8 because only 8 inshore processors are eligible to process pollock under the AFA and only one cooperative can be associated with each processor.  To date, only seven processors have cooperatives associated with them.  The eighth processor has not been operating in the BSAI pollock fishery since 1999.  Thus, the actual number of respondents is equal to 7 and a theoretical maximum of 8.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

        Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: August 15, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the proposed rule amending 50 CFR part 679 published at 66 FR 65028 (December 17, 2001) 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 is revised to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub. L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 57.

          2. In § 679.4, paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2)(iii) is added to read as follows:

            § 679.4
            Permits.

            (l) * * *
            (6) * * *
            (ii) * * *
            (D) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (iii) Harvests under contract to a cooperative.  Any landings made by a vessel operating under contract to an inshore cooperative in which it was not a member will not be used to determine eligibility under this paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2).

          3.  In § 679.7, paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.7
            Prohibitions.

            (k) * * *
            (5) * * * (i) Quota overages.  Use an AFA catcher vessel listed on an AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit, or under contract to the cooperative under § 679.62(c) to harvest non-CDQ pollock in excess of the cooperative's annual allocation of pollock specified under § 679.62.
            (ii) Liability.  An inshore pollock cooperative is prohibited from exceeding its annual allocation of BSAI pollock TAC.  The owners and operators of all vessels listed on the cooperative fishing permit are responsible for ensuring that the operators of all member vessels, and any vessels under contract to the cooperative, comply with all applicable regulations contained in part 679.  The owners and operators will be held jointly and severally liable for overages of an annual cooperative allocation, and for any other violation of these regulations committed by a member vessel, or a vessel under contract to the cooperative.

          4. In § 679.62. paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) are revised and paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:

            § 679.62
            Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.

            (e) What are the restrictions on fishing under a cooperative fishing permit?  A cooperative that receives a cooperative fishing permit under § 679.4(l)(6) must comply with all of the fishing restrictions set out in this section.  The owners and operators of all the member vessels that are named on an inshore cooperative fishing permit and the owners and operators of any vessels under contract to the cooperative under paragraph (c) of this section are jointly and severally responsible for compliance with all of the requirements of a cooperative fishing permit.
            (f) What vessels are eligible to fish under an inshore cooperative fishing permit?  Only catcher vessels listed on a cooperative's AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit or vessels under contract to the cooperative under paragraph (i) of this section are permitted to harvest any portion of an inshore cooperative's annual pollock allocation.
            (g) What harvests accrue against an inshore cooperative's annual pollock allocation?  The following catches will accrue against a cooperative's annual pollock allocation regardless of whether the pollock was retained or discarded:
            (1) Member vessels.  All pollock caught by a member vessel while engaged in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI by a member vessel unless the vessel is under contract to another cooperative and the pollock is assigned to another cooperative.
            (2) Contract vessels.  All pollock contracted for harvest and caught by a vessel under contract to the cooperative under paragraph (c) of this section while the vessel was engaged in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI.

            (i) Contract fishing by non-member vessels.  A cooperative that wishes to contract with a non-member vessel to harvest a portion of the cooperative's annual pollock allocation must comply with the following procedures.
            (1) How does a cooperative contract with a non-member vessel? A cooperative that wishes to contract with a non-member vessel must submit a completed contract fishing application to the Alaska Region, NMFS, in accordance with the contract fishing application instructions.
            (2) What information must be included on a contract fishing application?  The following information must be included on a contract fishing application:
            (i) Co-op name(s).  The names of the cooperative or cooperatives that wish to contract with a non-member vessel
            (ii) Designated representative(s).  The names and signatures of the designated representatives for the cooperatives that wish to contract with a non-member vessel and the vessel's home cooperative.
            (iii) Vessel name.  The name and AFA permit number of the contracted vessel
            (iv) Vessel owner.  The name and signature of the owner of the contracted vessel
            (v) Harvest schedule.  A completed harvest schedule showing how all catch and any overages by the contracted vessel will be allocated between the contracting cooperative (or cooperatives) and the contract vessel's home cooperative.  In the event that multiple cooperatives are jointly contracting with a non-member vessel, the harvest schedule must unambiguously specify how all catch and any overages will be allocated among the various cooperatives.
            (3) What vessels are eligible to conduct contract fishing on behalf of an inshore cooperative?  Only AFA catcher vessels with an inshore fishing endorsement that are members of an inshore cooperative may conduct contract fishing on behalf of another inshore cooperative.
            (4) Who must be informed?  A cooperative that has contracted with a non-member vessel to harvest a portion of its inshore pollock allocation must inform any AFA inshore processors to whom the vessel will deliver pollock while under contract to the cooperative prior to the start of fishing under the contract.
            (5) How must contract fishing be reported to NMFS?  An AFA inshore processor that receives pollock harvested by a vessel under contract to a cooperative must report the delivery to NMFS on the electronic delivery report by using the co-op code for the contracting cooperative rather than the co-op code of the vessel's home cooperative.

      [FR Doc. 02-21457 Filed 8-22-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 111104664-1798-01]
        RIN 0648-BB61
        Shrimp Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Revisions of Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) Testing Protocols; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          This document contains a correction to a proposed rule that published on January 9, 2012, regarding proposed changes to shrimp regulations. The proposed rule stated that the “Expanded Mesh BRD” would be decertified for use by the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery after May 24, 2012. That information was not correct. The “Extended Funnel BRD” is the BRD design that will no longer be provisionally certified for use in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery after May 24, 2012. This rule corrects that mistake. Both the Expanded Mesh and Extended Funnel BRDs remain certified for use in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 8, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0274, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0274” in the keyword search, then select “Send a Comment or Submission.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Wordperfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Anne Marie Eich, telephone: (727) 209-5968, email: AnneMarie.Eich@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Correction
        In proposed rule FR Doc. 2012-153, published in the Federal Register issue of January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1045), under the heading “BRD Certifications”, on page 1046, column 1, 1st and 12th lines, correct the reference “Expanded Mesh” to read as “Extended Funnel”.

          Dated: January 17, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-1259 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 261
        [EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0312; SW FRL-9206-9]
        Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Eastman Chemical Company-Texas Operations (Eastman) to exclude (or delist) certain solid wastes generated by its Longview, Texas, facility from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0312 by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov.

          3. Mail: Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202.
          4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For further technical information concerning this document or for appointments to view the docket or the Eastman facility petition, contact Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by calling (214) 665-7430 or by e-mail at peace.michelle@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving Eastman Chemical Company's delisting petition 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 rule, 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. 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. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: September 8, 2010.
          Bill Luthans,
          Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.

      [FR Doc. 2010-23962 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 122303G]
        RIN 0648-AP95
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Rebuilding Plan for Red Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a Secretarial amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS, acting through the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council), has prepared Secretarial Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (Secretarial Amendment 1) that would establish a 10-year stock rebuilding plan for red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico.  Secretarial Amendment 1 would also establish biological reference points and stock status determination criteria for red grouper consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  In addition, Secretarial Amendment 1 would establish measures designed to protect other shallow-water grouper, deep-water grouper, and tilefishes from any potential shifts in fishing mortality that might occur as a result of the red grouper rebuilding plan.  The intended effect of Secretarial Amendment 1 is to end overfishing and rebuild the red grouper resource consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, on March 8, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on Secretarial Amendment 1 must be sent to Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments may also be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
          Copies of Secretarial Amendment 1, which includes an environmental assessment, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and a regulatory impact review are available from NMFS at the address above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Phil Steele, telephone:   727-570-5305, fax:   727-570-5583, e-mail: Phil.Steele@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery in the exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP).  The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background

        In October 2000, NMFS declared that the Gulf stock of red grouper had been overfished and was undergoing overfishing.  This determination was based on the results of a 1999 red grouper stock assessment and subsequent analysis by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the Council's Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel.  Subsequently, a 2002 stock assessment found that, although overfishing is still occurring, the stock is in an improved condition and is no longer overfished.  However, the stock has not yet reached the biomass level that is capable of producing MSY on a continuing basis (BMSY).  Therefore, measures to end overfishing and a rebuilding plan to restore the stock to the BMSY level in 10 years or less are still necessary.
        Provisions of Secretarial Amendment 1

        Secretarial Amendment 1 proposes to establish a 10-year red grouper rebuilding plan, structured in 3-year intervals, that would end overfishing and rebuild the stock to MSY.  The rebuilding plan seeks to achieve a 9.4-percent reduction in the recreational and commercial harvest of red grouper, relative to the average landings for 1999-2001, during the first 3 years of the 10-year rebuilding plan.  Measures to accomplish this reduction equitably for the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery include (1) establishing a red grouper commercial quota of 5.31 million lb (2.38 million kg), gutted weight; (2) establishing a 2-fish red grouper recreational bag limit (within the aggregate 5-fish grouper bag limit); and (3) including a provision that would close the entire shallow-water grouper commercial fishery when either the red grouper quota or the shallow-water grouper quota is reached.  The appropriate measures for the subsequent 3-year intervals, consistent with the overall provisions of the rebuilding plan, would be determined based on the latest stock assessments available at that time.
        Secretarial Amendment 1 also includes measures designed to protect other shallow-water grouper, deep-water grouper, and tilefishes from any potential shift in fishing mortality that might result from implementation of the red grouper rebuilding plan.  These measures include (1) a reduction of the shallow-water grouper commercial quota from 9.35 million lb (4.24 million kg) to 8.80 million lb (4.0 million kg), gutted weight; (2) a reduction of the deep-water grouper commercial quota from 1.35 million lb (0.61 million kg) to 1.02 million lb (0.46 million kg), dressed weight; and (3) establishment of a commercial quota of 0.44 million lb (0.20 million kg), gutted weight, for all tilefishes in the management unit, combined.
        In addition, Secretarial Amendment 1 would establish biological reference points and stock status determination criteria for red grouper (i.e., maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and minimum stock size threshold (MSST)), consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        NMFS has submitted Secretarial Amendment 1 for agency review, approval, and implementation.  NMFS is also evaluating the proposed rule that would implement Secretarial Amendment 1 to determine whether it is consistent with the amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable law.  If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        NMFS' decision regarding approval of Secretarial Amendment 1 will be based on consideration of comments received on this notice of availability by 4:30 p.m., eastern time, on March 8, 2004.  All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during the respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated:   January 2, 2004.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-379 Filed 1-7-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BE93
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 15

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 15 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 15 includes actions to revise the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), overfishing threshold, and overfished threshold definitions and values for three species of penaeid shrimp, and to revise the FMP framework procedures.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 15, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0097” 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-2015-0097, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: 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 by NMFS. 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.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 15, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/shrimp/2015/Am%2015/index.html.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 15 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        Amendment 15 would revise the MSY, overfishing threshhold, and the overfished threshold definitions and values for brown, white, and pink shrimp in the Gulf. MSY is the largest average catch that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. Overfishing occurs when the rate of removal is too high and jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. A stock or stock complex is considered overfished when its biomass has declined below the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis.
        The criteria and values for MSY, overfishing threshold, and overfished threshold for penaeid shrimp were established in Amendment 13 to the FMP (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). Historically, Gulf penaeid shrimp stocks were assessed with a virtual population analysis (VPA), which reported output in terms of number of parents. However, the 2007 pink shrimp stock assessment VPA incorrectly determined pink shrimp were undergoing overfishing because the model could not accommodate low effort. In 2009, NMFS stock assessment analysts determined that the stock synthesis model was the best choice for modeling Gulf shrimp populations. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee accepted the stock synthesis model as best scientific information available and Amendment 15 modifies the stock status determination criteria to match the biomass-based outputs of the stock synthesis model. These revisions to the penaeid shrimp stock status criteria are expected to have little to no change in the biological, physical, or ecological environments because these changes are only to the stock status reference points and will not have a direct impact on the actual harvest of penaeid shrimp.
        Amendment 15 would also revise the FMP framework procedures. Framework procedures for a FMP allow changes in specific management measures and parameters that can be made more efficiently than changes made through a FMP plan amendment. Amendment 15 would make changes to the framework procedures to allow for modification of accountability measures under the standard documentation process of the open framework procedure. Also, outdated terminology, such as “total allowable catch” would be removed. Additionally, the phrase “transfer at sea provisions” would be removed from the list of framework procedures because this phrase was inadvertently included in the final rule for the Generic Annual Catch Limit Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011).

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 15 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted Amendment 15 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by October 13, 2015, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: August 7, 2015.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-19822 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 12
        [PS Docket No. 14-174; Report No. 3034]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking Proceeding by David C. Bergmann, on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before December 31, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before January 11, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Linda Pintro, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-7490, linda.pintro@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3034, released December 2, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3034 is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257 Washington, DC 20554, or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of the document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications Report and Order, published at 80 FR 62470, October 16, 2015, in PS Docket No. 14-174. This document is published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Gloria J. Miles,
          Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2015-31574 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-57; RM-11882; DA 21-166; FR ID 17556]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Savannah, Georgia; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the Federal Register of March 5, 2021, concerning a petition for rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Gray) requesting the substitution of channel 23 for channel 11 at Savannah, Georgia in the DTV Table of Allotments. The document contained the incorrect address for counsel of petitioner.

          DATES:
          March 22, 2021.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Andrew Manley, Andrew.Manley@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-0596.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Correction
        In FR Doc. 2021-04635, in the Federal Register of March 5, 2021, on page 12898, in the third column, correct the Address caption to read:

          ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

          Dated: March 9, 2021.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2021-05421 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 081303C]
        Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf of Alaska; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Public hearings on the revised Draft Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (PSEIS)

          SUMMARY:
          NOAA Fisheries will hold five public meetings in Washington, D.C., Seattle, WA, and in Juneau, Kodiak and Anchorage, AK, in September and October 2003 for the purpose of answering questions and receiving public testimony on the PSEIS.

          DATES:
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION under the heading “Meeting Dates and Addresses” for the dates of the public meetings.

          ADDRESSES:
          See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION under the heading “Meeting Dates and Addresses” for the addresses of the public meetings.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steven K. Davis, Programmatic SEIS Manager, Anchorage, AK, Phone:   907-271-3523.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 27, 2001, based on a review of public comment, NOAA Fisheries announced its intent to revise the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries draft PSEIS released in January 2001 (66 FR 59228, November 27, 2001).  An extensive public involvement process has resulted in the adoption of new multi-objective policy alternatives which have been analyzed in the revised PSEIS.

        The public comment period on the revised PSEIS is from August 29, 2003 until October 15, 2003.  The public has the opportunity to submit comments on the document in one of three ways:
        (1) Mail in a written comment letter to:  National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Regional Office, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel;

        (2) Submit a comment through the NOAA Fisheries e-Comments website, accessible at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/seis/default.com;
        (3) Submit oral comments at one of the revised PSEIS public hearings.
        Faxed comments will not be accepted.

        NMFS has scheduled five public hearings on the revised PSEIS.  The purpose of these meetings is to provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions on the revised PSEIS, as well as to submit formal oral testimony on the document during the comment period.  Information on these meetings can also be found on the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region's website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
        Meeting Dates and Addresses
        The dates, times, locations, and telephone numbers of the hearings are as follows:
        September 8, 2003, 1 p.m. - 4 p.m. Eastern daylight time - NOAA, Science Center Room, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Local Contact:  Kim Marshall 301-713-2341.
        September 11, 2003, 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. Pacific daylight time - Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 9, Seattle, WA. Local Contact:  Dan Ito 206-526-4232.
        September 17, 2003, 1 p.m. - 5 p.m. Alaska daylight time - National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Building, 709 W. 9th Street, Room 445, Juneau, AK. Local Contact:  Jim Hale:  907-586-7491.
        September 24, 2003, 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. Alaska daylight time - Alaska Fisheries Science Center Kodiak Laboratory, Kodiak Fisheries research Center Conference Room, 301 Research Ct., Kodiak, AK. Local Contact:  Tom Pearson 907-481-1780.
        October 7, 2003, 5:30 p.m. - 8 p.m. - Sheraton Hotel, 401 E 6th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Local Contact:  Steven K. Davis 907-271-3523.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Steven K. Davis at 907-271-3523 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated:  August 14, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-21365 Filed 8-20-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S