        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome) and Nassella cernua (nodding needlegrass) as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day petition finding for petitions to list Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome) and Nassella cernua (nodding needlegrass) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that neither petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing one or both of these species may be warranted. We will not be initiating a further status review in response to the petitions to list.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made January 7, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Data, information, written comments and materials, or questions concerning these petitions and findings should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. The petition findings and supporting data are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Constance Rutherford, botanist, at the above address (telephone 805/644-1766).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on all information available to us at the time we make the finding. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and we must publish the notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register. Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If the finding is that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, if one has not already been initiated, under our internal candidate assessment process.

        On June 20, 2002, we received two separate petitions, both dated June 18, 2002, to list Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome) and Nassella cernua (nodding needlegrass). The petitions requested that we add Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We are responding to both petitions in this one Federal Register notice because the petitions were received at the same time from the same petitioner.
        Bromus arizonicus

        This taxon was first described by Cornelius Lott Shear in 1900 as Bromus carinatus var. arizonicus based on a collection from near Tucson, AZ. Stebbins et al. (1944) raised the taxon to full species status based on cytogenetic (cellular) differences between it and Bromus carinatus. They found that, while both the taxa are polyploid in their number of chromosomes, Bromus carinatus has a chromosome count of 2n = 56, while Bromus arizonicus has a chromosome count of 2n = 84. However, some taxonomists still consider Bromus arizonicus to be synonymous with Bromus carinatus (Felger 2000; R. Felger, University of Arizona, in litt. 2003; P. Jenkins, University of Arizona, in litt. 2003).
        The petition to list Bromus arizonicus comprises one page of information about the species, including its habitat, distribution, potential threats, observations made by the petitioner at historic locations for the species, and two literature citations. The information from the petition is summarized as follows: Bromus arizonicus is an annual grass restricted in distribution to the San Joaquin Valley, the southern Coast Ranges, and Channel Islands of southern California, Arizona, and Baja California, Mexico. The species is associated with valley grassland, foothill woodland, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and creosote bush scrub. The species occurs principally in an average annual rainfall band between 5 and 14 inches (in) (13 to 36 centimeters (cm)), and in an elevational band between 20 and 2,000 feet (ft) (6 and 610 meters (m)). Twisselmann (1967) indicated that the species is widespread in the valley grasslands, especially in the lower Sonoran grassland, and is scarce in creosote bush scrub in the desert. However, the petitioner stated that Bromus arizonicus became rarer in the 1970s and 1980s as a result of overgrazing during drought periods.
        The petitioner estimates that Bromus arizonicus historically ranged across 5 million acres (ac) (2 million hectares (ha)), and estimates that the range has been reduced to 25 ac (10 ha) in Arizona and 25 ac (10 ha) in California. Causes cited for the disappearance of the species in the San Joaquin Valley include a combination of overgrazing by cattle and two extended droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. During his own surveys in the 1990s, the petitioner was able to find only one small stand of Bromus arizonicus in Kern County, in an area protected from grazing. In 2002, the petitioner found that a second stand of Bromus arizonicus that he had observed over a period of years has been converted to a truck stop parking lot. The petitioner states that threats to Bromus arizonicus include: Commercial and residential development, agricultural development, off-highway vehicle activity, energy developments, grazing, fires, military activities, introduction of nonnative plants, roadside herbicide use, roadside mowing, and border patrol activities along the United States-Mexico border. However, other than the two references mentioned above, the petitioner did not provide any other information related to the status of Bromus arizonicus, such as field survey forms or reports documenting either positive or negative survey findings, a list of historic locations that were field-checked, maps, or an explanation of how estimates of historic and current ranges were derived.

        The information available to us for the species in California states that the species is: “Occasional in coastal sage scrub and weedy ground; coast west of Point Dume, Sepulveda Canyon, west Los Angeles” (Raven et al. 1986); “reported only from Salinas Valley” in Monterey County (Matthews 1997); and “evidently widespread about waste places of towns, railroads, ranches, and highways from coast to Cuyama Valley” in the Santa Barbara region (Smith 1998). The University of California at Berkeley and Jepson Herbaria (UC/JEPS) (2003) indicates that the species is principally found in grasslands and shrublands in California at elevations of less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m). The species has been collected in 13 California counties (UC/JEPS 2003). The information available to us for the species in Arizona indicates that it occurs “almost throughout the state, at moderate elevations” (Kearney and Peebles 1951), and in “sandy washes and protected sites in desert areas, roadsides, and other disturbed soils, mostly below 5,000 feet but occasionally higher in the northern part of its range where it occurs as an introduced weed” (Gould 1988). The Natural Resources Conservation Service lists this species as occurring in the States of Nevada and Texas, in addition to California, Arizona, and Baja California (http://plants.usda.gov).
        Nassella cernua
        This taxon was first described as Stipa cernua by G. L. Stebbins and R. M. Love (1941) based on a collection made from Alameda County, CA. In 1990, M.E. Barkworth segregated the genus Nassella and included the species cernua, from Stipa (Barkworth 1993).
        The petition to list Nassella cernua comprises one page of information about the species, including its habitat, distribution, potential threats, and observations made by the petitioner at historic locations for the species. No literature citations were included. The information from the petition is summarized as follows: Nassella cernua is a perennial grass restricted in distribution to the North Coast Range, eastern San Francisco Bay area, San Joaquin Valley, the Coast Ranges of southern California, and in Baja California, Mexico. The petitioner states that the species occurs principally in an average annual rainfall band between 5 and 14 in (13 to 36 cm), and in an elevational band between 20 and 4,500 ft (6 and 1,370 m).
        The petitioner estimates that Nassella cernua historically ranged across 10 million ac (4 million ha). He estimates that the range has been reduced to 800 ac (324 ha) in California and 200 ac (81 m) in Baja California. Causes cited for the decline of the species in the San Joaquin Valley include a combination of overgrazing by cattle and two extended droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. The petitioner states that threats to Nassella cernua include commercial and residential development, agricultural development, off-highway vehicle activity, energy developments, grazing, fires, military activities, introduction of nonnative plants, roadside herbicide use, roadside mowing, and border patrol activities along the United States-Mexico border. However, the petitioner did not provide any other information related to the status of Nassella cernua, such as a list of historic locations that were field-checked, maps, or an explanation of how estimates of historic and current ranges were derived.

        The information in our files indicates that in California, the species is scattered in coastal sage scrub and chaparral in the western half of the Santa Monica Mountains below 2000 ft. (Raven et al. 1986); found in “dry hills, open woods, and rocky slopes, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal sage scrub, etc.” in Monterey County (Matthews 1997); and “common throughout the interior except in the most arid parts” in San Luis Obispo County (Hoover 1970). UC/JEPS (2003) indicates that the species is principally found in grasslands, chaparral, and juniper woodland in California at elevations of less than 4,600 ft (1,400 m), and distributed within the inner North Coast Ranges, eastern San Francisco Bay area, South Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, Peninsular Ranges, and Baja California. The species has been collected in 30 of California's 58 counties (UC/JEPS 2003).

        NatureServe (2000; 2003) indicates that the global heritage status rank for both Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua is G5, which means that the species is common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range, particularly on the periphery). NatureServe (2000) defines this ranking as a species that is not considered to be vulnerable in most of its range. The U.S. Forest Service (2003) and Bureau of Land Management (2003) do not have Bromus arizonicus or Nassella cernua on their sensitive species lists, and neither the California Natural Diversity Data Base (2003) nor the California Native Plant Society (2003) tracks these species or gives them any special consideration. Additionally, neither the Arizona Natural Heritage Program (2003) nor the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (2003) tracks Bromus arizonicus or gives it any special consideration.

        Although the petitioner mentioned a number of threats to both Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua, he did not provide information concerning specific threats and specific locations, other than the reference to one site for Bromus arizonicus being converted to a parking lot. Felger (in litt. 2003) indicated that Bromus arizonicus was a very common grass in the Sonoran Desert and “beyond any question it is not in any way endangered.” We contacted the petitioner and inquired whether he could provide us with any additional information on either species; he indicated he was not able to do so at this time (C. Rutherford, Service, in litt. 2003). Based on the information provided by the petitioner, and the information available to us, we find that threats the petitioner mentioned cannot be adequately determined for Bromus arizonicus or Nassella cernua.
        Findings

        We have reviewed the petitions, literature cited in the petitions, other pertinent literature, and information available in our files. The available information we were able to access concerning these species indicates that they are widespread. Without additional information on the life history, range, or population size of Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua, such as an explanation of how estimates of historic and current ranges were derived, information concerning specific threats and specific locations, or any other references, we cannot evaluate the seriousness of the potential threats to them.

        After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information available, and because of the lack of adequate data indicating a biological vulnerability and presence of threats to these species, we find the petitions do not present substantial information that listing Bromus arizonicus or Nassella cernua may be warranted. However, we welcome any additional information concerning the status of Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua. Please submit any information to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Author

        The primary author of this document is Constance Rutherford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (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: January 7, 2005.
          Steve Williams,
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-1261 Filed 1-24-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [WI117-01-7347b; FRL-7637-1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Wisconsin regulations as they pertain to Northern Engraving Corporation (NEC) facilities in Galesville and West Salem, Wisconsin as requested by the State of Wisconsin on June 27, 2003. This State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision makes changes to Wisconsin air pollution control rules federally enforceable. The rule revisions modify the emission limits adopted by the state that are part of the current Wisconsin SIP. The revised rules, specifically portions of the Environmental Cooperative Agreement with NEC, supercede portions of the rules in the Wisconsin SIP.
          In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. The rationale for approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If EPA receives no written adverse comments, EPA will take no further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives written adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. In that event, EPA will address all relevant public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. In either event, EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments on this action must be received by November 4, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be mailed to: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Blakley.Pamela@epa.gov.

          Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier. Commenters are advised to review the information and follow the instructions for submitting comments as described in Part (I)(B) of the Supplementary Information section of the companion direct final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.
          A copy of the state's request is available for inspection at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Constantine Blathras at (312) 886-0671, Blathras.Constantine@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. What action is EPA taking today?
          II. Where can I find more information about this proposal and corresponding direct final rule?

        I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
        The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Wisconsin regulations as they pertain to NEC's Galesville and West Salem, Wisconsin facilities as requested by the State of Wisconsin on June 27, 2003. The SIP revision makes changes to Wisconsin air pollution control rules federally enforceable. These rule changes were made at the request of NEC and the State of Wisconsin and they apply to the operation of the NEC Galesville and West Salem facilities. The rule revisions modify the emission limits adopted by the State of Wisconsin, which are part of the current Wisconsin SIP. The rule revisions and portions of the Environmental Cooperative Agreement supercede portions of rules in the Wisconsin SIP requiring a source-specific SIP revision.
        II. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and Corresponding Direct Final Rule?

        For additional information see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

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

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

          Dated: March 1, 2004.
          Jo Lynn Traub,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 04-22251 Filed 10-4-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 120905422-2521-01]
        RIN 0648-BC50
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Exempted Fishery for the Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to modify the regulations implementing the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to allow vessels to fish with gillnet and longline gear from June through December, and with handline gear from June through August, in a portion of inshore Georges Bank (GB) each year, outside of the requirements of the NE multispecies fishery. This action would allow vessels to harvest spiny dogfish and other non-groundfish species in a manner that is consistent with the bycatch reduction objectives of the FMP.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern daylight time, on November 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the Secretarial Amendment that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the Secretarial Amendment, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also available online at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by FDMS docket number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0195, by any one of the following methods:
          • Written comments (paper, disk, or CD-ROM) should be sent to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Spiny Dogfish Exempted Fishery.”
          • Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 465-3116.

          • Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

            Instructions: Comments will be posted for public viewing as they are received. 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.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233; fax 978-281-9135; email: travis.ford@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        Current regulations, implementing Framework Adjustment 9 (60 FR 19364, April 18, 1995) and expanded under Amendment 7 to the FMP (61 FR 27710, May 31, 1996), contain a NE multispecies fishing mortality and bycatch reduction measure that is applied to the Gulf of Maine (GOM), GB, and Southern New England (SNE) Exemption Areas found in § 648.80. A vessel may not fish in these areas unless it is fishing under a NE multispecies or a scallop DAS allocation, is fishing on a sector trip, is fishing with exempted gear, is fishing under the Small Vessel Handgear (A or B) or Party/Charter permit restrictions, or is fishing in an exempted fishery. The procedure for adding, modifying, or deleting fisheries from the list of exempted fisheries is found in § 648.80(a)(8). A fishery may be exempted by the NMFS Regional Administrator (RA), after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), if the RA determines, based on available data or information, that the bycatch of regulated species is, or can be reduced to, less than 5 percent by weight of the total catch and that such exemption will not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP.
        Representatives from the NE multispecies sector fleet submitted two exempted fishery requests to the RA in December 2011, requesting we consider an exempted fishery for gillnet, longline, and handline vessels targeting dogfish in portions of the GOM and GB. Sector vessels targeting spiny dogfish in the requested areas are currently required to fish on a declared NE multispecies trip. Vessels are charged a discard rate for regulated species bycatch that is determined by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and at-sea monitoring (ASM) discard data. The discard rate is based on the sector, area fished, and gear type, and is referred to as a discard stratum. Because the specified target species (groundfish) is not a distinctive part of each discard stratum, vessels that are targeting spiny dogfish (and catching very little to no groundfish) are being charged the same discard rate as all other declared groundfish trips in that discard stratum. This leads to applying higher than observed discard rates of groundfish when targeting spiny dogfish. Forfeiting the value of these calculated discards, that otherwise could be available for catching and landed for sale on directed regulated species trips, has created an economic burden for sector fishermen. This has particularly affected the sector's “choke stocks,” i.e., fish for which the sector has a small amount of quota, either because of a low catch history or a small annual catch limit (ACL) for the stock.
        The original requests from industry proposed a year-round exempted fishery in statistical areas 514, 515, and 521 for vessels using gillnet gear with large and extra-large mesh (>6.5-inches (16.5-cm)), longline, and handline gear. Due to relatively higher groundfish bycatch in large portions of these requested areas, this action proposes to exempt vessels from the NE multispecies regulations in a smaller portion of statistical area 521 off the coast of Cape Cod, MA. We further modified the time for the exemption to only during the months of June through December for vessels using gillnet and longline gear. In addition, this action proposes to exempt handline gear in the same smaller portion of statistical area 521 for June through August.

        NEFOP and ASM data from all declared groundfish trips using large and extra-large mesh gillnets (>6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh), longline, and handline gears from 2010 to 2011 were analyzed. The area and months were revised based on information that shows, of a total of 642 observed trips using the proposed gears in fishing years (FY) 2010 and 2011, the average percentage of groundfish caught was 0.09 percent for this proposed alternative (Alternative 1, as referred to in the Environmental Assessment). Further, observed trip data for Alternative 1 show no trips that caught greater than 5 percent regulated groundfish.
        The majority of groundfish bycatch species in the spiny dogfish fishery are GB cod and pollock. In a 2012 operational assessment, GB cod was determined to be overfished and experiencing overfishing. In the Stock Assessment Review Committee 50 assessment in 2010, it was determined that pollock was not overfished and was not subject to overfishing.
        For the trips analyzed under Alternative 1, no single month's average NE multispecies catch exceeded 0.38 percent of the total catch. On the 642 trips analyzed, a total of 798.6 lb (362.2 kg) of cod and 324.8 lb (147.3 kg) of pollock were caught. This represents an average of 1.24 lb (0.56 kg) and 0.51 lb (0.23 kg) per trip, respectively. Based on these very low observed amounts, the discards expected from this exemption should not cause the ACL for these species to be exceeded.
        We assessed a second alternative exemption for gillnet, longline, and handline gears in the same modified area year-round. The data indicate that Alternative 2 (the non-preferred alternative) would likely result in a higher percentage of groundfish catch because several handline trips caught greater than 5 percent multispecies from September through December. In addition, the RA could not make a determination as to whether regulated groundfish bycatch was < 5 percent during the months of January through May, given little to no observer data were available from the area during this time.
        Although this action would exempt vessels using these gears in this area and from the NE multispecies regulations, this action is not likely to increase effort in the spiny dogfish fishery. The existing spiny dogfish fishery is limited by an annual quota and a 3,000-lb (1,360.78-kg) trip limit. Therefore, this action itself is not expected to jeopardize mortality objectives of any stock, but rather ease some of the burden on vessels participating in the NE multispecies fishery.
        Proposed Measures
        Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area
        The RA has determined that an exempted spiny dogfish fishery in a specifically defined portion of inshore GB area meets the exemption requirements in § 648.80(a)(8)(i) because, based on an analysis of available data, the bycatch of regulated species by vessels that would fish under this exemption is less than 5 percent, by weight, of the total catch and is not expected to jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP. Therefore, this rule proposes to implement an exempted fishery for eligible vessels when using 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) mesh or greater gillnet gear, and longline gear in a portion of inshore Georges Bank off of Cape Cod, MA, from June through December of each year. In addition, this action proposes to exempt handline gear in the same area in June through August. The area of this proposed exempted fishery would be referred to as the Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area.
        The Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area is defined by the straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting the area are available from the RA upon request):

            Point
            N. lat.
            W. long.

            CCD 1
            42/00′
            70/00′

            CCD 2
            42/00′
            69/47.5′

            CCD 3
            41/40′
            69/47.5′

            CCD 4
            41/29.5′
            69/35.5′

            CCD 5
            41/29.5′
            69/23′

            CCD 6
            41/26′
            69/20′

            CCD 7
            41/20′
            69/20′

            CCD 8
            41/20′
            (1)

            CCD 9
            (2)
            70/00′

            CCD 10
            (3)
             70/00′

            CCD 11
            (4)
             70/00′

            CCD 1
            42/00′
            70/00′

          (1) The eastern coastline of Nantucket, MA at 41°20′ N. lat.
          (2) The northern coastline of Nantucket, MA at 70°00′ W. long.
          (3) The southern coastline of Cape Cod, MA at 70°00′ W. long., then along the eastern coastline of Cape Cod, MA to CCD 11.
          (4) The northern coastline of Cape Cod, MA at 70°00′ W. long.

        As required by existing regulations, vessels intending to land spiny dogfish under this exemption would need to hold a Federal spiny dogfish permit and comply with existing spiny dogfish per trip and annual quota limits. A participating vessel may possess and land up to 3,000 lb (1,360.78 kg) of spiny dogfish per trip. In addition, vessels would be limited by the spiny dogfish annual quota that is divided into two seasons to help maintain availability throughout the fishing year.
        Establishing the proposed Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area should result in a more accurate discard calculation for spiny dogfish and NE multispecies DAS and sector trips. Because these trips would be exempt from NE multispecies regulations, discards of regulated NE multispecies associated with these trips would no longer be deducted from sector or common pool sub-ACLs that make up the commercial groundfish sub-ACL. Instead, the calculated discards would be deducted from the “other subcomponents” sub-ACL.
        In the NE multispecies fishery, discard rates for regulated species are calculated over an entire discard stratum, i.e., sector, area, and gear type. Currently, when spiny dogfish vessels are fishing on declared groundfish trips, they are charged a calculated discard rate equivalent to trips targeting groundfish in the same discard stratum. For example, a spiny dogfish vessel catching 3,000 lb (1,360.78 kg) of spiny dogfish is charged a groundfish discard rate as if that vessel caught 3,000 lb (1,360.78 kg) of groundfish. These discards are deducted from the sector or common pool sub-ACL. The data analyzed from observed trips under Alternative 1, however, showed that these trips averaged a catch of 0.09 percent of multispecies (an average of 2.65 lb (1.20 kg) per trip). Calculating discards using this more accurate rate results in a lower deduction from the sub-ACL than applying the groundfish discard rate to 3,000 lb (1,360.78 kg) of catch. Granting this exemption would provide vessels the opportunity to catch the groundfish on groundfish targeted trips that was formerly counted as discarded on spiny dogfish trips. Conversely, because the lower multispecies discards observed on spiny dogfish targeted trips will no longer be included when determining the groundfish discard rate for targeted groundfish trips, the actual amounts discarded on declared groundfish trips would likely be more accurately reflected. The increase in the calculated discard rate for targeted groundfish trips is not expected to be significant.
        Classification
        This proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, an IRFA has been prepared, which describes the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this proposed rule, can be found in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. This action proposes to create a new spiny dogfish exemption area for gillnet, longline, and handline vessels off the coast of Cape Cod, MA. Vessels participating in this exemption would declare “out-of-fishery” on their Vessel Monitoring Systems.
        This action was compared to two different alternatives for the exemption. Alternatives to the proposed exemption include exempting the same area for a longer period of time, i.e., year-round, and a No Action Alternative, which would continue to require vessels fishing in this area to be on a declared NE multispecies trip from June through December and therefore subject to the NE multispecies discard rate for such trips.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        All of the potentially affected businesses are considered small entities under the standards described in NOAA Fisheries guidelines because they have gross receipts that do not exceed $4 million annually.
        Economic Impacts of This Proposed Action
        Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) is expected to benefit the local fishing communities that have historically depended on the spiny dogfish fishery off Cape Cod, MA. This exemption was requested by members of the NE multispecies fishing industry, specifically sector members. The cost of fishing for spiny dogfish has become increasingly high primarily due to the deduction of calculated discards from each vessel's sector annual catch entitlement (ACE) when fishing on a sector trip. Thus, the proposed action would allow vessels to fish under this exemption outside of the groundfish regulations, which proposes to prevent discards from being deducted from a sector's ACE at a higher rate than is actually occurring. The EA for this proposed action estimates that the exemption could save vessels fishing under this proposed exemption approximately $24,000 a year in discards alone.
        With the elimination of these low groundfish discard trips from the sector's discard stratum, the overall discard rate for the sector will likely increase because the spiny dogfish targeted trips that were observed were keeping the discard rate for trips targeting groundfish artificially low. While this change will result in an increase of the overall sector's discard rate on groundfish targeted trips, the increase would not represent a significant cost to the sector vessels that are not participating in the exemption. In addition, the calculated discard rates for both groundfish vessels and spiny dogfish vessels would be more accurate as a result of the exemption; more accurate discards are not expected to have an economic effect on the fishing community as a whole. Further, participation in this exemption is voluntary. A vessel may still choose to target spiny dogfish during the exemption period while on a declared groundfish trip should it be to their benefit.
        Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
        The impacts of Alternative 2, which extends the exemption for the entire year, would be expected to be similar to the impacts of the Preferred Alternative, but the expanded time would allow more vessels a greater opportunity to participate in the exempted fishery. The EA for this action estimates that Alternative 2 would save the industry an additional $877.93 compared to Alternative 1. However, the data indicate that Alternative 2 would likely result in a higher percentage of groundfish catch because several handline trips caught greater than 5 percent multispecies from September through December. In addition, the RA could not make a determination as to whether regulated groundfish bycatch was <5 percent during the months of January through May, given little to no observer data were available from the area during this time for all of the gear types. Providing an exemption for trips that caught over 5 percent groundfish, or in areas where no data are available, would be contrary to the purpose and requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the NE multispecies regulations. Therefore, this alternative was not selected.
        The No Action Alternative would have a negative economic impact on spiny dogfish vessels relative to the Preferred Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, sector fishermen targeting spiny dogfish would continue fishing on declared groundfish trips only to be charged a higher than observed groundfish discard rate for their trip targeting spiny dogfish. The spiny dogfish fishery is a valuable resource. The groundfish discards that are attributed to these trips come directly out of the vessel's sector's ACE, which takes away the opportunity to catch these fish in the future. Thus, sectors requested an exemption because of the economic burden that the cost of multispecies discards applied to these trips had on sector fishermen targeting other stocks (i.e., spiny dogfish). As described above, it is estimated that this proposed action could save vessels fishing under this exemption approximately $24,000 a year in discards alone, compared to the No Action alternative.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 15, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated 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 § 648.14, paragraph (k)(5)(i) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.14
            Prohibitions.

            (k) * * *
            (5) * * *

            (i) Violate any of the provisions of § 648.80, including paragraphs (a)(5), the Small-mesh Northern Shrimp Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(6), the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(9), Small-mesh Area 1/Small-mesh Area 2; (a)(10), the Nantucket Shoals Dogfish Fishery Exemption Area; (a)(11), the GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(12), the Nantucket Shoals Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(13), the GOM/GB Monkfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(14), the GOM/GB Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area; (a)(15), the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(16), the GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery; (a)(18), the Great South Channel Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; (a)(19), the Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area; (b)(3), exemptions (small mesh); (b)(5), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Trawl Exemption Area; (b)(6), the SNE Monkfish and Skate Gillnet Exemption Area; (b)(8), the SNE Mussel and Sea Urchin Dredge Exemption Area; (b)(9), the SNE Little Tunny Gillnet Exemption Area; (b)(11), the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area; or (b)(12), the SNE Skate Bait Trawl Exemption Area. Each violation of any provision in § 648.80 constitutes a separate violation.

            3. In § 648.80, paragraph (a)(3)(vi) is revised, and paragraph (a)(19) is added to read as follows:

            § 648.80
            NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

            (a)  * * *
            (3)  * * *
            (vi) Other restrictions and exemptions. A vessel is prohibited from fishing in the GOM or GB Exemption Area as defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this section, except if fishing with exempted gear (as defined under this part) or under the exemptions specified in paragraphs (a)(5) through (7), (a)(9) through (a)(16) and (a)(18) through (a)(19), (d), (e), (h), and (i) of this section; or if fishing under a NE multispecies DAS; or if fishing on a sector trip; or if fishing under the Small Vessel or Handgear A permit specified in § 648.82(b)(5) and (6), respectively; or if fishing under a Handgear B permit specified in § 648.88(a); or if fishing under the scallop state waters exemptions specified in § 648.54 and paragraph (a)(11) of this section; or if fishing under a scallop DAS in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section; or if fishing pursuant to a NE multispecies open access Charter/Party or Handgear permit specified in § 648.88; or if fishing as a charter/party or private recreational vessel in compliance with § 648.89. Any gear used by a vessel in this area must be authorized under one of these exemptions. Any gear on a vessel that is not authorized under one of these exemptions must be stowed as specified in § 648.23(b).

            (19) Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area. Vessels issued a limited access permit that have declared out of the DAS program as specified in § 648.10, or that have used up their DAS allocations, may fish in the Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area as defined under paragraph (a)(19)(i) of this section, when not under a NE multispecies or scallop DAS, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(19)(ii) of this section.
            (i) Area definition. The Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area is defined by the straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting the area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

              Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area
              [June 1 through December 31, unless otherwise specified in paragraph (a)(19)(ii)(C) of this section]

                Point
                N. lat.
                W. long.

                CCD 1
                42/00′
                70/00′

                CCD 2
                42/00′
                69/47.5′

                CCD 3
                41/40′
                69/47.5′

                CCD 4
                41/29.5′
                69/35.5′

                CCD 5
                41/29.5′
                69/23′

                CCD 6
                41/26′
                69/20′

                CCD 7
                41/20′
                69/20′

                CCD 8
                41/20′
                (1)

                CCD 9
                (2)
                70/00′

                CCD 10
                (3)
                70/00′

                CCD 11
                (4)
                70/00′

                CCD 1
                42/00′
                70/00′

              (1) The eastern coastline of Nantucket, MA at 41°20′ N. lat.
              (2) The northern coastline of Nantucket, MA at 70°00′ W. long.
              (3) The southern coastline of Cape Cod, MA at 70°00′ W. long., then along the eastern coastline of Cape Cod, MA to Point 11.

            (ii) Requirements. (A) A vessel fishing in the Cape Cod Spiny Dogfish Exemption Area specified in this paragraph (a)(19) may not fish for, possess on board, or land any NE regulated species.
            (B) Vessels may use gillnet gear, as specified in § 648.80(a)(4)(iv) or longline gear as specified in § 648.80(a)(4)(v) from June 1 through December 31.
            (C) Vessels may use handline gear from June 1 through August 31.

      [FR Doc. 2012-25809 Filed 10-18-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [FRL-7265-7]
        RIN 2060-AE85
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions From Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The EPA is announcing the extension of the public comment period on the proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. We originally requested comments on the proposed rule by September 3, 2002 (67 FR 44672, July 3, 2002). We are extending the deadline for written comments to October 3, 2002 because the docket for the proposed rule, which contains pertinent information related to the proposal, was not available for inspection prior to July 31, 2002. In addition, we have received a request for a 30-day extension from the Chlorine Institute to provide more time to evaluate the provisions contained in the proposed rule and to provide detailed comments.

          DATES:
          Comments may be submitted by October 3, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-32, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number A-2000-32, Room Number B108, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect® version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must be identified by the docket number A-2000-32. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
          Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: OAQPS Document Control Officer, C404-02, Attention: Mr. Iliam D. Rosario, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

            Docket. Information related to the proposed standards is available for inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-2000-32. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room Number B108, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Iliam D. Rosario, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division, C439-02, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5308; facsimile number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address rosario.iliam@epa.gov.

            List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
            Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

            Dated: August 15, 2002.
            Robert Brenner,
            Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

      [FR Doc. 02-21438 Filed 8-21-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P