        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 011101A]
        RIN 0648-AF87
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery Management Plan

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

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

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public.  The FMP would initiate Federal management of golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) (tilefish) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The overall goal of the FMP is to rebuild tilefish so that the optimum yield can be obtained from this resource.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received not later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on April 13, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Tilefish FMP.” Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. -
          Copies of the FMP, its regulatory impact review, initial regulatory flexibility analysis, final environmental impact statement, and supporting documents are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, Dover, DE  19904-6790.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104, e-mail at M.A.Raizin@noaa.gov, fax at (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        FMPs and amendments must meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as well as a number of other Federal laws and regulations.  The FMP has been developed to meet all Federal requirements and contains all the required elements of an FMP.  In particular, the FMP addresses the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that an FMP be developed for overfished species and that targets and thresholds for stock size and fishing mortality be established.

        A recent NMFS stock assessment indicates that the tilefish stock north of North Carolina is at a low biomass level and is overexploited.   Total tilefish biomass in 1998 was estimated to be 6.8 million lb (3.1 million kg), which is about 35 percent of the biomass (B) that would produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or BMSY.  Biomass-based fishing mortality (F) was estimated to be 0.45, which is about double the F at MSY (FMSY) of 0.22.  Total landings in 1998 were 2.7 million lb (1.2 million kg) and significantly below the estimated MSY of 4.2 million lb (1.9 million kg).  Current fishing mortality rates are unsustainable, as indicated by a shift in the exploitation pattern towards smaller fish.   -
        The management unit for the FMP is defined as all golden tilefish under United States jurisdiction in the Atlantic Ocean north of the Virginia/North Carolina border.  Tilefish south of the Virginia/North Carolina border are currently managed as part of the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.  The fishing year for tilefish would be the 12-month period beginning with the implementation date of the FMP. -
        To meet the overall goal of the FMP, the Council adopted the following objectives:  (1) Prevent overfishing and rebuild the resource to the biomass that would support MSY; (2) prevent overcapitalization and limit new entrants; (3) identify and describe essential fish habitat; and (4) collect necessary data to develop, monitor, and assess biological, economic, and social impacts of management measures designed to prevent overfishing and to reduce bycatch in all fisheries. -
        The FMP would establish:  (1) An overfishing definition; (2) a 10-year rebuilding schedule; (3) permit and reporting requirements for commercial vessels, operators, and dealers; (4) an FMP Monitoring Committee; (5) a framework adjustment process; (6) a commercial quota to be divided into full-time, part-time, and incidental categories; (7) a trip limit for the incidental category (non-longline); (8) a limited entry scheme for the full-time and part-time quota categories; and (9) an identification and description of essential fish habitat (EFH) for tilefish.
        Overfishing Definition

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each fishery management plan to specify objective and measurable status determination criteria for identifying when stocks or stock complexes are overfished.  Status determination criteria for tilefish would specify a maximum fishing mortality rate (F) threshold and minimum stock size threshold.  The maximum F threshold would be specified as FMSY, and the minimum biomass threshold would be specified as ½ BMSY.  Guidelines for the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards suggest that a risk-averse fishing mortality rate target and a biomass target be specified.  The Council adopted a target fishing mortality rate consistent with the recommended rebuilding schedule for tilefish.  The FMP specifies a target stock biomass equal to BMSY. -
        EFH Definition
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery management plans to identify EFH and to address habitat issues such as  description of non-fishing and fishing threats.  EFH designations for tilefish under the FMP would be reviewed and, if needed, updated at least every 5 years.  The FMP provides the authority to implement new or amended measures through a framework process.
        Permits for Commercial Vessels, Operators, and Dealers
        Vessel owners desiring to fish for tilefish within the EEZ with the intent to sell, transport, or deliver for sale, any tilefish taken from the EEZ, would be required to obtain a Federal commercial vessel permit.  Any individual who operates a vessel for the purpose of fishing commercially for tilefish would be required to obtain an operator’s permit.  Any vessel fishing commercially for tilefish would be required to have on board at least one operator who holds an operator’s permit.  Any dealer of tilefish would be required to have a permit.
        Reporting Requirements for Commercial Vessels, Operators and Dealers
        Federal commercial permit holders would be required to submit completed logbooks within 15 days of the end of the reporting month in order to monitor the fishery.  Dealers with permits issued pursuant to the FMP would be required to submit weekly landings reports.  Dealers would also be required to use the NMFS interactive voice response reporting system.  Dealers would be required to report all purchases of tilefish, regardless of whether a vessel possesses a valid commercial permit issued by NMFS.  Buyers who do not purchase directly from vessels would not be required to submit reports under this provision.  The processing sector would be required to submit the Processed Product Report, as is required in all Northeast FMPs.
        Tilefish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee)
        The Monitoring Committee would be a joint committee made up of staff representatives of the Council, the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, state representatives, and an industry member.  The Monitoring Committee would annually review the best available data and make recommendations to the Council through its Tilefish Committee regarding annual specifications and management measures consistent with the rebuilding schedule for the tilefish fishery.
        Framework Adjustment Process
        In addition to the annual specification setting procedure, the Council could add or modify management measures through a framework adjustment process.  This adjustment procedure would allow the Council to add or modify management measures through an expedited process while allowing opportunities for public review.
        Commercial Quota
        Landings for each of the next 10 fishing years would be set at 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg).  The quota would be divided among three categories:  Incidental, part-time, and full-time.  The full-time category would in turn be divided into two tiers.  Placement of a vessel into a full-time or part-time category is based on qualifying criteria that reflect historical and present participation in the fishery.  The incidental permit, which is open access, would allow vessels to retain up to 300 lb (138 kg) of tilefish per trip.  The “target” estimate of landings for the incidental category (5 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL)) would first be subtracted from the TAL and then the remainder of the TAL would be divided among the full-time tier 1 category, which would receive 66 percent; the full-time tier 2 category, which would receive 15 percent; and the part-time category, which would receive 19 percent.
        Stock Rebuilding Schedule
        The rebuilding schedule in the FMP would have a 50-percent probability of rebuilding the tilefish stock to Bmsy in 10 years.  The rebuilding schedule would reduce F from the 1998 level of 0.45, to 0.31 in the first year of the FMP.  The rebuilding plan  would allow for a constant harvest of 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg) per year for 10 years, beginning in 2001.  -
        Public Comments

        Public comments are being solicited on the FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES).  A proposed rule that would implement the FMP may be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS’ evaluation under Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the FMP in order to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP.  All comments received by the end of the comment period on the FMP, whether specifically directed to the FMP or the proposed rule to implement the FMP, will be considered the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP.  All comments received on the FMP or on the proposed rule will be responded to in the preamble to the final rule.

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

          Dated:  February 6, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, -National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-3546 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0064; FRL-9777-7]
        Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to fully approve two permitting rules submitted by California as a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules were adopted by the SMAQMD to regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources of air pollution within Sacramento County. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision based on the Agency's conclusion that the rules are consistent with applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, policies and guidance. Final approval of these rules would make the rules federally enforceable and correct program deficiencies identified in a previous EPA rulemaking on July 20, 2011.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by March 18, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0064, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. Email:
            R9airpermits@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0064. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

          Table of Contents
          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rules did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of these rules?
          C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
          B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. Proposed action and request for public comment.
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What rules did the State submit?
        Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the dates they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          Table 1—Submitted Rules

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Amended/Adopted
            Submitted

            SMAQMD
            214
            Federal New Source Review
            Amended 8/23/12
            9/26/12

            SMAQMD
            217
            Public Notice Requirements for Permits
            Adopted 8/23/12
            9/26/12

        CARB's SIP submittal includes evidence of public notice and adoption of these regulations. We find that the submittals for SMAQMD Rules 214 and 217 meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are there other versions of these rules?
        EPA approved a previous version of Rule 214 into the SIP on July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43183). There are no previous versions of Rule 217 in the SIP.
        C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
        Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP include, among other things, a preconstruction permit program to provide for regulation of the construction and modification of stationary sources within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of title I of the CAA. For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, the SIP must include preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly referred to as “Nonattainment New Source Review” or “NSR.” CAA 172(c)(5).

        Sacramento County is currently designated and classified as severe nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and moderate nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The area is also designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. Therefore, California is required under part D of title I of the Act to adopt and implement a SIP-approved NSR program for the Sacramento area that applies, at minimum, to new or modified major stationary sources of the following pollutants: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter of 10 microns of less (PM10), particular matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides (SOX).1

            1 VOCs and NOX are subject to NSR as precursors to ozone, and NOX and SOX are subject to NSR as precursors to PM2.5 in Sacramento County. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C).

        Rule 214 (Federal New Source Review) implements the NSR requirements under part D of title I of the CAA for new or modified major stationary sources of these nonattainment pollutants within Sacramento County. Rule 217 (Public Notice Requirements for Permits) contains the public notice and other procedural requirements for issuance of permits to all minor sources and to new or modified major sources of nonattainment pollutants in the County.2
           The SMAQMD amended Rule 214 and adopted Rule 217 to correct program deficiencies identified by EPA on July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43183).

            2 New or modified major stationary sources of air pollutants for which Sacramento County is designated attainment or unclassifiable are subject to separate permitting procedures and requirements under Rule 203 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration), which EPA fully approved into the California SIP on July 20, 2011. See 76 FR 43183.

        II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
        A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

        EPA has reviewed the submitted permitting rules for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for stationary source permit programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (“Review of New Sources and Modifications”), and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).3
           As explained below, EPA is proposing to fully approve the submitted rules.

            3 Section 110(l) of the CAA requires SIP revisions to be subject to reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

        B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
        With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
        Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the SMAQMD's September 26, 2012 rule submittals, we find that the State has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.
        With respect to substantive requirements, EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to NSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act and the general public notice requirements for stationary source permits in 40 CFR section 51.161. Based on our evaluation of these rules, we are proposing to fully approve Rule 214 as satisfying the CAA and regulatory requirements for NSR permit programs in part D of title I of the Act and EPA's NSR implementing regulations in 40 CFR section 51.165 for new or modified major stationary sources proposing to locate in Sacramento County. Additionally, we are proposing to fully approve Rule 217 as satisfying the general public notice requirements in 40 CFR 51.161 for both minor source permits and major source NSR permits issued in Sacramento County. Final approval of Rule 214 and Rule 217 would correct all deficiencies in SMAQMD's permit programs identified in our July 20, 2011 final rule. See 76 FR 43183. The Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation.
        C. Proposed action and request for public comment
        For the reasons given above and described more fully in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to fully approve Rule 214 and Rule 217 into the California SIP pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days.
        III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

          Dated: January 29, 2013.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2013-03249 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BD98
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 100 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and Amendment 91 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). If approved, these amendments would add grenadiers to the ecosystem component category in the BSAI FMP and GOA FMP. This proposed action is necessary to limit and monitor the incidental catch of grenadiers in the groundfish fisheries. This proposed action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than July 7, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0023, 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-2014-0023, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

          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), 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 100 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 91 to the GOA FMP, and the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively, Analysis) prepared for this action are available from www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 100 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 91 to the GOA FMP are available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA and BSAI under the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP (collectively, the FMPs). The Council prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
        The groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA incidentally catch grenadiers (family Macrouridae) while harvesting target groundfish. For many years, the Council has considered how best to classify grenadiers in the FMPs. From 1980 to 2010, grenadiers were included in the FMPs in the nonspecified species category. Nonspecified species were defined as a residual category of species and species groups of no current or foreseeable economic value or ecological importance, which are taken in the groundfish fishery as incidental catch and are in no apparent danger of depletion, and for which virtually no data exists that would allow population assessments.
        In 2010, the Council recommended and NMFS removed the nonspecified species category from the FMPs when the FMPs were revised to meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) under Amendment 96 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 87 to the GOA FMP (Amendments 96/87, 75 FR 38454, July 2, 2010). The nonspecified species, including grenadiers, were removed from the FMPs because these species were too poorly understood to set ACLs and AMs or to develop a management regime.
        Amendments 96/87 also amended the FMPs to organize the species remaining in the FMPs according to the National Standard 1 guidelines (50 CFR 600.310). In the National Standard 1 guidelines, NMFS recommends two categories for species in an FMP: “Stocks in the fishery” and “ecosystem component (EC) species.”
        “Stocks in the fishery” are defined in the National Standard 1 guidelines (§ 600.310(d)(2)). “Stocks in the fishery” include (1) stocks that are targeted, and retained for sale or personal use; (2) stocks that are not directly targeted but are taken incidentally in other directed fisheries, and are retained for sale or personal use; or (3) stocks not targeted or retained but are taken as incidental catch and for which overfishing or overfished status may be a concern.
        NMFS created the EC species category to encourage ecosystem approaches to management and to incorporate ecosystem considerations for species that are not “stocks in the fishery” (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). EC species are defined in the National Standard 1 guidelines (§ 600.310(d)(5)). In order to be designated an EC, the species or species group should be (1) a non-targeted species or species group; (2) not subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition; (3) not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures; and (4) not generally retained for sale or personal use.
        Amendments 96/87 established the EC category and designated prohibited species (which include salmon, steelhead trout, crab, halibut, and herring) and forage fish (as defined in Table 2c to part 679 and § 679.20(i)) as EC species in the FMPs. For EC species, NMFS maintained conservation regulations applicable to the specific EC species. These include prohibiting the retention of prohibited species, prohibiting directed fishing for forage fish, and establishing a limit on the incidental harvest of forage fish while directed fishing for other groundfish species, known as a maximum retainable amount, of 2 percent. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term “directed fishing.” Regulations at § 679.20(e) describe the application and calculation of maximum retainable amounts.

        When the Council recommended Amendments 96/87, it recognized that as information on a nonspecified species improves, it would consider moving that species back into the FMP, either as a “stock in the fishery” or as an EC species. In 2010, the Council initiated an analysis to consider moving grenadiers back into the FMPs. The Council determined that sufficient information exists for grenadiers to address them in the FMPs, as reflected in the Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). The Analysis provides the best available information on grenadiers and considers two action alternatives: Include grenadiers in the FMP as an EC species, or include grenadiers in the FMP as a “stock in the fishery.”
        In February 2014, the Council voted unanimously to recommend Amendments 100/91 to the FMPs to add grenadiers to the EC category in the FMPs. The Council and NMFS recognized that adding grenadiers to the FMPs in the EC category would acknowledge their role in the ecosystem and limit the groundfish fisheries' impact on grenadiers. Adding grenadiers to the EC category allows for improved data collection and catch monitoring appropriate for grenadiers given their abundance, distribution, and catch. The Council and NMFS determined that grenadiers are not a “stock in the fishery” because (1) grenadiers are not a target stock; (2) they are not generally retained for sale or personal use; and (3) they are not overfished, subject to overfishing, or approaching overfished or overfishing. The following information describes why grenadiers would be appropriate to include in the FMPs as an EC species based on information summarized from the Analysis.
        Grenadiers are not a targeted species group and are not generally retained for sale or personal use. Grenadiers have no current or foreseeable economic value. Section 3.3 of the Analysis explains that grenadiers are incidentally caught in deep water trawl and hook-and-line fisheries, but are not actively targeted or purposefully retained. In 2013, there was almost no reported retention of grenadiers in the BSAI (only 1 metric ton (t) or 2,205 pounds (lb)), and, in the GOA, only 55 t (121,254 lb) of grenadiers were retained. This represents a GOA fishery-wide retention rate of less than one half of one percent. Of this retention of grenadiers, 35 t (77,162 lb) was made into fish meal, 17 t (37,479 lb) was discarded at the dock, 3 t (6,614 lb) was retained for bait, and less than 1 t (2,205 lb) was sold. Thus, there is no evidence that grenadiers are presently being targeted or generally retained. It is likely that grenadiers are being retained only when mixed with other catch.
        Grenadiers are not generally retained for sale or personal consumption. As explained in Section 3.3.4 of the Analysis, attempts to create a marketable product from giant grenadiers have been unsuccessful. Grenadiers have very low protein content, high moisture content, and are generally regarded as mushy and unpalatable. No current market exists for grenadiers, and it is unlikely that one will be developed in the foreseeable future.
        Grenadiers are not generally retained for personal use. A small portion of the total catch of grenadiers is known to be retained for use as bait (e.g., 3 t (6,614 lb) in the GOA in 2013). Although grenadiers may be retained for use as bait in hook-and-line fisheries, there is no indication that this is a general practice throughout the hook-and-line fleets. NMFS notes that existing recordkeeping and reporting for the use of grenadiers is voluntary, and could underestimate the amount of grenadiers used for bait. However, the best available information indicates that grenadiers are not generally retained for bait.

        At the current level of catch, grenadiers are not subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition, and are not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures. Section 3.2 of the Analysis explains that NMFS has been conducting a stock assessment for grenadiers since 2006. At present, stock assessment information for giant grenadier is relatively good compared to many other non-target species off Alaska. Since 2010, the stock assessment has been used to estimate an acceptable biological catch (ABC) and an overfishing level (OFL), using reliable estimates of biomass and natural mortality. Giant grenadiers served as a proxy for the grenadier species group, and the estimated ABC and estimated OFL are based on giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis) because relatively few other grenadier species (family Macrouridae) are caught in the groundfish fisheries or are taken in NMFS surveys. NMFS estimates the incidental catch of grenadiers in the groundfish fisheries using observer data. In the BSAI, the estimated grenadier OFL is 135,236 t (298 million lb) and the estimated catch is 5,294 t (12 million lb, mean for 2003-2013). In the GOA, the estimated grenadier OFL is 46,635 t (103 million lb) and the estimated catch is 8,707 t (19 million lb, mean for 2003-2013).
        Additionally, the Council recognized that adding grenadiers to the FMPs in the EC category would acknowledge their role in the ecosystem and limit the groundfish fisheries' impact on grenadiers. Section 3.6 of the Analysis describes the current state of research and understanding about the ecological importance of grenadiers. For example, giant grenadier have an important ecological role given its role as an apex predator. Apex predators reside at the top of their food chain and have few to no predators of their own. In bottom trawl surveys conducted by NMFS in the Bering Sea and the GOA, giant grenadiers are the most abundant fish, in terms of weight, in depths from 600 to 3,000 feet (183-914 meters). Giant grenadiers extend much deeper than 3,000 feet (914 meters). There are reports that they have been caught deeper than 6,000 feet (1,829 meters), but little is known about their abundance in waters deeper than 3,000 feet because neither the NMFS surveys nor fishing effort presently extend below this depth.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendments 100/91 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendments 100/91, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendments 100/91, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendments 100/91. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendments 100/91. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: April 30, 2014.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-10210 Filed 5-2-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
        [NM-43-1-7600b; FRL-7556-8]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Redesignation of Grant County to Attainment for Sulfur Dioxide

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The EPA is proposing action on a request to redesignate Grant County, New Mexico from nonattainment area to attainment for the sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conjunction with this action, EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan, and its associated contingency measures plan for the Grant County nonattainment area, which were submitted to ensure that the attainment of SO2 NAAQS will continue to be maintained. The redesignation request and maintenance and contingency measures plans were submitted as a revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on February 21, 2003. We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by October 20, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in advance.
          Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
          New Mexico Environment Depart, Air Quality Bureau, 2044 Galisteo Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Carrie Paige, Air State and Tribal Operations Section (6PD-S), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6521, paige.carrie@epa.gov, or Alan Shar shar.alan@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. The EPA has explained its reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no relevant adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Electronic comments should be sent either to Diggs.Thomas@epa.gov or to http://www.regulations.gov, which is an alternative method for submitting electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the detailed instructions described in our direct final rulemaking document published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register. Our Technical Support Document for this rule revision contains more information about this action.

        This document concerns Attainment, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Redesignation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

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

          Dated: September 2, 2003.
          Lawrence Starfield,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 03-23748 Filed 9-17-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 160728670-6904-01]
        RIN 0648-BG23
        Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS is proposing regulations under the authority of Section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to implement an immediate closure of the California thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (DGN) (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery if a hard cap (i.e., limit) on mortality/injury is met or exceeded for certain protected species during a rolling 2-year period. The length of the closure would be dependent on when—during the 2-year period—the hard cap is reached.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be submitted in writing by November 28, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, the draft Environmental Assessment (EA), draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Lyle Enriquez, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123” in the comments.

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

          Copies of the draft EA, draft RIR, IRFA, and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123 or by contacting the Regional Administrator, Barry Thom, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232-2182, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lyle Enriquez, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4025, or Lyle.Enriquez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The DGN fishery for swordfish and thresher shark (14″ minimum mesh size) is federally managed under the Federal Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) and via regulations of the states of California and Oregon to conserve target and non-target stocks, including protected species that are incidentally captured. The HMS FMP was prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the MSA by regulations at 50 CFR part 660.
        The DGN fishery has been subject to a number of seasonal closures. Since 1982, it has been closed inside the entire U.S. West Coast exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from February 1 to April 30 of each year. In 1986, a closure was established within 75 miles of the California mainland from June 1 through Aug 14 of each year to conserve common thresher sharks; this closure was extended to include May in 1990 and later years. In 2001, NMFS implemented two Pacific sea turtle conservation areas on the U.S. West Coast with seasonal DGN restrictions to protect endangered leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. The larger of the two closures spans the EEZ north of Point Conception, CA (34°27′ N. latitude) to mid-Oregon (45° N. latitude) and west to 129° W. longitude. DGN fishing is prohibited annually within this conservation area from August 15 to November 15 to protect leatherback sea turtles. A smaller closure was implemented to protect Pacific loggerhead turtles from DGN gear from June 1-August 31 of each year during a forecasted or occurring El Niño event, and is located south of Point Conception, CA, and east of 120° W. longitude (72 FR 31756). The number of active vessels in the DGN fishery has remained under 50 vessels since 2003, and there has been an average of 20 active vessels per year from 2010 through 2015.
        Since 1990, NMFS has targeted 20 percent observer coverage of the DGN fishery each year, per recommendations from the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (NMFS 1989). NMFS' fleet-wide observer coverage target has been 30 percent since 2013. Since some DGN vessels are unobservable due to safety or accommodations requirements, the observable vessels are observed at a rate higher than 30 percent to attain the fleet-wide 30 percent coverage. Four to six DGN vessels have been unobservable during each fishing season from 2011 to present.
        Council Background

        In March 2012, the Council tasked NMFS with determining the steps needed to implement protected species hard caps in the DGN fishery. Originally concerned with sea turtle interactions, the Council expanded its scope to include marine mammals at its June 2014 meeting. At that meeting, the Council directed its Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) to begin developing a range of alternatives to establish hard caps on high-priority protected species (i.e. sea turtles and marine mammals) incidentally caught in the DGN fishery. In September 2014, the Council selected a Range of Alternatives and Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA); however, the HMSMT identified implementation issues with the Council's PPA, and an additional PPA, identified as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) PPA, was selected in March 2015. In June, the Council added a 2-year hard cap sub-option to the Council hard cap PPA and the CDFW hard cap PPA, and an additional alternative that modified the CDFW PPA was added in September 2015. This alternative contained 2-year rolling hard caps based on observed mortality/injury; the Council selected this alternative as its Final Preferred Alternative (FPA).
        Proposed Regulations for Hard Cap Limits

        The implementation of hard caps is intended to manage the fishery under the MSA to protect certain non-target species. Its purpose is not to manage marine mammal or endangered species populations, but rather to enhance the provisions of ESA and the MMPA under MSA Section 303(b)(12) and National Standard 9. This proposed rule would implement the Council's FPA, which would establish 2-year rolling hard caps on observed mortality and injury to fin, humpback, and sperm whales, leatherback, loggerhead, olive ridley, and green sea turtles, short-fin pilot whales, and bottlenose dolphins in the DGN fishery. The definition of injury is taken from the NMFS West Coast Region Observer Program field manual. Observers record protected species released as Alive, Injured, or Dead. Observer program staff reviews observer data forms and notes to make a final determination of the condition of entangled protected species. To determine whether a hard cap has been reached, NMFS would count observed mortalities and injuries to these species during the current DGN fishing season (May 1 through January 31) and the previous fishing season. If a cap were reached, the DGN fishery would close until the 2-year (i.e. two fishing seasons) mortality and injury for all species is below their hard cap value. The DGN fishery would then re-open on May 1 of the subsequent fishing season. The Council recommended hard cap values for when the DGN observer coverage level is less than 75 percent; the Council will revisit hard cap values when observer coverage becomes greater than 75 percent.

          Table 1—Proposed Protected Species Hard Caps for Drift Gillnet Fishery

            Species
            Rolling2-year
              hard cap

            Fin Whale
            2

            Humpback Whale
            2

            Sperm Whale
            2

            Leatherback Sea Turtle
            2

            Loggerhead Sea Turtle
            2

            Olive Ridley Sea Turtle
            2

            Green Sea Turtle
            2

            Short-fin Pilot Whale (CA/OR/WA stock)
            4

            Bottlenose Dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock)
            4

        Fishery Closure Procedures

        NMFS will report observed protected species mortalities and injuries to help participants in the DGN fishery plan for the possibility of a hard cap being reached. If, as determined by NMFS, the DGN fleet meets or exceeds a hard cap during a rolling 2-year period, the fishery will be closed. NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the specified beginning and end dates of the closure. Upon the effective date identified in the Federal Register Notice, a DGN vessel may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land any additional fish using DGN gear in the U.S. West Coast EEZ during the period specified in the announcement. Any fish already on board a DGN fishing vessel on the effective date may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, if they are landed within 4 days after the effective date. NMFS will notify vessel owners/operators of the closure by Vessel Monitoring System communication to the fleet stating when large-mesh drift gillnet fishing is closed. Notification will also be made by postal mail and a posting on the NMFS regional Web site.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and existing collection-of-information requirements still apply under the following Control Numbers: 0648-0593. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

        NMFS prepared a draft EA for the proposed regulations that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. The proposed action will have minor beneficial environmental impacts on target, not-target, and protected species and negative economic impacts to the DGN fleet. All of the proposed alternatives would result in a negative economic impact; however, the Council's FPA would result in a limited economic impact when compared to the other alternatives (a more detailed explanation can be found in the IRFA). A copy of the draft EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        On December 29, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        There are currently 73 individual permit holders with valid California Department of Fish and Wildlife drift gillnet permits; however, many permits remain inactive. On average, 20 vessels participated in the fishery each year from 2010 through 2015. In 2015, 18 vessels participated in the fishery with total landings equaling 96 metric tons (mt) (round weight), about 5.3 mt on average per vessel. Total landings included 18 mt of common thresher shark, 6 mt of shortfin mako shark, 66 mt of swordfish, and 5 mt of tunas. All participants in the fishery are considered small businesses since average annual per vessel revenues persist well below the $11 million threshold.

        The Council considered six alternatives for protected species hard caps for the DGN fishery before selecting Alternative 6 as their FPA. Compared to the baseline, the proposed regulatory action (i.e., based on Alternative 6) would result in a $4,596 annual loss per vessel based on a DGN fleet size of 20 vessels. These potential adverse economic effects of the proposed regulations appear to be limited. DGN effort is variable over the course of a fishing season, as vessels may choose to fish for salmon, albacore, and other marketable species based on abundance and environmental conditions, which may mitigate some of the anticipated economic losses. If vessel operators are successful in reducing the frequency of hard cap species catch in the future, the DGN fishery would close less often. However, given the many existing regulatory measures to reduce protected species interactions in the DGN fishery to minimal levels, the degree to which further take reductions can be realized through fishermen's deliberate effort to avoid reaching caps cannot be determined.
        Action Alternatives 1 through 4 were estimated to produce fewer costs to the fleet than the FPA; however, these alternatives presented significant implementation challenges. The evaluation of the fishery against hard caps in each of these Alternatives was based on an estimated mortality and serious injury (M&SI) calculation derived from observer coverage levels. The current NMFS process under the MMPA for making M&SI determinations is an extensive and multi-step process that takes months to complete and occurs at the end of each calendar year. It was deemed that this process, therefore, would not be responsive enough to inseason interactions with protected species. NMFS would have to create an expedited M&SI assessment process to make a more timely determination, which would have further delayed this action. Additionally, observer coverage rates for the DGN fishery vary between and within fishing seasons. This makes it difficult to determine the coverage rate at the time an interaction occurs and then extrapolate observed M&SI for comparison to the hard caps. Similarly, using a generalized observer coverage rate is problematic because DGN vessels often participate in multiple fisheries based on environmental factors and the presence of different species. This adds to the variation in observer coverage levels over the course of a fishing season. Lastly, because fishing effort has been low compared to historical levels, a small change in observed fishing effort can have a potentially big effect on the observer coverage rate if unobserved effort does not change commensurately.
        In response to the identified implementation issues with Alternatives 1 through 4, the CDFW proposed Alternative 5 with two sub-Alternatives. Based on Alternative 5 sub-option 1, the DGN fishery would be expected to meet or exceed a hard cap seven out of thirteen fishing seasons, using historical observations (there is, however, less fishing effort in recent years, so the fishery would be expected to close fewer than seven times under this Alternative). Using Alternative 5 sub-option 2, the fishery would be expected to close in 14.6 percent of simulated seasons, with the possibility of closing for more than one full fishing season. While Alternative 5 would produce greater beneficial effects to target, non-target, and protected species than the other alternatives, the results of the economic analysis indicate that it would have the greatest economic impact and not be conducive to supporting an economically viable swordfish fishery. The Council's FPA, Alternative 6, is the least costly alternative of those that did not present significant implementation issues.
        NMFS considers all entities subject to this action to be small entities as defined NMFS' size standards. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are all U.S. commercial DGN vessels that may be used in the California/Oregon large-mesh DGN fishery. Because each affected vessel is a small business, the proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities. Therefore, the proposed action will impact all these small entities in the same manner. This rulemaking is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or place small entities at a disadvantage to large entities.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 6, 2016.
          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 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.702, add the definition for “Injury” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 660.702
          Definitions.

            Injury, when referring to marine mammals and sea turtles, means the animal has been released with obvious physical injury or with attached fishing gear.

        3. In § 660.705, add paragraphs (tt) and (uu) to read as follows:

          § 660.705
          Prohibitions.

          (tt) Fish with a large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone during the time the fishery is closed pursuant to § 660.713(h)(2)(ii).
          (uu) Retain on board, transship, or land any fish caught with a large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) later than 4 days after the effective date of a drift gillnet fishery closure and before the drift gillnet fishery re-opens pursuant to § 660.713(h)(2)(ii).

        4. In § 660.713, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:

          § 660.713
          Drift gillnet fishery.

          (h) Limits on protected species mortalities and injuries.

          (1) Maximum 2-year hard caps are established on the number of sea turtle and marine mammal mortalities and injuries that occur as a result of observed interactions with large-mesh drift gillnets (mesh size ≥14 inches) deployed by vessels registered for use under HMS permits. Mortalities and injuries during the current fishing season (May 1 through January 31) and the previous fishing season are counted towards the hard caps. The mortality and injury hard caps are as follows:

              Species
              Rolling2-year
                hard cap

              Fin Whale
              2

              Humpback Whale
              2

              Sperm Whale
              2

              Leatherback Sea Turtle
              2

              Loggerhead Sea Turtle
              2

              Olive Ridley Sea Turtle
              2

              Green Sea Turtle
              2

              Short-fin Pilot Whale (CA/OR/WA stock)
              4

              Bottlenose Dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock)
              4

          (2) Upon determination by the Regional Administrator that, based on data from NMFS observers or a NMFS Electronic Monitoring program, the fishery has reached any of the protected species hard caps during a given 2-year period:
          (i) As soon as practicable, the Regional Administrator will file for publication at the Office of the Federal Register a notification that the fishery has reached a protected species hard cap. The notification will include an advisement that the large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery shall be closed, and that drift gillnet fishing in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone by vessels registered for use under HMS permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date and ending at a specified date. Drift gillnet fishing will then be allowed beginning May 1 of the year when observed mortality and injury of each species during the previous May 1 through January 31 fishing season is below its hard cap value. Coincidental with the filing of the notification, the Regional Administrator will also provide actual notice that the large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery shall be closed, and that drift gillnet fishing in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone by vessels registered for use under HMS permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, to all holders of HMS permits with a drift gillnet endorsement via VMS communication, postal mail, and a posting on the NMFS regional Web site.

          (ii) Beginning on the fishery closure date published in the Federal Register and indicated by the Regional Administrator in the notification provided to vessel operators and permit holders under paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and until the specified ending date, the large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery shall be closed. During the closure period commercial fishing vessels registered for use under HMS permits may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land fish captured with a large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches), with the exception that any fish already on board a fishing vessel on the effective date of the notice may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided such fish are landed within 4 days after the effective date published in the fishing closure notice.

      [FR Doc. 2016-24780 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P