        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [WT Docket No. 10-254; WT Docket No. 07-250; DA 15-46]
        Request for Updated Information and Comment on Wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations; Correction and Extension of Comment Dates

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction and extension of comment dates.

          SUMMARY:
          On December 23, 2014, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau published a document seeking updated input to better understand the current consumer experience with hearing aid compatible wireless handsets, to explore technical or other barriers to the provision of hearing aid compatible devices on new wireless technologies, and to consider changes to its rules that may be necessary to ensure that wireless handsets used with advanced communications services are accessible in light of directives contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). The comment date was erroneously published as an effective date and neither the comment nor the comment-reply date was provided. We also failed to provide an address for submission of comments. This document corrects those errors and extends the time within which to file comments and reply comments.

          DATES:
          The comment date for the proposed rule changes published December 23, 2014, at 79 FR 76944, is extended until February 5, 2015. Reply comments are due on or before February 20, 2015.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eli Johnson, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1395 or by email Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The DATES section for the proposed rule changes published December 23, 2014, at 79 FR 76944, was incorrect. It should have provided a comment due date of January 22, 2015, and a comment-reply date of February 6, 2015. In response to a joint request by Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA—The Wireless Association, and Hearing Loss Association of America (collectively, “Petitioners”), these comment and comment-reply dates are extended to February 5, 2015, and February 20, 2015, respectively. The DATES section in this document is correct, and an ADDRESSES section is provided.

        Below is a summary of the Order in WT Docket Nos. 10-254 and 07-250; DA 15-46, released January 12, 2015, granting Petitioners' extension request. The full text of the Order is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the Order also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by using the search function for WT Docket No. 10-254 or 07-250. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

        1. On November 21, 2014, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice in which the Commission sought updated comment and reply comment in its ongoing review of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. The Public Notice set the deadline for filing comments as January 22, 2015 and the deadline for reply comments as February 6, 2015. On January 6, 2015, Petitioners filed a joint request to extend the established comment and reply comment deadlines by 30 days. Petitioners argue that a 30 day extension is in the public interest as it allows them to develop meaningful, substantive responses to the questions raised in the Public Notice. As a result, Petitioners state that a more robust record will be developed if a 30 day extension is granted. In addition, Petitioners emphasize that the extension would be particularly useful in light of the holidays that fell within the window to file comments.
        2. The Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time. Given the intervening holidays, however, the Commission will grant a 14 day extension to the filing deadlines. The Commission wishes to encourage the thoughtful consideration of the complex issues raised in this proceeding, and the Commission believes the additional time will facilitate careful and deliberate considerations of these matters. At the same time, a 14 day extension will not unduly delay the resolution of the issues raised in the Public Notice.
        3. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 0.51, 0.261, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.51, 0.261, and 1.46, the Joint Request for Extension of Comment and Reply Comment Deadlines filed by the Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA—The Wireless Association, and Hearing Loss Association of America is granted to the extent indicated herein and the deadlines to file comments in this proceeding are extended to February 5, 2015, and reply comments to February 20, 2015.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Amy Brett,
          Associate Division Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2015-02427 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        RIN 0648-BA82
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 41 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 41 would amend the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (CR program) by establishing a process for eligible harvesters, processors, and affected communities to request an exemption from regional delivery requirements. Federal regulations require that crab harvested with regionally designated individual fishing quota (IFQ) be landed within the designated region; likewise, crab purchased with regionally designated individual processing quota (IPQ) must be processed within the designated region. Natural and man-made situations can disrupt fishing and processing activity making regional delivery requirements untenable in some seasons. Amendment 41 is necessary to prevent disruption to the CR Program fisheries, while providing for the sustained participation of the communities intended to benefit from the regional delivery requirements. This proposed action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be received on or before February 11, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0032, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0147 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on that line.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to (907) 586-7557.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter 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). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of Amendment 41, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the categorical exclusion prepared for this action, and the Environmental Impact Statement, RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Analysis prepared for the CR Program may be obtained from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The 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 (Secretary). 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 41 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.
        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendments 18 and 19 amended the FMP to include the CR Program. Regulations implementing these amendments were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 50 CFR part 680.
        The CR Program is a catch share program for nine BSAI crab fisheries that allocates those resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Under the CR Program, NMFS issued quota share (QS) to eligible harvesters based on participation during a set of qualifying years in one or more of the nine CR Program fisheries. QS is an exclusive, revocable privilege allowing the holder to harvest a specific percentage of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) in a CR Program fishery.
        A QS holder's annual allocation, called IFQ, is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of QS held in relation to the total QS pool for that fishery. NMFS issues IFQ in three classes: Class A IFQ, Class B IFQ, and Class C IFQ. Three percent of IFQ is issued as Class C IFQ for captains and crew. Ninety percent of the remaining IFQ is issued as Class A IFQ and 10 percent is issued as Class B IFQ.

        NMFS issued processor quota share (PQS) to qualified individuals and entities based on processing activities in CR Program fisheries during a period of qualifying years. PQS is an exclusive, revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a fixed percentage of the annual TAC from a CR Program fishery. A PQS holder's annual allocation is called IPQ. NMFS issues IPQ at a one-to-one correlation between the amount of IPQ and Class A IFQ issued for a given CR Program fishery. Class A IFQ must be delivered to a processor holding a matching amount of IPQ; Class C IFQ and Class B IFQ may be delivered to any registered crab receiver.
        The CR Program established regional delivery requirements to preserve the historic geographic distribution of deliveries in the crab fisheries. NMFS assigned a regional designation to QS and PQS for seven of the nine CR Program fisheries. The regional delivery requirements are structured so that crab harvested with regionally designated IFQ must be delivered to a processor with matching regionally designated IPQ and processed in the designated region. These regional delivery requirements are intended to ensure that coastal communities historically active as crab processing ports continue to receive economic benefits from crab deliveries and to encourage the development of shorebased processing capacity in specific isolated communities.
        The Council adopted Amendment 41 to the FMP at its December 2010 meeting. Amendment 41 allows IFQ holders, IPQ holders, and communities to request and receive from NMFS an exemption to regional delivery requirements. Amendment 41 would apply to QS and PQS that has a regional designation for the North Region or South Region. NMFS assigned a North Region designation or a South Region designation to the QS and PQS in six CR Program fisheries: Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea snow crab, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Western Aleutian Islands red king crab, Saint Matthew Island blue king crab, and Pribilof Islands red and blue king crab. The North Region is north of 54°20′ N. latitude. The South Region is south of 54°20′ N. latitude.
        NMFS also assigned a West Region designation to a portion of the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab QS and PQS; the remaining QS and PQS in that fishery is undesignated and may be delivered without regional limitation. Eastern Bering Sea Tanner crab QS and PQS, and Western Bering Sea Tanner crab fishery QS and PQS, do not have a regional designation. Amendment 41 would not apply to QS and PQS issues for these fisheries.
        In recommending Amendment 41, the Council recognized that weather conditions or other natural or man-made circumstances can hinder harvesting activities and restrict access to processing facilities in the North or South Region. Natural or man-made catastrophes could result in lost revenue to harvesters, processors, and communities. Safety risks increase when harvesters attempt to meet regional delivery requirements in inclement weather (e.g., icing conditions) and other potentially unsafe situations. Unforeseen delays in delivering crab could result in deadloss (crab that die before being processed). Harvesters may avoid or delay the harvest of regionally designated IFQ, thereby increasing the potential for unharvested crab or crab harvested later in the fishing season than would have been otherwise required for a given TAC level. Such changes in fishing behavior could result in unused IPQ, increased processing cost, loss of market share, and loss of revenue to remote communities dependent on revenues from crab deliveries and processing.
        The Council recognized that the purpose of prohibiting holders of regionally designated Class A IFQ and IPQ from delivering and processing crab outside of the designated region ensures that each region retains the economic benefits from deliveries within the region. Therefore, under Amendment 41, deliveries of regionally designated Class A IFQ outside of the region would need to be negotiated among IFQ holders, IPQ holders, and representatives of affected communities. The Council also recognized that any exemption must include requirements for IFQ holders and IPQ holders to make efforts to avoid the need for an exemption and to limit the amount of IFQ and IPQ subject to the exemption. The Council recommendation supports the existing regional delivery requirements while establishing a process to mitigate disruptions in a CR Program fishery that would restrict the ability of participants to meet the delivery requirements.
        The Council also recognized the potential for insurmountable administrative difficulties if NMFS specified the conditions for granting an exemption and then determined whether those conditions existed in a particular situation. Therefore, the Council recommended a system of civil contracts between harvesters, processors, and community representatives as the means of establishing the exemption from the regional delivery requirements.
        Under Amendment 41, the parties—Class A IFQ holders, IPQ holders, and affected communities—would develop private contractual arrangements that specify when, and under what terms, they could request and receive an exemption from NMFS. The contract terms would not be established in the FMP or in regulation. The parties would enter into two private contractual arrangements—a framework agreement and an exemption contract—before the specified IFQ and IPQ would be exempt from the regional delivery requirements. These contracts would govern the roles and responsibilities of the parties to the contract and would establish each party's specific obligations. The goal is that, through the framework agreement process, the parties would plan for adverse conditions and would agree to take steps to reduce the need for an exemption. Then, in the event that the mitigation was unsuccessful in averting the need for an exemption, the parties would agree to an exemption contract and jointly apply to NMFS for an exemption from the regional delivery requirement. If any party to a framework agreement or exemption contract believes that any other party did not comply with their contractual obligation, that party could seek redress as a private civil matter.

        Amendment 41 does not prescribe specific conditions or terms of agreement for the framework agreement or exemption contract. Section 2.4.2 of the analysis provides background about the range of private arrangements that the Council considered and that the parties might put in the framework agreement and the exemption contract. In negotiating the framework agreement, the Council expects that the parties would consider mechanisms and operating practices that would limit the need to seek an exemption from the regional delivery requirements. The Council anticipates that the framework agreement would define the steps that the parties would take prior to the crab fishing season to avoid seeking an exemption during the fishery. A framework agreement could include an agreement among IFQ holders, whereby they aggregate a certain percentage of their IFQ to address inseason factors that could otherwise prevent compliance with regional delivery requirements. For example, the framework agreement could prioritize the harvest of North Region Class A IFQ while setting aside a portion of South Region Class A IFQ until the North Region Class A IFQ has been harvested and delivered to matching North Region IPQ. The Council anticipates that the framework agreement would also address the circumstances that would trigger requesting an exemption. If those circumstances occurred, the Council anticipates that the framework agreement would describe the steps that the parties would take to mitigate the adverse effects of the exemption on the affected community. The framework agreement might include steps to compensate the community that was losing the processing, the economic activity from the processing, and the tax revenues from the processing.

        The CR Program also limits the amount of PQS and IPQ that may be owned or used by an individual. Under Amendment 41, NMFS would suspend the requirement that any IPQ used at a facility through a custom processing arrangement accrue against the IPQ use cap of the owners of that facility for all Class A IFQ and IPQ included in the exemption. IPQ holders will continue to be subject to the IPQ use cap for other crab processing that does not occur through an exemption from the regional delivery requirements.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 41 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 Amendment 41, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 41, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 41. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 41. 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: December 10, 2012.
          Lindsay Fullenkamp,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-30099 Filed 12-12-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 62
        [EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0005; FRL-9974-15-Region 7]
        Approval of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incineration (HMIWI) Units

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri state plan for designated facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that were requested by Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in two separate submissions made on August 8, 2011 and on July 3, 2014. This proposed action will amend the state regulations referenced in the state's 111(d) plan applicable to existing Hospital, Medical, Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) operating in the state of Missouri. The state rule revisions we are proposing to approve with this action update HMIWI regulatory requirements for emission limits for waste management plans, training, compliance and performance testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping to be consistent with updates to Federal rules. These regulatory revisions proposed for approval into Missouri's state plan do not impact air quality. EPA's proposed approval of this revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 111(d) as further described in the Technical Support Document that is included in this docket.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0005, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7041 or by email at gonzalez.larry@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

          I. What is being addressed in this document?
          II. Background
          III. Analysis of State Submittal
          IV. What action is EPA taking?
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. What is being addressed in this document?
        EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the regulations cited in Missouri's state plan for HMIWI facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA that were requested by MDNR in two separate submissions made on August 8, 2011 and on July 3, 2014. This regulatory action is a revision to the State's regulatory requirements for existing facilities and not new sources. The amended state rule limits emissions of metals, particulate matter, acid gases, organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and opacity. These rule revisions are necessary to ensure that the state regulations applicable to HMIWI are consistent with updates to Federal rules for HMIWI.
        The August 8, 2011, submittal updates requirements for emission limits, waste management plans, training, compliance and performance testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements that apply to existing HMIWI facilities. Additionally, the state's regulatory revisions also include the movement of definitions, previously located in the state rule that applies specifically to HMIWI (10 CSR 10-6.200) to a new regulatory section that contains definitions applicable to air rules in general (10 CSR 10-6.020).

        On April 4, 2011 (76 FR 18407), and May 13, 2013 (78 FR 28051), EPA promulgated revisions to the Federal HMIWI guidelines that corrected errors made in calculating the emission standard for certain classes of HMIWI and pollutants, and eliminated the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption. In addition, EPA revised the Federal Plan applicable to HMIWI sources that are not subject to an EPA approved and effective State plan and that meet additional criteria specified in 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH. See 78 FR 28051. Missouri submitted a revision to their state plan on July 3, 2014, that addressed the above revisions promulgated by EPA.
        In the July 3, 2014, request, Missouri is seeking approval of additional revisions made to 10 CSR 10-6.200 that revise the regulations to follow the revised Federal standards. In addition to updating the emission standard tables, the revisions remove language from the compliance and performance testing provisions applicable to HMIWI that provided an exemption to compliance with the emission limits during startup, shutdown and malfunction conditions. Additionally, the state revised the hierarchy of definitions to clearly state that the applicable definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations take precedence over those in 10 CSR 10-6.020, and revised the test methods references in the state rule to match how the test methods are referred to in the Federal HMIWI regulations.
        This proposed action addresses both requests to amend the state plan by amending the underlying regulation referenced in the 111(d) plan applicable to HMIWI.
        II. Background
        Section 111(d) of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources. EPA has codified emission guidelines and compliance times for existing HMIWI facilities at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and has codified New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new HMIWI facilities at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec. EPA also finalized a Federal Plan applicable to HMIWI following promulgation of EGs. EPA finalized the Federal Plan applicable to HMIWI at 40 CFR part 62 subpart HHH on May 13, 2013 (discussed later). The Federal Plan is applied in states that fail to submit or revise a 111(d) plan in response to the promulgation of new or revised EGs.
        The CAA requires that state regulatory agencies implement the EGs and compliance times using a state plan developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. Section 111(d) establishes general requirements and procedures for state plan submittals for the control of designated pollutants. Section 129 requires emission guidelines to be promulgated for all categories of solid waste incineration units, including HMIWI units.
        Section 129 mandates that all plan requirements be at least as protective and restrictive as the promulgated emission guidelines. This includes fixed final compliance dates, fixed compliance schedules, and Title V permitting requirements for all affected sources. Section 129 also requires that state plans be submitted to EPA within one year after EPA's promulgation of the emission guidelines and compliance times.
        On June 15, 1999, MDNR submitted their original section 111(d) state plan for HMIWI to EPA for approval. This 1999 submission was to comply with the 40 CFR Subpart Ce Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing HMIWI that were promulgated at 62 FR 48374. The EGs applied to exisiting HMIWI that commenced construction on or before June 20, 1996. MDNR adopted the EG requirements into state rule 10 CSR 10-6.200 “Hospital, Medical, Infectious Waste Incinerators,” which was effective on July 30, 1999. EPA approved Missouri's June 15, 1999, section 111(d) state plan on August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45184). EPA approved a subsequent revision to Missouri's 111(d) plan on October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52020).

        On October 6, 2009, in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Act, EPA promulgated revised HMIWI EGs and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from HMIWI units. See 74 FR 51368. A HMIWI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.51c as any device that combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste. EPA codified these revised EGs at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce. Under section 129(b)(2) of the Act and the revised EGs at subpart Ce, states with subject sources must submit to EPA plans that implement the revised EGs.

        On April 4, 2011, the EPA promulgated amendments to the NSPS and EGs, correcting inadvertent drafting errors in the NSPS and EGs and clarifying that compliance with the EGs must be expeditious if a compliance extension is granted. See 76 FR 18407.
        On May 13, 2013, EPA promulgated a final rule amending the NSPS, emission guidelines, and establishing a revised Federal Plan for HMIWI which eliminated the SSM exemption. See 78 FR 28051.
        Missouri's August 8, 2011, and July 3, 2014, submittals amend the state's plan for managing HMIWI facilities in accordance with Federal guidelines promulgated in 2009 through 2013. In response to the final rules promulgated by EPA in 2009 and 2013, EPA received two requests from MDNR to revise the state's 111(d) plan. EPA did not act to approve the first MDNR request to amend their 111(d) plan because of changes being made to the Federal emission guidelines due to a series of EPA proposals and final actions that would result in subsequent changes to submitted state plans. Following this series of proposals, final rules, and the correction notice published by EPA, MDNR submitted its July 2014 request to revise their 111(d) plan, and the EPA elected to process the MDNR requests together. Therefore this proposed action addresses components from both MDNR requests to approve revisions to the state's 111(d) plan applicable to HMIWI.
        III. Analysis of State Submittal
        The state's request to amend the state plan (through the amendment of the underlying applicable regulations found at 10 CSR 10-6.200) were received on August 12, 2011, and July 7, 2014, in accordance with the requirements for adoption and submittal of state plans for designated facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The revised plan establishes emission limits for existing HMIWI, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of those limits. Missouri's plan includes all documentation that all of these requirements have been met. The emission limits, testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other aspects of the Federal rule have been adopted. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.200 contains all applicable requirements.
        The state provided evidence that it complied with the public notice and comment requirements of 40 CFR part 60 Subpart B. MDNR received two comments to their proposal to revise the HMIWI regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.200 in July of 2011. The first comment requested that MDNR replace table 1 in the 10-6.200 with table IB from the April 4, 2011 EPA final rule. In response, MDNR explained that table IB in the EPA rule applied only to new sources and the proposed MDNR table 1 applied to existing sources—and therefore the table would not be changed. The second comment expressed support for the proposed amendments and again no change was made as a result of the comment. In the second proposal to amend the HMIWI regulations, to remove the SSM exemption and match how the Federal HMIWI rules refer to EPA test methods, MDNR received no comments.
        A technical support document analyzing the regulatory changes MDNR made to their HMIWI rules is included in this docket (EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0005). This review contains a line by line analysis of the revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.200 which are in accordance with the regulatory revisions made by EPA to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ce, and part 62 subpart HHH.
        IV. What action is EPA taking?
        Based on the rationale discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's August 8, 2011, and July 3, 2014, submittals of its amended 111(d) plan for HMIWI.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is not subject to review under Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
        The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
        This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

        In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Hospital, medical, and infectious incineration units, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: January 26, 2018.
          James B. Gulliford,
          Regional Administrator, Region 7.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 62 as set forth below:

          PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

          1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

          Subpart AA—Missouri

          2. Amend § 62.6358 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

            § 62.6358
             Identification of plan.

            (e) Amended plan. Submitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources on July 3, 2014 and August 8, 2011. The effective date of the amended plan is April 9, 2018.

      [FR Doc. 2018-02339 Filed 2-5-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 060216041-6041-01; I.D. 020206C]
        RIN 0648-AT72
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications and Effort Controls

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes initial 2006 fishing year specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery to set BFT quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and to set effort controls for the General category and Angling category. This action is necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS will hold public hearings to receive comments on these proposed actions.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before Tuesday, April 11, 2006.
          The public hearings dates and locations are:
          1. March 17, 2006, 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in Gloucester, MA.
          2. March 22, 2006, 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in West Islip, NY.
          3. March 24, 2006, 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m., in Berlin MD.
          4. March 27, 2006, 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., in Morehead City, NC.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be submitted through any of the following methods:
          • Email: 06BFTSPECS@noaa.gov.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: Dianne Stephan, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.
          • Fax: 978-281-9340.
          Public hearing locations include:
          1. March 17, 2006 - NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
          2. March 22, 2006 - West Islip Public Library, 3 Higbie Lane, West Islip, NY 11795.
          3. March 24, 2006 - Worcester County Public Library, Ocean Pines Branch, 11107 Cathell Road, Berlin MD 21811.
          4. March 27, 2006 - Crystal Coast Civic Center, 3505 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557.
          Supporting documents including the environmental assessment, initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and regulatory impact review are available by sending your request to Dianne Stephan, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930; Fax: 978-281-9340.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dianne Stephan at (978) 281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA. The ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA).
        Background
        On May 28, 1998, NMFS published in the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP).

        In November 2002, ICCAT recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of BFT for the United States in the western Atlantic management area of 1,489.6 metric tons (mt), effective beginning in 2003 and continuing in subsequent fishing years until revised by ICCAT. (ICCAT is scheduled to assess BFT stocks during 2006 which could result in a subsequent re-evaluation of the quota). Also in the 2002 recommendation, ICCAT allocated 25 mt annually to account for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline fisheries directed on other species “in the vicinity of the management boundary area.” This area was defined in the 2003 BFT annual specification rulemaking process as the Northeast Distant statistical area (NED) (68 FR 56783, October 2, 2003). The TAC of 1,489.6 mt is inclusive of the annual 25 mt pelagic longline set-aside in the NED. The 2002 ICCAT recommendation also includes an annual eight percent tolerance limit calculated as a four-year average. The initial specifications within this proposed rule are published in accordance with the 1999 FMP and are necessary to implement the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, as required by the ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This proposed rule would: (1) establish initial quota specifications consistent with the BFT rebuilding program as set forth in the 1999 FMP by allocating the 2002 ICCAT-recommended quota for the 2006 fishing year (June 1, 2006 - May 31, 2007); (2) establish General category effort controls, including time-period subquotas, restricted fishing days (RFDs), and the initial retention limit; and (3) establish Angling category retention limits for the 2006 fishing season.

        After consideration of public comment, NMFS will issue a final rule setting the initial quota specifications and effort controls and publish them in the Federal Register, along with NMFS's response to those comments. The specifications and effort controls may subsequently be adjusted during the course of the fishing year, consistent with the provisions of the 1999 FMP, and, as appropriate, would be published in the Federal Register.
        A number of other issues regarding the domestic management of BFT have been discussed during recent years. For instance, adjustment of domestic quota allocation percentages and General category time-period subquotas were raised as issues in a Petition for Rulemaking submitted by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (see Notice of Receipt of Petition, 67 FR 69502, November 18, 2002). This issue was addressed in part in the final rule which extended the General category season from December 31 to January 31 (68 FR 74504, December 24, 2003). The issue is further addressed in the draft consolidated HMS FMP (70 FR 48804, August 19, 2005), which considers several aspects of the changing BFT fishery and has proposed modifications to time period subquotas and authorized gear for use in BFT fisheries, among other things.
        Other issues include the changing nature of BFT fisheries and BFT distribution. These issues are in part characterized by the growth of a late season General category fishery, increased numbers of recreational participants and fishing effort for smaller size BFT, and ongoing under-harvested quota for several commercial categories. ICCAT will be undertaking a stock assessment for BFT during the first half of 2006. The information provided by this stock assessment and international deliberations in fall 2006 will provide insight into management options to address the above issues which could result in future regulatory or FMP amendments.

        NMFS has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives for each of the major issues contained in this proposed rule. The complete list of alternatives and their analysis is provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, and is not repeated here in its entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Domestic Quota Allocation
        The 1999 FMP and its implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for the domestic fishing categories. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that NMFS developed over several years. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the 1999 FMP for fishing years beginning June 1, 1999, to the present are as follows: General category — 47.1 percent; Harpoon category — 3.9 percent; Purse Seine category — 18.6 percent; Angling category — 19.7 percent; Longline category — 8.1 percent; Trap category — 0.1 percent; and Reserve category— 2.5 percent. The 2002 ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT quota of 1,464.6 mt, not including the annual 25 mt set-aside for pelagic longline vessels, would be allocated in accordance with these percentages. However, in addition to the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, quota allocations are adjusted based on overharvest or underharvest from prior fishing year's activity and on U.S. data on dead discards as they relate to the ICCAT dead discard allowance.
        In addition, the 2002 ICCAT recommendation includes a provision designed to limit mortality of school BFT to an average of eight percent of overall quota allocation, calculated on a four-year basis. Estimates of recreational harvest showed that the eight percent tolerance limit had been exceeded in years one and two (2003 and 2004) of the 4-year balance period. In March 2005, NMFS consulted with the HMS Advisory Panel (AP) to identify alternatives for the 2005 school BFT fishery. Since NMFS was reviewing methodology for measuring BFT in the Large Pelagics Survey (LPS), which could result in a re-estimation and was expected to result in a decrease in previous school BFT harvest estimates, some members of the AP recommended that all of the available school quota be provided for the 2005 fishing year, even though such an approach could severely reduce the amount of quota available for the 2006 fishing year. Estimates of the 2005 school harvest show that landings are at, or near, the 4-year eight percent tolerance limit after only 3 years. The reviews of LPS methodologies have not yet been completed, thus no school subquota can be provided for the 2006 fishing year.
        Each of these adjustments is discussed below and then applied to the results of the above percentage shares to determine the 2006 fishing year proposed initial quota specifications.
        The 2005 Underharvest/Overharvest
        The current ICCAT BFT quota recommendation allows, and U.S. regulations require, the addition or subtraction, as appropriate, of any underharvest or overharvest in a fishing year to the following fishing year, provided that the total of the adjusted category quotas does not result in overharvest of the total annual BFT quota and remains consistent with all applicable ICCAT recommendations, including restrictions on landings of school BFT. Therefore, NMFS proposes to adjust the 2006 fishing year quota specifications for the BFT fishery to account for underharvest or overharvest in the 2005 fishing year.

        Overall U.S. landings figures for the 2005 fishing year are still preliminary and may be updated before these 2006 fishing year specifications are finalized. Should adjustments to the final initial 2006 BFT quota specifications be required based on final 2005 BFT landing figures, NMFS will publish the adjustments in the Federal Register. For the 2005 fishing year, NMFS has preliminarily determined that General category landings were lower than the adjusted General category quota by approximately 493.0 mt; that Harpoon category landings were less than the adjusted Harpoon category quota by approximately 66.9 mt; that Longline category landings were less than the adjusted Longline category quota by approximately 145.3 mt; that Angling category landing estimates were less than the adjusted Angling category quota by approximately 50.6 mt; that Trap category landings were less than the adjusted Trap category quota by 3.8 mt; and that Purse Seine category landings were less than the adjusted Purse Seine category quota by approximately 351.7 mt. Regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(9)(i) require that Purse Seine category underharvests or overharvests be subtracted from or added to each individual vessel's quota allocation, as appropriate. Based on the estimated amount of Reserve that NMFS maintains for the landing of BFT taken during ongoing scientific research projects and/or potential overharvests in certain categories, NMFS estimates that 245.7 mt of Reserve remains from the 2005 fishing year. Since all categories experienced underharvests from the 2005 fishing year, these initial specifications will add the underharvest to the same quota category for the 2006 fishing year.
        Dead Discards
        As part of the BFT rebuilding program, ICCAT recommends an allowance for dead discards. The U.S. dead discard allowance is 68 mt. Dead discard estimates for 2005 are not yet available, so the estimate for the 2004 calendar year is used as a proxy to calculate the amount to be added to, or subtracted from, the U.S. BFT landings quota for 2006. The 2004 calendar year preliminary estimate of U.S. dead discards, as reported per the longline discards calculated from logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted when observer counts in quarterly/geographic stratum exceeded logbook reports, totaled 71.8 mt. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are not collected, and thus, are not included in this calculation. As U.S. fishing activity is estimated to have resulted in more dead discards than its allowance, the ICCAT recommendation and U.S. regulations state that the United States must subtract the difference between the amount of dead discards and the allowance (i.e., 71.8 - 68.0 mt = 3.8 mt) from its total allowed landings for the following fishing year, from individual fishing categories, or from the Reserve category. NMFS proposes to subtract the 3.8 mt from each Longline category regional subquota based on the percentage of total longline landings that occurred in each geographic region.
        2006 Proposed Initial Quota Specifications
        In accordance with the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, the ICCAT recommendation regarding the dead discard allowance, the HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(9)(ii), NMFS proposes initial quota specifications for the 2006 fishing year as follows: General category - 1,182.8 mt; Harpoon category - 124.0 mt; Purse Seine category - 624.1 mt; Angling category - 339.2 mt; Longline category - 285.1 mt; and Trap category - 5.3 mt. Additionally, 282.3 mt would be allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, including potentially providing for a late season General category fishery, or allocated to cover scientific research collection and potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category.
        As discussed above, under the ICCAT 2002 recommendation regarding school landings, these specifications do not provide for a school fishery during the 2006 fishing year to be consistent with the ICCAT recommendation and FMP. Based on the above proposed initial specifications and considerations regarding the school fishery, the Angling category quota of 339.2 mt would be further subdivided as follows: School BFT - 5.7 mt, with 0.0 mt to the northern area (north of 39E18' N. latitude), 0.0 mt to the southern area (south of 39E18' N. latitude), plus 5.7 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT - 325.8 mt, with 153.8 mt to the northern area and 172.0 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT - 7.7 mt, with 2.5 mt to the northern area and 5.2 mt to the southern area.
        The 2002 ICCAT recommendation includes an annual 25 mt set-aside quota to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary and referred to as the NED hereafter. This set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance with the North/South allocation percentages mentioned below. Thus, the proposed Longline category quota of 285.1 mt would be subdivided as follows: 82.3 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31E N. latitude and 123.2 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31E N. latitude, and 79.6 mt (54.6 mt from 2005 + 25.0 mt for 2006) to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. The bycatch allocation by ICCAT for pelagic longline vessels in the NED would be allocated to a special subcategory of the Longline north category. Accounting for landings under this additional quota would be maintained separately from other landings under the Longline north subcategory. Finally, regulations regarding BFT target catch requirements for pelagic longline vessels within the NED do not apply until the landings equal the available set-aside quota (50 C.F.R. 635.23(f)(3)) of 25 mt. After the available quota has been landed, target catch requirements at 50 C.F.R. 635.23(f)(1) will then apply.
        General Category Effort Controls
        For the last several years, NMFS has implemented General category time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the entire General category season. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the 1999 FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding the allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring.
        The regulations implementing the 1999 FMP divide the annual General category quota into three time-period subquotas as follows: 60 percent for June-August, 30 percent for September, and 10 percent for October-January. These percentages would be applied to the adjusted 2006 coastwide quota for the General category of 1,182.8 mt, minus 10.0 mt reserved for the New York Bight set-aside fishery. Therefore, of the available 1172.8 mt coastwide quota, 709.7 mt would be available in the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31, 2006; 344.8 mt would be available in the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30, 2006; and 118.3 mt would be available in the period beginning October 1, 2006, and ending January 31, 2007.
        In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also has implemented General category RFDs to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional fine scale inseason flexibility. For the 2006 fishing year, NMFS proposes a series of solid blocks of RFDs to extend the General category for as long as possible through the October through January time-period.

        Therefore, NMFS proposes that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category would be prohibited from fishing, including catch-and-release and tag-and-release, for BFT of all sizes on the following days: all Saturdays and Sundays from November 18, 2006, through January 31, 2007, and November 23, 2006, and December 25, 2006, inclusive, while the fishery is open. These proposed RFDs would improve distribution of fishing opportunities during the late season without increasing BFT mortality.
        Finally, NMFS proposes to adjust the General category retention limit to three BFT (73 inches (185.4 centimeters (cm)) or greater per vessel per day/trip). This retention limit would go into effect on the effective date of the final rule and would remain in place until the end of the first General category subperiod on August 31, 2006, or until adjusted before that with an inseason action, if necessary. Although NMFS usually adjusts retention limits with an inseason action, the adjustment is included in this proposed rule to provide an opportunity for public comment. NMFS may consider further retention limit adjustments after August 31, 2006.
        Angling Category Effort Controls
        NMFS proposes to adjust Angling category retention limits to three BFT (47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm)) per vessel per day/trip. Although NMFS usually adjusts Angling category retention limits with an inseason action, the adjustment is included in this proposed rule to provide an opportunity for public comment. NMFS is especially interested in comments on how to minimize the impacts of the retention prohibition of school size class BFT (27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 47 inches (119.4 cm)), particularly in those regions which extensively fish for school size BFT.
        Classification
        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA. The AA has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this proposed rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic HMS fisheries.
        The purpose of this proposed action is to: (1) implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation regarding the BFT quota, by proposing 2006 specifications for the BFT fishery that allocates the quota among domestic fishing categories, including 25 mt of BFT quota to the Longline category and the four-year eight percent tolerance limit on landings of school BFT, (2) implement General category effort controls, and (3) implement Angling category effort controls.
        NMFS has prepared this IRFA to analyze the impacts on small entities of the alternatives for establishing 2006 fishing year BFT quotas for all domestic fishing categories and General and Angling category effort controls.
        The analysis for the IRFA assesses the impacts of the various alternatives on the vessels that participate in the BFT fisheries, all of which are considered small entities. In order to do this, NMFS has estimated the average impact that the alternatives to establish the 2006 BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2002 ICCAT recommendation increased the BFT quota allocation to 1,489.6 mt, to be distributed to the domestic fishing categories based on the allocation percentages established in the 1999 FMP. This quota allocation includes a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline swordfish and non-BFT tuna fisheries in the NED. Both these quota modifications were established in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 specifications.
        In 2005, the annual gross revenues from the commercial BFT fishery were approximately $3.4 million. There are approximately 8,511 vessels that are permitted to land and sell BFT under four commercial BFT quota categories (including charter/headboat vessels). The commercial categories and their 2005 gross revenues are General ($2.2 million), Harpoon ($218,017), Purse seine ($906,946), and Longline ($163,665). The analysis for the IRFA approximates that each vessel within a category will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the various preferred alternatives on vessels. Data on net revenues of individual fishermen are lacking, so the economic impact of the alternatives is averaged across each category. This is considered a reasonable approach for BFT fisheries. More specifically, available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price/pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (i.e., number of trips expended that led to the successful trip and the associated cost of gas, bait, ice, etc.) so net revenue for each participant cannot be calculated. So NMFS cannot determine whether net revenue varies among individual fishery participants within each category, and therefore whether the economic impact of a regulation would have a varying impact among individual participants. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all participants in each category.
        For the allocation of BFT quota among domestic fishing categories, NMFS analyzed a no action alternative and alternative two (preferred alternative) which would implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation. NMFS considered a third alternative that would have allocated the 2002 ICCAT recommendation in a manner other than that designated in the 1999 FMP that was meant to address issues regarding the changing nature of the BFT fisheries, including providing specific set-asides and allocations for fishing groups which are not currently considered in the 1999 FMP. However, since the third alternative could have resulted in a defacto sub-period quota reallocation, an FMP amendment would be necessary for its implementation, and it was not further analyzed. In a concurrent rulemaking, changes to BFT subquota allocations, among other things, have been proposed in the consolidated HMS FMP (70 FR 48804, August 19, 2005).
        As noted above, alternative two would implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation in accordance with the 1999 FMP and consistent with the ATCA in the same way it was implemented in 2003-2005. Under the ATCA, the United States is obligated to implement ICCAT-approved quota recommendations. The preferred alternative would apply this quota and have positive impacts for fishermen. The no action alternative would keep the quota at pre-2002 ICCAT recommendation levels (i.e. 77.6 mt less) and would not be consistent with the purpose and need for this action and the 1999 FMP. It would maintain economic impacts to the United States and to local economies at a distribution and scale similar to 2002 or recent prior years, but would deny fishermen additional fishing opportunities as recommended by the 2002 ICCAT recommendation and as mandated by the ATCA.

        The preferred alternative would also implement the provision of the 2002 ICCAT recommendation that limits tolerance for school BFT landings to eight percent of the domestic quota, calculated on a four-year average. Because of high landings in the previous 3 years, resulting in near full utilization of the 4-year tolerance limit, a prohibition on school landings is proposed. The prohibition could have negative economic impacts to fishermen who fish for school BFT, particularly those who rely exclusively on the school size class for BFT harvest. In some regions, access to large school and small medium BFT will mitigate these impacts. In areas where school size BFT are primarily available, fishermen may be able to shift their efforts to other pelagic species (e.g. striped bass or bluefish) to mitigate impacts. The degree to which shifting effort for either of these user groups would mitigate negative economic impacts is unknown.
        Two alternatives were considered for effort control using restricted fishing days in the General category. The no action alternative would not implement any RFDs with publication of the initial specifications but rather would use inseason management authority established in the 1999 FMP to implement RFDs during the season, should catch rates warrant taking this approach. This alternative could be most beneficial during a season of low catch rates and could have positive economic consequences if slow catch rates were to persist during the late season fishery. During a slow season, the season could regulate itself and fishermen could choose when to fish or not based on their own preferences. However, it is impossible to predict in advance whether the season will have low or high catch rates.
        The preferred alternative would designate RFDs according to a schedule published in the initial BFT specifications. In the past, when catch rates have been high, the use of RFDs (preferred alternative) has had positive economic consequences by avoiding oversupplying the market and extending the season as late as possible. In addition, establishing RFDs at the season onset provides better planning opportunities than implementing RFDs during the season, since charter/headboat businesses could book trips and recreational and commercial fishermen could make plans ahead of time rather than waiting until the last minute to see if an RFD is going to be implemented. However, implementing RFDs to extend the late season may have some negative economic impacts to northern area fishermen who choose to travel to the southern area during the late season fishery. Travel and lodging costs may be greater if the season were extended over a greater period of time as proposed under the preferred alternative. Those additional costs could be mitigated if the ex-vessel price of BFT stays high, as is intended under this alternative. Without RFDs, travel costs may be less because of a shorter season; however, the market could be oversupplied and ex-vessel prices could fall. Overall, extending the season as late as possible and establishing formalized RFDs at the season onset would enhance the likelihood of increasing participation by southern area fishermen, increase access to the fishery over a greater range of the fish migration, provide a reliable mechanism for slowing a fishery that has an ability to generate extremely high catch rates, and is expected to provide better than average ex-vessel prices with an overall increase in gross revenues.
        A three fish retention limit (73 inches (185.4 cm) or above) is the preferred alternative for the opening retention limit for the General category, which would be in effect through August 31, 2006. This alternative is expected to result in the most positive socio-economic impacts by providing the best opportunity to harvest the quota while avoiding oversupplying the market, thus maximizing gross revenues. Other considered alternatives were the no action alternative (one BFT 73 inches (185.4 cm) or above per vessel per day/trip) and a retention limit of two BFT (73 inches (185.4 cm) or above per vessel per day/trip). Both these alternatives are expected to be too restrictive given the large amount of quota available for the General category during the 2006 fishing year and could result in the negative economic impact of lower gross revenues. Although early season landings seldom occur at a rate that could oversupply the market, NMFS will monitor landings closely to assure that the increased retention limit does not contribute to an oversupply.
        Six alternatives were considered for Angling category retention limits for the 2006 fishing year. The no action alternative was rejected since it would allow landing of school size class BFT, which is contrary to the 1999 FMP, 2002 ICCAT recommendation and the ATCA, given the status of school landings over the first 3 years of the 4-year balance period. The preferred alternative is a three BFT (from 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm) per vessel per day/trip) retention limit for all sectors of the Angling category for the entire 2006 fishing year.
        In addition to the preferred alternative, two other alternatives were considered that would provide the same retention limits for both private recreational and charter/headboats. One alternative (one BFT from 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm) per vessel per day/trip) was not preferred because it could unnecessarily restrict the amount of Angling category landings which could result in an underharvest of the quota and a negative economic impact. The other alternative would allow one BFT per person up to a maximum of six per vessel (from 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm)) per day/trip and is the alternative most likely to result in an overharvest of the quota with negative economic consequences.
        Two other alternatives were considered which provided differential retention limits between the Angling category sectors, all for BFT from 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm). The first would provide a private vessel retention limit of two fish per vessel per day/trip and a charter/headboat limit of one fish per person with a maximum of six per vessel per day/trip. The second alternative would provide one fish for each vessel per day/trip for the season, with an increase to three fish per vessel for charter/headboats during June 15, 2006 through July 31, 2006 and the month of September 2006. The second alternative was considered to be unnecessarily restrictive with a greater potential for negative economic impacts associated with not harvesting the entire quota. The first alternative was not preferred since it could result in perceived inequities between the two sectors of the Angling category fishery.
        The preferred alternative would provide a three-fish (47 inches to less than 73 inches) retention limit for both charter/headboats and private recreational vessels for the entire season. The preferred alternative was selected to balance the intent of landing the Angling category quota without overharvesting, providing sufficient retention limits to offset costs, reducing any perceived inequities between the charter/headboat and private recreational vessel sectors of the Angling category fishery, and providing economic benefits to all regional sectors of the fishery.
        None of the proposed alternatives in this document would result in additional reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, or monitoring requirements for the public. This proposed rule has also been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Executive Order 12866.

        On September 7, 2000, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial fisheries under section 7 of the ESA. A Biological Opinion (BiOp), issued June 14, 2001, concluded that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction. This BiOp also concluded that the continued operation of the purse seine and handgear fisheries, which are the primary gears for directed BFT harvest, may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction. NMFS has implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) required by this BiOp.
        Subsequently, a new BiOp on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was issued on June 1, 2004. The 2004 BiOp found that the continued operation of the fishery was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles. The 2004 BiOp identified RPAs necessary to avoid jeopardizing leatherbacks, and listed the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions necessary to authorize continued take as part of the revised incidental take statement. On July 6, 2004, NMFS published a final rule (69 FR 40734) implementing additional sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality mitigation measures for all Atlantic vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard. NMFS is implementing the other RPMs in compliance with the 2004 BiOp. On August 12, 2004, NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (69 FR 49858) to request comments on potential regulatory changes to further reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of sea turtles, as well as comments on the feasibility of framework mechanisms to address unanticipated increases in sea turtle interactions and mortalities, should they occur. NMFS will undertake additional rulemaking and non-regulatory actions, as required, to implement any management measures that are required under the 2004 BiOp.
        The measures proposed in this action are not expected to have adverse impacts on protected species, or have any further impacts on protected species than those considered in the 2001 and 2004 BiOps. The 2002 ICCAT recommendation increased the BFT quota slightly (77.6 mt), which may have resulted in a slight increase in effort in BFT fisheries after its initial implementation in 2003. NMFS does not expect that this slight increase has altered fishing patterns or effort compared to pre-2003 levels because the amount of additional quota is so small that it would likely not have been an incentive for other fishermen to join the open access BFT fisheries, or for either open or limited access BFT fishermen to substantially increase fishing effort. The options to control effort in the General and Angling categories are not expected to adversely impact protected species or have any further impacts on protected species than those previously analyzed, since they would not result in a change in fishing patterns or an increase in effort, in part because they are designed to moderate fishing effort without such changes. In addition, these measures are within the limits of effort controls allowed under the HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.23 which were covered by the previous BiOps. The specific action to allocate additional BFT quota to the Longline category would not alter current impacts on threatened or endangered species. Since BFT are only allowed to be retained incidentally in this fishery, the additional quota would not provide an incentive to target BFT, or modify fishing behavior or expand fishing effort. Thus, overall, the proposed action would not be expected to change previously analyzed endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates or magnitudes, or substantially alter current fishing practices or bycatch mortality rates.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 17, 2006.
          William T. Hogarth
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 06-1715 Filed 2-17-06; 4:23 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 174 and 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9933-26]
        Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces EPA's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the Pesticide Petition Number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov; or Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
        • Crop production (NAICS code 111).
        • Animal production (NAICS code 112).
        • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
        • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

        If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

        3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.
        II. What action is EPA taking?
        EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

        Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

        As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
        New Tolerances
        1. PP 5E8377. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.523 for residues of the molluscicide metaldehyde, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Wheat forage at 0.05 parts per million (ppm); wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.05 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.05 ppm; beet, garden, roots at 0.05 ppm; beet, garden, tops at 0.08 ppm; rutabaga, roots at 0.05 ppm; turnip, roots at 0.05 ppm; turnip greens (tops) at 0.08 ppm; and hop, dried cones at 0.05 ppm. A gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analytical method for enforcement has been developed for analyzing residues of metaldehyde in food crops, including all of the crops identified above. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.
        2. PP 5F8368. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0554). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.242 for residues of the fungicide thiabendazole in or on legume vegetables (succulent or dried), crop group 6 at 0.01 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables, crop group 7, except pea, field, hay and vines at 0.01 ppm; pea, field, hay at 0.15 ppm; and pea, field, vines at 0.03 ppm. There are acceptable analytical methods for tolerance enforcement that include four spectrophotofluorometric methods for the determination of thiabendazole per se in or on plant commodities and one spectrophotofluorometric method (Method D) for determining residues of thiabendazole and 5-hydroxythiabendazole in milk. Contact: RD.
        Amended Tolerances
        1. PP 5F8364. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0382). Arysta LifeScience North America Corp., 15401 Weston Pkwy., Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.599 for residues of the insecticide acequinocyl in or on hop, dried cones from 4.0 ppm to 15.0 ppm. The analytical method to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on fruit crops utilizes high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric (MS/MS) detection. Contact: RD.
        2. PP 5F8368. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0554). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.242 for residues of the fungicide thiabendazole by removing the tolerances in or on bean, dry, seed at 0.1 ppm; and soybean at 0.1 ppm. There are acceptable analytical methods for tolerance enforcement that include four spectrophotofluorometric methods for the determination of thiabendazole per se in or on plant commodities and one spectrophotofluorometric method (Method D) for determining residues of thiabendazole and 5-hydroxythiabendazole in milk. Contact: RD.
        New Tolerance Exemptions
        1. PP 5F8361. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0488). MacIntosh and Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of AgBiTech Pty Ltd, 8 Rocla Ct., Glenvale, Queensland 4350, Australia), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the microbial insecticide Spodoptera frugiperda Multiple Nucleopolyhedrovirus—3AP2 in or on food crops. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the petitioner is requesting an exemption from tolerance. Contact: BPPD.
        2. PP IN-10782. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524). Spring Trading Co., 10805 W. Timberwagon Cir., Spring, TX 77380 (on behalf of BASF Corp., 100 Campus Dr., Florham Park, NJ 07932), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, cosolvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
        Amended Tolerance Exemption
        1. PP 5G8375. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457). J.R. Simplot Co., 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706, requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 174.534 for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) Potato Late Blight Resistance Gene (also known as Rpi-vnt1) in or on potato. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the petitioner is seeking a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: BPPD.

          Authority:
           21 U.S.C. 346a.

          Dated: August 27, 2015.
          John E. Leahy, Jr.,
          Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

      [FR Doc. 2015-22714 Filed 9-8-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        RIN 0648-BI89
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 28

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of proposed FMP Amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 28 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendment 28 would establish new and revised areas closed to bottom trawling to conserve and protect Pacific coast groundfish essential fish habitat, and would re-open areas that were closed to bottom trawling to rebuild previously-overfished groundfish stocks. Combined, these two changes are anticipated to increase protections for groundfish essential fish habitat and provide additional flexibility to participants fishing with bottom trawl gear in the groundfish trawl rationalization program. Amendment 28 would also close deep-water areas off the coast of California to bottom contacting gear to protect deep-water habitats, including deep-sea corals using discretionary fishery management plan provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 28 must be received on or before August 10, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0039, 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-2019-0039, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom., Regional Administrator, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98115.

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

          FMP Amendment 28, background information and documents are available at the Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/groundfish-amendments-in-development/. Information relevant to Amendment 28, which includes a draft Environmental Impact Statement, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act certification are available for public review during business hours at the NMFS West Coast Regional Office at 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, or by requesting them via phone or the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Additional background documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147, or email: Gretchen.Hanshew@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon, and California under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council prepared and NMFS implemented the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and by regulations at 50 CFR parts 600 and 660. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or 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 an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 28 to the FMP is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 28 to the FMP.
        Amendment 28 would: (1) Revise, or create new area closures to conserve and protect essential fish habitat (EFH) from the adverse effects of bottom trawl fishing activities; (2) re-open historically important fishing grounds to bottom trawl gear to provide additional flexibility in harvest strategies in the Trawl Rationalization Program; (3) close to fishing with bottom contact gear the area of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seaward of 3,500 meters under the Magnuson-Stevens Act discretionary authority to protect deep-water habitats, including deep-sea corals; and (4) update information in the FMP regarding designated EFH and the EFH review process.
        Using the best scientific information available from the periodic review of groundfish EFH, the Council recommended changes to spatial management measures for vessels fishing with bottom trawl gear or bottom contact gear; primarily changes to EFH conservation area (EFHCA) boundaries. The Council recommended revising boundaries of some existing EFHCAs and establishing new EFHCAs in some areas. The new suite of EFHCAs are anticipated to minimize the adverse effects of fishing to groundfish EFH. The Council also recommended reopening the trawl rockfish conservation area (trawl RCA) off Oregon and California. These historically important fishing areas have been closed since 2002 to rebuild overfished groundfish species during a period when the fishery was primarily managed using trip limits. In recent years, NMFS has declared as rebuilt the overfished groundfish stocks most commonly found at depths within the trawl RCA. In addition, the trawl rationalization program has increased incentives for fishermen to use precaution in areas where they may encounter rebuilding stocks and to generally reduce discards. Reopening the trawl RCA off Oregon and California is anticipated to increase the flexibility to vessels fishing with bottom trawl gear so they can harvest a higher proportion of their groundfish quotas. The combination of new and revised EFHCAs and the reopening of the trawl RCA is anticipated to minimize adverse impacts to groundfish EFH from the effects of fishing, while providing participants in the trawl rationalization program additional flexibility for efficient and sustainable harvest of groundfish species with bottom trawl gear.

        The Council also considered new information regarding the deep-water habitats, including the presence of deep-sea corals in waters greater than 3,500 meters. While little to no fishing occurs with gears that are designed to make contact with the bottom in this area, permanent damage to these habitats could occur from future prospective fishing with bottom contact gear. These depths are deeper than designated groundfish EFH. Therefore, Amendment 28 would use the discretionary authority provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to close the EEZ seaward of 3,500 meters to bottom contact gear to protect deep-water habitats, including deep-sea corals that occur there.
        The Council also recommended changes to the FMP that do not have corresponding regulation changes or on the water effects. The Council recommended revising the FMP by updating the description of fishing effects on designated EFH from fisheries that are not managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the purpose of the periodic EFH review and the summaries for research and data needs. The Council also recommended revising the FMP by updating the groundfish life history and the text description of designated EFH, the effects of fishing and non-fishing activities on designated EFH, and latitude and longitude coordinates and maps of EFHCAs. The Council also recommended archiving portions of EFH-related appendices that no longer reflected the best scientific information available.
        NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 28 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 28 in the near future. For public comments on the proposed rule to be considered in the approval or disapproval decision on Amendment 28, those comments must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.

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

          Dated: June 5, 2019.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-12237 Filed 6-10-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P