        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 170627600-8076-01]
        RIN 0648-BG99
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Mutton Snapper and Gag Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council). This proposed rule would revise the mutton snapper commercial and recreational minimum size limits, the recreational bag limit, and the stock annual catch limit (ACL). In addition, this proposed rule would revise the gag commercial minimum size limit. The purpose of this proposed rule is to reduce harvest of mutton snapper to prevent overfishing while also achieving optimum yield (OY), and to streamline management measures to help increase compliance with the fishing regulations for mutton snapper and gag in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf off Florida.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by March 17, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0082” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/NOAA-NMFS-2017-0082, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter your attached comments.
          • Mail: Submit all written comments to Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO), 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), 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 required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the SERO website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2017/mutton_gag/mutton_gag_index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rich Malinowski, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: Rich.Malinowski@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Gulf reef fish fishery includes mutton snapper and gag and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.).
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, while also protecting marine ecosystems. To further attain this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to consider, among other things, efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources.
        In the Gulf and South Atlantic, mutton snapper are harvested by both commercial and recreational fishers, and landings come predominantly from waters adjacent to Florida. In the Gulf, 68 percent of recreational landings come from Florida state waters, but only 2 percent of the commercial landings come from Florida state waters.
        Mutton snapper are managed separately by the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council), but it is a single genetic stock throughout both regions. The stock acceptable biological catch (ABC) is apportioned 18 percent to the Gulf and 82 percent to the South Atlantic. The Gulf stock ACL is equal to the Gulf portion of the ABC and is not allocated between sectors. The Gulf Council established an annual catch target (ACT) set 14 percent below the ACL. However, this ACT is not codified and is not used for management purposes.
        The 2015 Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 15A Update determined that the mutton snapper stock is not overfished and not experiencing overfishing, but that the adult population was smaller than previously estimated through SEDAR 15A (2008). Therefore, the SEDAR 15A Update includes lower overfishing limits (OFLs). These OFLs increase through 2020 but are still well below the OFL included in SEDAR 15A. The Gulf and South Atlantic Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) reviewed the update assessment, agreed with the stock status determinations, and recommended new stock ABCs based on the revised stock OFLs produced by the assessment.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        For mutton snapper, this proposed rule would revise the stock ACL (given in round weight), the commercial and recreational minimum size limits, and the recreational bag limit. This proposed rule would also revise the gag commercial minimum size limit.
        Mutton Snapper Stock ACL
        The current stock ACL for mutton snapper is 203,000 lb (92,079 kg), round weight, and was initially established in 2011 (76 FR 82044; December 29, 2011). This proposed rule would set the Gulf mutton snapper stock ACL at 134,424 lb (60,974 kg) for the 2018 fishing year, 139,392 lb (63,227 kg) for the 2019 fishing year, and 143,694 lb (65,179 kg) for the 2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. These ACLs are based on the ABCs recommended by the SSCs and adopted by the Gulf Council in the framework action. The ACLs are consistent with the current apportionment between the Gulf and South Atlantic and are equal to the Gulf ABCs. The Council did not establish ACTs.
        Mutton Snapper Recreational Bag Limit
        The recreational bag and possession limit for mutton snapper in the Gulf EEZ is 10 fish per day within the 10-snapper aggregate recreational bag limit, as established by Amendment 1 to the FMP (55 FR 2078; January 22, 1990). On January 1, 2017, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) decreased the state's recreational bag limit from 10 mutton snapper per person per day to 5 mutton snapper per person per day within the 10-snapper aggregate bag limit. On January 11, 2018, NMFS published a final rule that changes the recreational bag limit in the South Atlantic EEZ to 5 mutton snapper per person per day within the 10-snapper aggregate bag limit (83 FR 1305). This final rule reduces the recreational bag limit applicable to the Gulf EEZ to 5 mutton snapper per person per day within the 10-snapper aggregate bag limit to be consistent with the Florida state bag limit and South Atlantic bag limit. Consistent mutton snapper recreational bag limits across the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZs and Florida state waters is expected to improve compliance and decrease the burden for law enforcement.
        During the development of this framework action, the public expressed concern regarding the impacts of fishing effort on mutton snapper spawning aggregations in the Florida Keys during the April through June peak spawning season. This reduction in the recreational bag limit could reduce impacts to the stock that may occur during the mutton snapper spawning season.
        Mutton Snapper Minimum Size Limit
        In the Gulf Federal waters, the commercial and recreational minimum size limit for mutton snapper is 16 inches (40.6 cm), total length (TL), as established by Amendment 16B to the FMP (64 FR 57403; October 25, 1999). On August 24, 2017, the FWC increased the mutton snapper commercial and recreational minimum size limit to 18 inches (45.7 cm), TL, in Florida state waters. In addition, on January 11, 2018, NMFS published a final rule to change the mutton snapper commercial and recreational minimum size limit to 18 inches (45.7 cm), TL, in the South Atlantic EEZ (83 FR 1305). This rule revises the mutton snapper commercial and recreational minimum size limits to 18 inches (45.7 cm), TL, in the Gulf EEZ to be consistent with Florida and South Atlantic minimum size limits. As with the proposed change to the recreational bag limit, this change increases regulatory consistency, to improve compliance and decrease the burden for law enforcement.
        Generally, increasing the minimum size limit for a species increases the age of harvested fish, making it more likely that an individual reaches sexual maturity before leaving the population and also slows harvest rates. However, more than 95 percent of mutton snapper landings from the Gulf are from the commercial sector and 95 percent of the commercial landings are larger than 20 inches (50.8 cm). Therefore, NMFS expects little effect on the spawning population and harvest rates as a result of this proposed change.
        Gag Commercial Minimum Size Limit
        In the Gulf EEZ, the commercial minimum size limit for gag is 22 inches (55.8 cm), TL, and was put into place through Amendment 32 to the FMP (72 FR 6988; February 10, 2012) to reduce discard mortality of gag. This proposed rule would increase the Gulf gag commercial minimum size limit to 24 inches (60.9 cm), TL to make the commercial minimum size limit consistent with the Gulf recreational minimum size limit as well as consistent with the South Atlantic and Florida commercial and recreational size limits.

        Over 98 percent of Gulf commercial gag landings come from waters adjacent to Florida, and a recent analysis of Gulf commercial landings from 2013 through 2015 indicates that 94.5 percent of commercially harvested gag in the Gulf waters are at least 24 inches (60.9 cm), TL. Therefore, increasing the commercial minimum is expected to improve compliance and decrease the burden for law enforcement by increasing regulatory consistency, but it is not expected to increase regulatory discards of gag.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect all commercial vessels that harvest Gulf mutton snapper and/or gag under the FMP. Changes to recreational ACLs, minimum size limits, or recreational bag limits in this framework and proposed rule would not directly apply to or regulate charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses would be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and would therefore be indirect in nature. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who would be directly affected by this proposed rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        As of July 8, 2017, there were 839 vessels with valid or renewable Federal Gulf reef fish commercial vessel permits. From 2010 through 2015, an average of 119 vessels per year landed mutton snapper in state and Federal waters of the Gulf. These vessels, combined, averaged 429 trips per year in the Gulf on which mutton snapper were landed and 1,594 other trips taken in the Gulf on which no mutton snapper were landed or were taken in the South Atlantic. The average annual total dockside revenue (2015 dollars) was approximately $0.22 million from mutton snapper, approximately $4.34 million from other species co-harvested with mutton snapper (on the same trips), and approximately $12.10 million from other trips by these vessels in the Gulf on which no mutton snapper were harvested or occurred in the South Atlantic. Total average annual revenue from all species harvested by vessels harvesting mutton snapper in the Gulf was approximately $16.66 million, or approximately $138,764 per vessel. For the same period, an average of 375 vessels per year landed gag in the Gulf. These vessels, combined, averaged 2,936 trips per year in the Gulf on which gag were landed and 2,416 trips taken either in the Gulf on which gag were not harvested or trips taken in the South Atlantic. The average annual total dockside revenue (2015 dollars) for these 375 vessels was approximately $2.39 million from gag, approximately $25.32 million from other species co-harvested with gag (on the same trips in the Gulf), and approximately $17.06 million from the other trips taken by these vessels. The total average annual revenue from all species harvested by these 375 vessels was approximately $44.77 million, or approximately $120,238 per vessel. Based on the foregoing revenue information, all commercial vessels affected by the proposed rule may be assumed to be small entities.
        Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities; however, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
        Relevant to commercial vessels, the proposed rule would modify the 2018-2020, and subsequent years', ACLs for the Gulf apportionment of mutton snapper; increase the minimum size limit for commercial mutton snapper in the Gulf to 18 inches (45.7 cm) TL; and, increase the commercial minimum size limit for gag in the Gulf to 24 inches (60.9 cm) TL.
        Modifying the ACLs for mutton snapper would result in ACL reductions each year from 2018 through 2020. Vessel revenue reductions corresponding to these reduced ACLs would be approximately $166,000 in 2018, $154,000 in 2019, and $143,000 in 2020, or an annual average of approximately $160,000 for the four-year period. If distributed equally among the 119 vessels, average annual revenue loss would be approximately $1,350 per vessel. This annual revenue loss per vessel would be approximately 1 percent of average per vessel revenues from all species.
        Increasing the Gulf mutton snapper minimum size limit from 16 inches (40.6 cm), TL, to 18 inches (45.7 cm), TL, would affect approximately 0.2 percent of commercial landings, or approximately $495 annually in total vessel revenues. This revenue reduction is minimal, and it is also unlikely to be in addition to the estimated revenue losses from the reductions in ACLs, because NMFS expects fishermen to catch the full amount of the ACLs even with an increase in the minimum size limit for mutton snapper.
        Increasing the commercial gag minimum size limit in the Gulf from 22 inches (55.8 cm), TL, to 24 inches (60.9 cm), TL, could potentially reduce commercial gag landings by 12,207 lb (5,537 kg) annually, or approximately $61,890 in total vessel revenues. These landings and revenue loss, however, appear unlikely because gag are managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, and IFQ participants would likely adjust their trip level catch composition throughout the year or sell a portion of their annual gag allocation to other fishers, rather than suffer a loss in revenues.
        The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were considered by the Council, including those that were not selected as preferred by the Council.

        Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative described in this proposed rule, were considered for establishing ACLs for Gulf mutton snapper. The first alternative, the no-action alternative, would maintain the current economic benefits to all participants in the mutton snapper component of the reef fish fishery. This alternative, however, would be inconsistent with the best scientific information available and would allow more harvest than is recommended by the SSCs based on the most recent stock assessment.
        The second alternative, which is the preferred alternative, includes two options, one of which is the preferred option. The non-preferred option would apply the Gulf's ACL/ACT control rule, with the resultant ACT being 12 percent less than the ACL. Because the ACT is not currently used for management purposes, the economic effects of this option would be the same as that of the preferred option.
        The third alternative would establish ACLs that would be lower than the ACLs in the preferred alternative, and thus would be expected to result in larger revenue losses than the preferred alternative.
        Three alternatives, one of which includes the preferred alternative described in this proposed rule, were considered for modifying the mutton snapper minimum size limit. The first alternative, the no-action alternative, would maintain the 16-inch (40.6 cm), TL, minimum size limit for commercial and recreational mutton snapper, and thus would not be expected to change the economic benefits from fishing for mutton snapper. However, this alternative would not achieve one of the stated goals of changing the minimum size limit, which is to establish consistent size limit regulations between the Gulf EEZ, the South Atlantic EEZ, and Florida state waters.
        The second alternative would increase the minimum size limit for commercial and recreational mutton snapper to 20 inches (50.8 cm), TL. This alternative would be expected to result in larger revenue reductions to commercial vessels than the preferred alternative.
        Two alternatives, including the preferred alternative described in this proposed rule, were considered for modifying the commercial gag minimum size limit. The only alternative to the preferred action is the no-action alternative which would retain the 22-inch (55.8 cm), TL, minimum size limit for gag. However, this alternative would not establish consistent size limit regulations between the Gulf EEZ, the South Atlantic EEZ, and Florida state waters. Furthermore, although the preferred alternative would be expected to reduce vessel revenues by approximately $61,890 relative to the no-action alternative, as previously noted, such revenue reduction is deemed unlikely under an IFQ program.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Gag, Gulf of Mexico, Mutton snapper, South Atlantic.

          Dated: February 12, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.37, revise paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(1) to read as follows:

          § 622.37
          Size limits.

          (a) * * *
          (5) Mutton snapper—18 inches (45.7 cm), TL.
          (b) * * *
          (1) Gag—24 inches (61.0 cm), TL.

        3. In § 622.38, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:

          § 622.38
          Bag and possession limits.

          (b) * * *
          (4) Snappers, combined, excluding red, lane, and vermilion snapper—10. In addition, within the 10-fish aggregate snapper bag limit, no more than 5 fish may be mutton snapper.

        4. In § 622.41, revise the last sentence of paragraph (o) to read as follows:

          § 622.41
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (o) * * * The stock ACL for mutton snapper, in round weight, is 134,424 lb (60,974 kg) for 2018, 139,392 lb (63,227 kg) for 2019, and 143,694 lb (65,179 kg) for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.

      [FR Doc. 2018-03180 Filed 2-14-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 090701F]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for written comments; notice of scoping meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces its intent to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and Tanner Crabs (FMP).  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council proposes to rationalize the BSAI crab fisheries through an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program, or a cooperative program.  The scope of the EIS will be a programmatic review of the FMP, examining all activities addressing the conduct of the BSAI crab fisheries authorized under the FMP, including components of proposed rationalization programs, and potential changes to the management of the fisheries under these programs.
          NMFS will hold public scoping meetings and accept written comments to determine the issues of concern and the appropriate range of management alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.

          DATES:

          Written comments will be accepted through November 16, 2001.  A public scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, September 20, 2001, in Anchorage, AK.  For dates and times of scoping meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on issues and alternatives for the EIS should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK, 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Comments may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7557.   NMFS will not accept comments by e-mail or the internet.  For locations of the public scoping meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          Written comments specifically addressing the Council’s analysis of rationalization programs should be sent to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Street, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, (907) 586-7228 or e-mail gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the United States has exclusive fishery management authority over all living marine resources found within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).  The management of these marine resources, with the exception of marine mammals and birds, is vested in the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).  Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils prepare fishery management plans for approval and implementation by the Secretary.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has the responsibility to prepare fishery management plans for the fishery resources that require conservation and management in the EEZ off Alaska.
        NEPA requires preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions significantly impacting the quality of the human environment.  Regulations implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.4(b) state:

          Environmental impact statements may be prepared, and are sometimes required, for broad Federal actions such as adoption of new agency programs or regulations.  Agencies shall prepare statements on broad actions so that they are relevant to policy and are timed to coincide with meaningful points in agency planning and decision making.

        The FMP was approved by the Secretary on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 29080).  The Secretary approved a revised and updated FMP on March 9, 1999 (64 FR 11390).  The FMP establishes a State/Federal cooperative management regime that defers many aspects of crab management to the State of Alaska (State), with Federal oversight.  The FMP identifies specific aspects of crab management that remain under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, such as limited access.
        The FMP is a framework plan for the management measures deferred to the State.  For these measures, the framework in the FMP establishes policy objectives and criteria instead of selecting specific management measures.  This allows for long-term management of the fishery without frequent amendments to the FMP.
        FMP amendments are required for changes to the management measures under Federal jurisdiction and for changes to the framework plan for management measures deferred to the State.   FMP amendments are also required to keep the FMP in compliance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        NMFS  has identified the need to prepare an EIS to take a programmatic look at the FMP and possible alternatives to the FMP in light of Council consideration of a program to rationalize the BSAI crab fisheries.  NMFS recognizes that the rationalization programs under consideration will result in substantial changes to many of the current management measures and possibly the framework of the FMP and that these programmatic changes may significantly affect the environment.  NMFS views this as an opportune time to analyze these potential changes as well as analyze alternative ways to manage the BSAI crab fisheries.
        The proposed action to be addressed in the EIS is the rationalization of the BSAI crab fisheries.  Given this proposed action, the scope of the EIS will be a programmatic review of the FMP, examining all activities addressing the conduct of the BSAI crab fisheries authorized under the FMP, including components of proposed rationalization programs and potential changes to the management of the fisheries under these programs.  The scope of the analysis is intended to be broad enough for the Council and NMFS to make an informed decision on a rationalization program and to undertake further analysis of other changes to the FMP as necessary with the implementation of these programs.
        NMFS is seeking information from the public through the scoping process on the range of alternatives to be analyzed and on the environmental, social, and economic issues to be considered in the analysis.
        Alternatives
        NMFS will evaluate a range of alternative FMPs for managing the BSAI crab fisheries.  Alternatives analyzed in the EIS may include those identified here, plus additional alternatives developed through the public scoping process and through working with the Council and the State.  Each alternative would constitute a complete FMP, that would include an approach for every aspect needed in an FMP.
        The potential alternatives already identified for the EIS include: (1) The existing FMP (no action) and (2) an FMP as modified by a rationalization program (IFQ or cooperatives).
        The Council will recommend the specific alternative for the rationalization program in early 2002.  In June 2001, the Council adopted a suite of alternatives, elements, and options for an analysis of potential rationalization programs for the BSAI crab fisheries.  These alternatives, elements, and options were developed through the Council’s rationalization committee, Advisory Panel meetings, and Council meetings.  Congressional action would be required to provide statute authority to implement the alternatives under Council consideration.
        Public Involvement
        Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action.  A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement process is to identify a reasonable range of management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing between those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative.
        NMFS is seeking written public comments on the scope of issues that should be addressed in the EIS and alternatives that should be considered for management of the BSAI crab fisheries.

        Public comments on specific aspects of the rationalization programs should be submitted to the Council (see ADDRESSES).  The public will also be able to provide oral and written comments through the Council process and at Council meetings.  Upon completion, the Council will make a draft analysis of these proposed programs available for public review and comment.   Copies of the analysis can be requested from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Dates, Times, and Locations for Public Information Meetings

        The public is invited to assist NMFS in developing the scope of alternatives and issues to be analyzed for the EIS.  Comments will be accepted in writing at the meetings and at the NMFS address (see ADDRESSES).
        One public scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, September 20, 2001, from 2 to 4 p.m., at the Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3rd Street, Anchorage, Alaska, in conjunction with the Council’s Crab Plan Team meeting.
        Two additional scoping meetings will be held in Seattle, Washington:  One, on Monday, October 1, 2001, from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m., at the Leif Erikson Hall, 2245 N.W. 57th Street, in conjunction with the Annual Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands Crab Industry Meeting; and the second on Thursday, October 4, 2001, from 7 to 9 p.m., at the Sea-Tac airport Doubletree, 18740 International Blvd., in conjunction with the October Council meeting.
        Special Accommodations

        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gretchen Harrington, NMFS, (see ADDRESSES), (907) 586-7228, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: September 14, 2001.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-23470 Filed 9-17-01; 2:29 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 37
        [Docket No. DOT-OST-2013-0014]
        Notice of Retrospective Review of the Americans With Disabilities Act Regulations for Over-the-Road Bus Operators; Request for Comments

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice.

          SUMMARY:

          The DOT is seeking comments to help conduct a review of some of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) implementing regulations for over-the-road bus (OTRB) operators. The DOT will review regulations specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Your comments will assist DOT with making decisions to modify or retain certain requirements found in these ADA regulations.

          DATES:
          Please send your comments by April 29, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to assist in our review of 49 CFR part 37 subpart H to the Office of General Counsel. Mail or hand deliver comments to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov; or fax comments to 202-366-9313. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Regulation and Enforcement (C-50), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-493-0308 (telephone), 202-366-9313 (fax), jill.laptosky@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On September 28, 1998, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) issued final regulations, in response to the ADA (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. 225 and 611), which required the accessibility of new over-the-road buses (OTRBs) and accessible OTRB service. An OTRB is defined as “a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.” 49 CFR 37.3. The regulations require commercial OTRB operators to ensure that passengers with disabilities have access to OTRB transportation. The DOT is required by 49 CFR 37.215 to review various requirements within the ADA regulations for OTRB operators. These requirements include the following: the purchase and lease requirements of new OTRBs by operators of fixed-route systems (§ 37.183), the fleet accessibility requirements for OTRB fixed-route systems of large operators (§ 37.185), the interline service requirements (§ 37.187), the service requirement for OTRB demand-responsive systems (§ 37.189), the special provision for small mixed-service operators (§ 37.191), and the interim service requirements for fixed-route operators (§ 37.193(a)). We are not reviewing any other requirements in the ADA regulations for OTRB operators at this time.

        As part of this review, DOT is required to consider certain factors, including the percentage of accessible OTRBs in the fleets of OTRB operators, the success of such operators at meeting the requests of passengers with disabilities for accessible OTRBs in a timely manner, ridership of OTRBs by passengers with disabilities, volume of complaints by passengers with disabilities, and the cost and service impacts of these requirements. After the review, DOT will decide whether it is appropriate to revise the part 37 ADA regulations for OTRB operators or retain the current regulations without change. The DOT will publish a notice, after the review is complete, that announces our decision and our justification.
        To this end, DOT requests comments and information so the Department can better review such ADA regulations and make an informed decision on whether to initiate a rulemaking to propose revisions to any of the regulations involving OTRBs and, if so, how to develop a notice of proposed rulemaking. Specifically, comments about OTRB fleet accessibility, fulfillment of accessible OTRB service requests, and ridership and volume of complaints by passengers with disabilities, would be helpful. The DOT welcomes comments from the public, including OTRB operators and individuals with disabilities, on any aspect of this notice. The Department is particularly interested in comments from OTRB operators, both large and small, on the following:
        1. The accessibility of your OTRB fleet. How many OTRBs do you own? Of the OTRBs that you own, how many are accessible? How many OTRBs are term-leased longer than 30 days? Of the OTRBs that are term-leased, how many are accessible? Have you been successful at meeting the requests of passengers with disabilities for accessible OTRBs in a timely manner, and what challenges continue to exist in meeting these requests?
        2. Accessibility arrangements. If your company does not own or lease an accessible OTRB, what arrangements have you made to meet the requirements to provide accessible transportation? For example, has your company made arrangements with another company that operates an accessible OTRB to provide accessible OTRB service on behalf of your company when a 48-hour advance notice request for accessible OTRB service is received?
        3. Received requests. Within the previous 12 months, have you received any of the following inquiries, requests, or complaints, and, if so, how many?
        • Inquiries regarding whether your company owns or leases an accessible OTRB,
        • Inquiries regarding whether your company can provide accessible OTRB service,
        • Requests for accessible OTRB service that were received with a minimum of 48-hour advance notice and satisfied according to the requested provisions,
        • Number of passengers with disabilities who have used your company's accessible OTRB service, and

        • Complaints regarding denial of accessible OTRB service to an individual with a disability.

        4. Costs and Service Impacts. What are your company's costs of providing accessible OTRB service? Please provide specific cost data broken down into various cost categories (e.g., maintenance). What effect does accessible transportation compliance have on your overall operation?
        5. Other Comments. The Department is also interested in your input on whether any specific requirement under review should be changed and why. Please provide supporting information for your recommended change, and explain whether the recommended regulatory change would affect all types of OTRB operators or just one type, such as large fixed-route, small fixed-route, or all demand-responsive operators.
        Your comments will help the Department conduct a review of its ADA regulations for OTRB operators and decide whether to propose any regulatory revisions. At this time, there are no pending proposed revisions to DOT's ADA regulations for OTRB operators.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2013.
          Robert S. Rivkin,
          General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2013-04309 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 51
        [FRL-7784-5]
        RIN 2060-AJ31
        Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Control Technology (BART) Determinations; Notice of Public Comment Period Extension

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of public comment period extension.

          SUMMARY:
          The EPA is announcing that the public comment period for the proposed rule “Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Control Technology (BART) Determinations” (69 FR 25184, May 5, 2004) is extended from July 6, 2004 until July 15, 2004. We are required under CAA section 307(d)(5)(iv) to accept comments for at least 30 days after a public hearing. Two public hearings were held on the proposed rule; one on June 4, 2004, in Alexandria, VA, and the second on June 15, 2004, in Denver, CO. Because we held our second public hearing on June 15, 2004, the public comment period will remain open until July 15, 2004.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by July 15, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the BART rule may also be submitted to EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the BART rule for the addresses and detailed instructions.

          Documents relevant to the proposed rule are available for public inspection at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Documents are also available through EPA's electronic Docket system at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

          The EPA web site for the proposed rule is at http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/actions.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Questions concerning the proposed BART Rule should be addressed to Kathy Kaufman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0102, e-mail kaufman.kathy@epa.gov, or Todd Hawes, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5591, e-mail at at hawes.todd@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

        The BART rule is available at the EPA website identified above, and was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2004 at 69 FR 25184.
        The EPA has established the official public docket for the BART rule under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0076. The EPA has also developed a web site for the proposal at the addresses given above. Please refer to the proposals for detailed information on accessing information related to the proposal.

          Dated: July 1, 2004.
          Jeff Clark,
          Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

      [FR Doc. 04-15531 Filed 7-6-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 060511126-7082-04; I.D. 050306E]
        RIN 0648-AT71
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule for the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) rockfish fisheries to revise monitoring and enforcement (M&E) provisions related to catcher/processor vessels harvesting under the opt-out fishery, and to make changes to regulations governing the rockfish fisheries. This action is necessary to clarify procedures and to correct discrepancies in a November 20, 2006, final rule. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 30, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • Mail: to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK 99802;
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557;
          • E-mail: 0648-AT71-GOA68PR@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the email the following identifier: Rockfish Program correction 0648-AT71. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to five megabytes; or
          • Webform at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          Copies of Amendment 68; the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendment 68; and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for Amendment 68 may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jason Anderson, 907 586 7228 or jason.anderson@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In January 2004 the U.S. Congress amended section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108 199, section 802). As amended, the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish a limited access privilege program for the Central GOA rockfish fisheries (Program), developed in coordination with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). The Council recommended Amendment 68 to the FMP for groundfish in the GOA on June 6, 2005, to make the Program effective.
        NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 68 on May 15, 2006 (71 FR 27984). On June 7, 2006, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 68 and the Program (71 FR 33040). The Secretary approved Amendment 68 on August 11, 2006. NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 68 on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67210).

        The Program provides exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for a specific set of rockfish species and associated species harvested incidentally to those rockfish in the Central GOA an area between 147° W. longitude and 159° W. longitude. A detailed overview of the Program is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 33040; June 7, 2006) and is not repeated here. However, a component of the Program allows holders of License Limitation Program licenses that are assigned rockfish quota share (QS) for the catcher/processor sector to opt-out of many of the aspects of the Program (opt-out fishery). Participants in the opt-out fishery are subject to harvest limitations, called sideboards, during the month of July. Sideboard limits applicable to participants in the opt-out fishery include measures to limit catch of specific groundfish species to historic levels, and limits on the amount of Pacific halibut bycatch, specifically termed prohibited species catch (PSC). NMFS requires a suite of M&E provisions for participants in the opt-out fishery to ensure they do not exceed their sideboards.
        Need for Corrections
        NMFS seeks to ensure that the November, 20, 2006, final rule (71 FR 67210) conforms to the intent of the Program, and to provide clarification regarding the Program's regulatory requirements.
        Regulatory Intent Clarification
        In the proposed rule to implement Amendment 68 (71 FR 33040; June 7, 2006), NMFS detailed the M&E provisions that would apply to participants in the opt-out fishery. The proposed suite of M&E provisions applicable to the opt-out fishery included requirements that each haul must be weighed separately, all catch must be made available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer (see proposed regulatory text at § 679.84(c)(1); 71 FR 33096), and that the vessel has no more than one operational line or other conveyance for the mechanized movement of catch between the scale used to weigh total catch and the location where the observer collects species composition samples (see proposed regulatory text at § 679.84(c)(4); 71 FR 33096). The proposed rule would have required that all catcher/processor vessels in the opt-out fishery be subject to these M&E requirements during July. The effect of the full suite of these M&E requirements on the regulated industry and the environment was analyzed in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed rule to implement the Program.

        In response to public comment received on the proposed rule, NMFS modified the M&E provisions that apply to the opt-out fishery. The modifications were detailed in the preamble to the final rule. Specifically, NMFS noted these changes in the summary of changes section to the preamble (71 FR 67213) and in its response to comment 90 (71 FR 67229). NMFS also analyzed the effect of the revised M&E provisions for the opt-out fishery in the final EA/RIR and FRFA prepared for the Program final rule (see ADDRESSES). The preamble to the final rule clearly indicated that NMFS intended to maintain the requirement for hauls to be weighed separately, and intended to require only one operational line.
        The final regulatory text applicable to the opt-out fishery omitted some of the M&E requirements for catcher/processor vessels in the opt-out fishery that were detailed in the preamble to the final rule. Specifically, the regulations at § 679.84(d) failed to include the requirements to prevent mixing of hauls and maintain only one operational line before the point where the observer samples catch. These two requirements are essential for accurately attributing species composition to a specific haul and, in particular, to provide onboard observers the ability to properly attribute halibut PSC to a specific haul. Assigning halibut PSC to a specific haul is necessary to generate halibut PSC usage rates for specific fishery targets. Mixing of hauls and using more than one operational line undermines NMFS' ability to determine accurate halibut PSC usage for specific fisheries and creates the potential for improper halibut PSC accounting. Because the distribution of organisms by size and species often differs among hauls, an aggregation of hauls (i.e., mixing two or more hauls) could create errors in the calculation of total groundfish catch. For example, if a vessel were to mix hauls from two different areas or depths, species catch composition and size could be significantly different between these hauls, and a composite sample may not be representative of each individual haul. Any errors would be exacerbated as the composite sample is expanded to represent the total weight of the mixed hauls. Similarly, the use of more than one operational line could lead to improperly sampled catch because catch could be diverted or otherwise conveyed in a manner that would limit adequate sampling.
        Improper accounting of halibut PSC increases the risk that NMFS' catch accounting system may underestimate the amount of halibut PSC in the opt-out fishery, which undermines the conservation goals of this program. Because halibut PSC sideboards are likely to be small relative to harvest rates, timely and accurate accounting is essential to properly constrain fishing operations and ensure adequate conservation of the halibut resource.
        Additionally, halibut PSC sideboards are allocated to specific participants within the catcher/processor sector (i.e., halibut PSC sideboard limits are established for each catcher/processor rockfish cooperative, and a combined halibut PSC limit is established for the combined catcher/processor rockfish limited access and opt-out fisheries). Failure to properly account for halibut PSC in a timely fashion with the best available data could increase the possibility that the opt-out fishery exceeds its halibut PSC sideboard limit. This could adversely constrain other fishery participants with halibut PSC limits (e.g., participants in catcher/processor cooperatives).
        Finally, certain catcher/processor operators that may choose to participate in the opt-out fishery may have an incentive to use techniques to intentionally bias halibut PSC rates if mixing of hauls and the use of more than one operational line is permitted. Recent enforcement actions document intentional presorting of catch to bias observed catch rates of halibut PSC to maximize groundfish catch relative to constraining PSC or other groundfish catch. However, NMFS expects that opportunities to bias observer samples in the opt-out fishery will be reduced with the changes established under this rule.
        NMFS proposes to revise the regulatory text to include requirements to prevent the mixing of hauls and maintain only one operational line before the point where the observer samples catch. This action is necessary to be consistent with the intent of the final rule and provide the affected public with accurate information regarding these requirements.
        Additional Changes
        Regulations at § 679.80(f)(3)(iii)(F) include a grammatical error. This paragraph would be revised to correct the phrase, “are the sum of all catch history” to read, “is the sum of all catch history.”
        Regulations at § 679.82(d)(5)(iii) describe sideboard limits applicable to catcher vessels for the Program. This paragraph includes an erroneous cross-reference to “§ 679.65(b)(1)(i)(B).” This cross-reference would be corrected to read “§ 679.64(b)(2)(ii).”
        Regulations at § 679.82(d)(8)(ii)(B) include a misspelled word. This paragraph would be revised to correct the phrase, “percent fo the GOA” to read, “percent of the GOA.”

        Regulations at § 679.83(a)(1)(i) describe rockfish allocations for the Program's entry level fishery. This paragraph includes an erroneous cross-reference to “§ 679.81(ab)(2).” This cross-reference would be corrected to read “§ 679.81(a)(2).”
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for the regulations implementing the Program. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. Copies of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the Program are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of that analysis follows.

          Why action by the agency is being considered and objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule. The IRFA prepared for the Program describes in detail the reasons why this action is being proposed, describes the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, and discusses both small and non-small regulated entities to adequately characterize the fishery participants. Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 and the Magnuson-Stevens Act provide the legal basis for the Program, namely to achieve the objective of reducing excessive fishing capacity and ending the race for fish under the current management strategy for commercial fishing vessels operating in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. NMFS proposes to revise the regulatory text to include requirements to prevent the mixing of hauls and maintain only one operational line before the point where the observer samples catch. This action is necessary to be consistent with the intent of the Program and provide the affected public with accurate information regarding these requirements.

          Description of significant alternatives. The Council considered an extensive and elaborate series of alternatives, options, and suboptions as it designed and evaluated the potential for rationalization of the Central GOA rockfish fisheries, including the “no action” alternative. Three alternatives for catcher vessels were considered: Status Quo/No Action (Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative management with a limited license program for processors (Alternative 2); and rockfish cooperative management with linkages between rockfish cooperatives and processors (Alternative 3). Three alternatives for catcher/processors also were considered: Status Quo/No Action (Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative management (Alternative 2); and a sector allocation (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 for catcher vessels and Alternative 2 for catcher/processors were combined to form the Council's preferred alternative the rockfish cooperative alternative. The alternatives were analyzed relative to the status quo. Because the regulatory effect for opt-out sideboard fisheries will not occur until July, 1 2007, the status quo has not changed. Therefore, the effects of these alternatives described in the Program IRFA have not changed relative to this action. These alternatives constitute the suite of “significant alternatives,” under the proposed action, for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
        After an exhaustive public process spanning several years, the Council concluded that the Program best accomplishes the stated objectives articulated in the problem statement and applicable statutes, and minimizes to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly regulated small entities.

          Number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. The IRFA prepared for the Program contains a description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply. The IRFA estimates that as many as 15 catcher/processor vessels are eligible to receive QS under the Program. The IRFA estimates that approximately 171 trawl vessels and 900 non-trawl vessels could participate in the entry level fishery. The number of vessels that would choose to participate in the entry level fishery component of the Program is not known; therefore, there is no estimate of the number of entities in the entry level fishery that are directly regulated under this Program.
        In addition, six entities that process rockfish are estimated to be eligible rockfish processors and would be regulated under this Program. None of these eligible rockfish processors are estimated to be small entities based on the number of persons employed by these processors. Additionally, some of these eligible rockfish processors are estimated to be involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood products and exceed the $4.0 million in revenues as a fish harvesting operation. Some processors that are not eligible rockfish processors may choose to compete for landings from the entry level fishery and would be regulated by this Program. Some of these processors may be small entities. The extent of participation by small entities in the processing segment of the entry level fishery cannot be predicted.
        Of the estimated 63 entities owning vessels eligible for fishing under the Program (other than the entry-level fishery), 45 are estimated to be small entities because they generated $4.0 million or less in gross revenue based on participation in 1996 through 2002. All 15 of the entities owning eligible catcher/processor vessels are non-small entities as defined by the RFA. No catcher vessel individually exceeds the small entity threshold of $4.0 million in gross revenues. At least three catcher vessels are believed to be owned by entities whose operations exceed the small entity threshold, leaving an estimated many as 45 small catcher vessel entities that are directly regulated by this action. The ability to estimate the number of small entities that operate catcher vessels regulated by this action is limited due to incomplete information concerning vessel ownership.
        It is likely that a substantial portion of the catcher vessel participants in the entry level fishery will be small entities. Based on data from NOAA Fisheries, there are approximately 171 LLP licenses that would be qualified to fish in the Central GOA entry level trawl fishery, and 900 LLP licenses that would qualify to fish in the entry level fixed gear fishery. However, it is not possible to determine how many persons may hold these LLP licenses and chose to participate in the entry level fishery at the time of application to participate in the fishery. The number of persons holding LLPs is likely to be less than the total number of LLP licenses that may be used to participate in the entry level fishery because a person may hold more than one LLP license at a time.

        Six entities made at least one rockfish landing from 1996 to 2002, but none appeared to qualify as an eligible rockfish harvester. Five of these entities are not small entities and one entity qualifies as “small” by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. The non-small entities owned five catcher/processors. The one small entity owns a catcher vessel. Entities that do not qualify for the Program either left the fishery, currently fish under interim LLP licenses, or do not hold an LLP license. Moreover, the vessels the IRFA prepared for the Program considers “non-qualified” could not or would not be allowed to continue fishing under the current LLP. The impacts to the small entities that would be prohibited from fishing by the LLP were analyzed in the RIR/IRFA and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for the LLP. Therefore, the non-qualified vessels are not considered impacted by the proposed rule and are not discussed in this IRFA.

        For purposes of the RIR prepared for the Program, the community of Kodiak, Alaska, could be directly impacted by the Program. All of the eligible rockfish processors are located in Kodiak. The specific impacts on Kodiak cannot be determined until NMFS issues QS and eligible rockfish harvesters begin fishing under the Program. Other supporting businesses may also be indirectly affected by this action if it leads to fewer vessels participating in the fishery. These impacts are analyzed in the RIR prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).

          Projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. Implementation of the Program would change the overall reporting structure and recordkeeping requirements of the participants in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. All participants would be required to provide additional reporting. Each harvester would be required to track harvests to avoid exceeding his or her allocation. As in other North Pacific rationalized fisheries, processors would provide catch recording data to managers to monitor harvest of allocations. Processors would be required to record deliveries and processing activities to aid in the Program administration. The specifics of changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements can be found in the preamble to the Program proposed rule (71 FR 33040, June 2, 2006).

          Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. No Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed action have been identified.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 11, 2007.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.; and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110.

        2. In § 679.80, revise paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(F) to read as follows:

          § 679.80
          Initial allocation of rockfish QS.

          (f) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (F) Determine the percentage of legal rockfish landings from the official Rockfish Program record in the qualifying years used to calculate the rockfish QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector and multiply the rockfish QS units calculated in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) of this section by this percentage. This yields the rockfish QS units to be assigned to the catcher/processor sector for that LLP license and species. For each primary rockfish species, the total amount of rockfish QS units assigned to the catcher/processor sector is the sum of all catch history allocation units assigned to all eligible rockfish harvesters in the catcher/processor sector.

        3. In § 679.82, revise paragraphs (d)(5)(iii) and (d)(8)(ii)(B) to read as follows:

          § 679.82
          Rockfish Program use caps and sideboard limits.

          (d) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (iii) Any AFA vessel that is not exempt from GOA groundfish sideboards under the AFA as specified under § 679.64(b)(2)(ii) is exempt from the sideboard limits in this paragraph (d).

          (8) * * *
          (ii) * * *
          (B) The aggregate halibut PSC used in the shallow-water complex from July 1 through July 31 in each year from 1996 through 2002 by LLP licenses assigned to that rockfish cooperative that are subject to directed fishing closures under this paragraph (d), divided by 0.54 percent of the GOA annual halibut mortality limit.

        4. In § 679.83, revise paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as follows:

          § 679.83
          Rockfish Program entry level fishery.
          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) Trawl catcher vessels. Trawl catcher vessels participating in the rockfish entry level fishery may collectively harvest, prior to September 1, an amount not greater than 50 percent of the total allocation to the rockfish entry level fishery as calculated under § 679.81(a)(2). Allocations to trawl catcher vessels shall be made first from the allocation of Pacific ocean perch available to the rockfish entry level fishery. If the amount of Pacific ocean perch available for allocation is less than the total allocation allowable for trawl catcher vessels in the rockfish entry level fishery, then northern rockfish and pelagic shelf rockfish shall be allocated to trawl catcher vessels.

        5. In § 679.84, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

          § 679.84
          Rockfish Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and catch accounting.

          (d) Catch monitoring requirements for catcher/processors assigned to the opt-out fishery. At all times any catcher/processor vessel assigned to the opt-out fishery has groundfish onboard that vessel that were harvested subject to a sideboard limit as described under § 679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, the vessel owner or operator must ensure catch from an individual haul is not mixed with catch from another haul prior to sampling by a NMFS-certified observer, that all catch be made available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer, and that the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5), (8), and (9) of this section are met.

      [FR Doc. E7-7193 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 15
        [ET Docket No. 18-295 and GN Docket No. 17-183; Report No. 3152; FRS 16906]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Proceedings

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's proceeding by Jeffrey S. Cohen, on behalf of APCO International, Jennifer L. Oberhausen, on behalf of CTIA, Donald J. Evans, on behalf Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, and Tara L. Preiss, on behalf of Verizon.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before July 29, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 10, 2020.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-0636.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3152, released June 29, 2020. Petitions may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, FCC 20-51, published 85 FR 31390, May 26, 2020 in GN ET Docket No. 18-295 and GN Docket No. 17-183. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Cecilia Sigmund,
          Federal Register Liaison Officer.

      [FR Doc. 2020-14711 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 051603C]
        RIN 0648-AQ65
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the FMP for Atlantic Billfish

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

          ACTION:
          Cancelling and changing the location and time of certain public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          Due to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, NMFS is cancelling two public hearings on the draft consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and proposed rule that were scheduled for September 6 and September 8, 2005, in Orange Beach, AL, and New Orleans, LA, respectively. NMFS intends to reschedule the September 6 Orange Beach and September 8 New Orleans public hearings at a later date. In addition, NMFS has changed the location and time of the public hearing that was scheduled to be held in Fort Lauderdale, FL, on October 3, 2005, at the African American Arts and Cultural Center Research Library. The draft consolidated HMS FMP and the proposed rule describe a range of management measures that could impact fishermen and dealers for all HMS fisheries.

          DATES:
          The Fort Lauderdale public hearing will still be held on Monday, October 3, 2005. However, the new time will be from 7 - 10 p.m. The hearings scheduled for September 6 and September 8, 2005, in Orange Beach, AL, and New Orleans, LA, have been cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date.

          ADDRESSES:
          The new location of the Fort Lauderdale public hearing will be the Broward County Main Library, 100 South Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Heather Stirratt or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 713-2347.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, finalized in 1999, and the FMP for Atlantic Billfish, finalized in 1988, are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

        On August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48804), NMFS published a proposed rule that, among other things, announced the availability of the draft consolidated HMS FMP. Included in this proposed rule was a list of 24 public hearings throughout September and October 2005. These hearings are scheduled for NMFS to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the proposed rule and draft HMS FMP. Due to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, NMFS is cancelling two public hearings that were scheduled for September 6 and September 8, 2005, in Orange Beach, AL, and New Orleans, LA, respectively. NMFS intends to reschedule the public hearings once the amount of damaged caused by Hurricane Katrina in the affected Gulf region has been assessed and the appropriate locations can be determined. NMFS may extend the comment period, if necessary, to ensure adequate opportunities for public comment by constituents in the affected Gulf region. Notification of the new dates and locations would be published in the Federal Register.

        In addition, NMFS has changed the location and time of the public hearing that was scheduled to be held in Fort Lauderdale, FL, on October 3, 2005, at the African American Arts and Cultural Center Research Library (see DATES and ADDRESSES). This change was due to concerns raised by a constituent regarding public safety. NMFS verified these concerns with local law enforcement. The schedule for the other public hearings remains unchanged.

        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a NMFS representative will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the hearing so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the hearing.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heather Stirratt, (301) 713-2347, at least 7 days prior to the hearing in question.

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: September 1, 2005.
          John H. Dunnigan,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-17749 Filed 9-1-05; 4:03 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 434
        [FRL-7019-2]
        Notice of Data Availability; Coal Mining Point Source Category; Amendments to Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of data availability.

          SUMMARY:
          On April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19440), EPA published proposed amendments to effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the coal mining point source category (40 CFR part 434). EPA proposed to add two new subparts to the existing regulations, the Coal Remining Subcategory (Subpart G) and the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory (Subpart H).
          In the proposal, EPA specifically solicited comment on 18 issues, in addition to a general comment solicitation on all aspects of the proposed regulation. EPA received comments from various stakeholders, including state, tribal and federal regulatory authorities, environmental groups, and industry groups.
          In response to the general comment solicitation, EPA received comments and data on aspects of the proposal for which EPA did not specifically solicit comment. Due to comments received, EPA is considering changes to certain aspects of the proposed Coal Remining Subcategory. Today, EPA is making these data and comments available for public review and comment.

          DATES:
          Submit your comments by August 29, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments to Mr. John Tinger at the following address: U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments sent via courier or Federal Express should be sent to: John Tinger, U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), Room 615 West Tower, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. You are encouraged to submit comments electronically to Tinger.John@epa.gov.
          The data and information being announced today are available for review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, Room EB-57, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. For access to the docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992 or at the following e-mail address: Tinger.John@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Contents of This Document
          I. Purpose of this Notice
          II. Background
          III. Date of Applicability for Remining Operations
          IV. Alternative Limits for Solids in Pre-existing Discharges
          V. Summary of Comment Solicitation

        I. Purpose of This Notice
        On April 11, 2000, EPA published proposed amendments to effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the coal mining point source category (65 FR 19440). EPA proposed to add provisions for two new subcategories, the Coal Remining Subcategory and the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory. In today's notice, EPA is providing a discussion of options relating to specific issues raised by commenters on the remining subcategory that were not presented in the proposal. EPA is presenting these comments and the options that EPA is considering for the final rulemaking. EPA solicits comments on these options and on the related comments and data collected since proposal. Specifically, EPA is soliciting comment on the effective date of the Remining Subcategory and on alternative effluent limits for solids.
        II. Background
        Coal mining in the eastern United States has been an important industry for several centuries. The lack of adequate environmental controls, until recently, has produced hundreds of thousands of acres of abandoned mine land (AML). Prior to passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977, reclamation of coal mining sites was not a federal requirement, and drainage from AML has become a significant water quality problem in Appalachia.

        Based on information supplied by the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) and the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System, EPA estimates there currently are over 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal mine lands in the United States. These have produced over 9,709 miles of streams polluted by acid mine drainage. In addition, there are over 18,000 miles of abandoned highwalls, 16,326 acres of dangerous piles and embankments, and 874 dangerous impoundments. Of the land disturbed by coal mining between 1930 and 1971, only 30 percent has been reclaimed to acceptable levels. Several states have indicated that acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mine land is their most serious water pollution problem. Streams that are impacted by acid mine drainage characteristically have low pH levels (less than 6.0 standard units) and contain high concentrations of sulfate, acidity, dissolved iron and other metals.
        As part of 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, Congress added section 301(p), often called the Rahall Amendment, to provide incentives for remining AML. Section 301(p) provides an exemption for remining operations from the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) effluent limits for iron, manganese, and pH for pre-existing discharges from AML. Instead, a permit writer may set site-specific, numeric BAT limits for pre-existing discharges based on Best Professional Judgement (BPJ). The permit applicant must demonstrate that the remining operation will result in the potential for improved water quality from the remining operation. The permit effluent limits may not allow pollutant discharges to exceed pre-existing “baseline” levels of iron, manganese, and pH. The Rahall Amendment did not provide for alternative effluent limits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or Settleable Solids (SS). Despite the statutory authority provided by the Rahall Amendment, coal mining companies and most states remain hesitant to pursue remining without formal EPA approval and guidelines.
        On April 11, 2000, EPA proposed to establish requirements for determining baseline pollutant loadings in pre-existing discharges and for implementing pollution abatement plans consistent with the requirements of the Rahall Amendment. In the proposal, EPA stated its belief that encouraging remining operations through the proposed subcategory has the potential for improving hazardous conditions and improving acid mine drainage from AML. EPA solicited comment on this conclusion and on potential options that may be environmentally preferable to the proposed remining subcategory. In response, EPA received comments on several issues where EPA did not specifically solicit comment. Commenters believe incorporation of these issues could increase the potential benefits of the remining subcategory.
        III. Date of Applicability for Remining Operations
        The Rahall Amendment defines remining as a coal mining operation which begins after the date of the enactment of the Rahall Amendment (February 4, 1987) at a site on which coal mining was conducted before the effective date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Thus, the Rahall Amendment attempted to encourage remining by allowing operators an alternative to treating degraded pre-existing discharges to the levels set in EPA's current effluent limitations guidelines for coal mining. EPA's proposed definition of remining as “a coal mining operation at a site on which coal mining was conducted prior to August 3, 1977,” is consistent with the definition provided under the Rahall Amendment.
        In response to the proposal, EPA received comments requesting that EPA extend the applicability of the proposed Remining Subcategory to include AML abandoned after August 3, 1977. Commenters noted that bonds have been forfeited on some coal mining sites since the effective date of SMCRA, and suggested that remining at these locations could result in environmental benefits.
        For the reasons discussed in Sections IV.B, VI.A, and IX.A of the proposal, EPA concluded that remining has many potential benefits at little cost. During remining operations, acid-forming materials are removed with the extraction of the coal, pollution abatement Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented under applicable regulatory requirements, and the AML is reclaimed. During remining, many of the problems associated with AML, such as dangerous highwalls, vertical openings, and abandoned coal refuse piles can be corrected at no cost to OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Program. Furthermore, implementation of appropriate BMPs during remining operations can be effective at improving the water quality of pre-existing discharges.
        EPA recognizes that one of the most successful means of improving abandoned mine land is for coal mining companies to remine abandoned areas and extract the coal reserves that remain. EPA also recognizes that if abandoned mine lands are ignored during coal mining of adjacent areas, a time-critical opportunity for reclaiming AML may be lost. Once coal mining operations have ceased on the adjacent areas, there is little incentive for operators to return.
        Since the close of the public comment period, EPA has collected additional data on abandoned mine lands and bond forfeitures since 1977 (DCN 3036 in the regulatory record). Based on data obtained from OSM's abandoned mine lands database, it is estimated that there are 260 bond forfeiture sites that are currently producing acid mine drainage. To date, these sites have not been reclaimed. There are various reasons for lack of cleanup, such as that the bonds posted in the early stages of SMCRA may not have been sufficient to cover clean up costs. Additionally, as described in the proposal, the AML fund establishes priorities for AML cleanup based on direct risks to human health, and acid mine drainage may not receive priority for use of public funds if it does not pose a direct threat to humans. However, if these sites have remaining coal reserves, remining may be a feasible option to reclaim the land at little or no cost to the abandoned mine lands fund. For the reasons described in the proposal, remining may offer an incentive for reclaiming hazardous conditions at these sites.
        EPA is therefore considering extending the applicability of the subcategory to include the remining of bond forfeiture sites. By extending the remining subcategory, EPA believes that increased remediation of abandoned mine lands may be facilitated.
        EPA is also considering the potential implication of such a change to bond forfeiture occurrence. EPA is trying to determine if, by allowing alternative limits for remining after bond forfeiture, EPA may be encouraging bond forfeitures in the future. To avoid providing an incentive for increased bond forfeiture, EPA is also considering limiting the applicability of the subcategory to mine sites abandoned prior to the promulgation date of the final rule. In this manner, the regulations may allow remining to correct for past failures, but not encourage future bond forfeitures.
        EPA is soliciting comment on extending the applicability of the remining subcategory to include mine sites abandoned after enactment of SMCRA, and the effect that this could have on creating an incentive for a mine operator to abandon a coal mining operation. EPA is also soliciting comment on the need to limit the date of applicability of the remining subcategory to the effective date of a final rule for the Coal Remining Subcategory.
        IV. Alternative Limits for Solids in Pre-existing Discharges

        Under the proposed regulations, a remining permit would contain specific numeric and non-numeric requirements. The numeric requirements would be established on a case-by-case basis in compliance with standardized requirements for statistical procedures to establish and monitor baseline pollutant discharges. The numeric effluent limitations set at baseline levels would ensure that in no event will the pollutant discharges exceed the discharges prior to remining, consistent with section 301(p)(2). The stringency of the non-numeric permit provisions would be established using best professional judgement to evaluate the adequacy of the selected BMPs contained in a pollution abatement plan. The pollution abatement plan would demonstrate that the remining operation will result in the potential for improved water quality, as also contemplated by section 301(p)(2).
        EPA proposed that the remining subcategory would establish alternative limits for pH, iron, and manganese, but not for solids. This proposal was consistent with section 301(p)(2). Existing effluent limits for solids are addressed in Subpart C—Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage, which establish limits for TSS (maximum for any 1 day of 70.0 mg/l and a maximum average daily value of 35.0 mg/l) and in Subpart E, Post-Mining Areas, which establish limits for reclamation areas (0.5 ml/L SS) and for underground mine drainage (maximum TSS for any 1 day of 70.0 mg/l and a maximum TSS average daily value of 35.0 mg/l).
        EPA received comments stating that acid mine drainage was not the primary concern for all cases of AML, and that alternative limits for pH, iron, and manganese, but not for solids, would not be sufficient to provide an incentive for remining many AML sites. Therefore, commenters requested that EPA also apply alternative limits for the level of solids in pre-existing discharges. During the public comment period, some states submitted information to EPA that documents significant problems with sediment discharges from AML. For instance, Virginia's 1998 303(d) list identifies 15 streams in the coalfields impaired by resource extraction, but only two of those streams are identified as impaired by acid mine drainage and only one by active coal mining. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources cites that there are AML sites currently discharging over 250 tons per acre of sediment per year, and that over 500 miles of streams have been documented to have excess sediment problems due to runoff from unreclaimed mine lands. The majority of the impaired streams have been impacted by discharges from abandoned underground mines or drainage from unreclaimed surface mines containing high levels of dissolved, settleable, and suspended solids. Commenters noted that it is sediment loading that is polluting these streams, and that the provisions under the Rahall Amendment and the proposed subcategory are not sufficient to address this problem.
        The reasons for excessive solids loads in runoff from abandoned mine lands include lack of vegetative cover due to acidic or toxic soils; lack of vegetative cover due to steep slopes; and high runoff volume and velocity due to steep slopes. While EPA has focused on the benefits of reducing the toxic loadings of pre-existing discharges through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), many of the activities associated with AML reclamation also have the potential to significantly reduce sediment loadings. BMPs typically implemented during the course of remining that will permanently stabilize sediment loading include the removal of spoil piles; regrading land to original contour; adding topsoil; and establishing vegetation. A study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, “Sedimentation and Water Quality in the West Branch Shade River Basin, Ohio, 1983-85” (Childress and Jones, 1988, DCN 3038.1) assessed the effects of BMPs on AML impacted by sediment. The study found that sediment loads decreased 98 percent (from 8.6 tons per acre to 0.15 tons per acre) after the AML was reclaimed. Reclamation activities included regrading, addition of topsoil, incorporation of fertilizer and/or lime, seeding and mulching, and sedimentation ponds.
        In the proposal, EPA stated its belief that the current level of sediment control is necessary during surface disturbance operations to avoid sedimentation and erosion that can clog streams, increase the risk of flooding, impair land stability, and destroy aquatic habitats. While EPA continues to believe that sediment control is necessary for surface disturbances, EPA also acknowledges that remining operators may not be able to meet existing solids limits because of pre-existing conditions at AML. These high sediment conditions exist prior to any surface disturbance by the remining operator, and EPA is therefore considering alternative limits for sediment control.
        Based on the baseline conditions of sediment present at some AML, EPA believes that the benefits of remining may be severely limited if EPA does not address sediment in the final rule. EPA notes, for example, that a pre-existing discharge with a sediment load of greater than one ton per acre may be out of compliance with current effluent limitations on the day the remining permit is issued, even prior to any disturbance of the permit area. Sediment loads cited by commenters of 8.6 to 250 tons per acre per year would likely be significantly out of compliance with current standards. In accordance with the intent of the Rahall Amendment, which seeks to encourage remining while ensuring that the remining activity will potentially improve and reclaim AML, EPA is considering allowing alternative limits for TSS and SS in pre-existing discharges. Based on the comments and information received, EPA is soliciting comment on whether alternative limits for solids are necessary to fully realize the potential benefits of remining.
        EPA envisions that the numeric requirements for sediment would be established on a case-by-case basis in compliance with standardized requirements for statistical procedures to establish and monitor baseline pollutant discharges. The standardized procedures for solids loading could be the same procedures developed for the other parameters, and could be established as mass-based loadings in pounds per day. The numeric effluent limitations set at baseline levels would ensure that in no event will the pollutant discharges exceed the discharges prior to remining. The proposed statistical procedures were discussed in Section VII of the proposal and in the Coal Remining Statistical Support Document (EPA 821-R-00-001). EPA solicits comment on how baseline standards for solids could be implemented.
        While EPA is considering alternative limits for solids based on background levels, EPA is also considering whether the alternative limits for solids should be allowed in perpetuity similar to baseline levels of pH, iron, and manganese. As EPA discussed in the proposal, one of the primary reasons for the alternative limitations for pH, iron, and manganese is due to the complex hydrologic and geochemical relationships that cause acid mine drainage in abandoned mines. The full extent of the acid mine drainage problem may not be completely known at the time of remining, and mine operators are unwilling to accept the potential risk and liability associated with past mistakes if held to existing standards. Therefore, EPA stated its belief that it is infeasible to determine the level of improvement that a BMP will exhibit on an AML wastewater discharge, and that a numeric limit more stringent than baseline could not be established for pH, iron, and manganese.

        However, EPA believes that the control of sediment is much less complex than the control of pH, iron, and manganese in acid mine drainage. In contrast to the complex relationships of BMPs and their relationship on pH, iron, and manganese in pre-existing discharges, the BMPs for sediment control are typically fully understood and can be accomplished with relatively simple procedures that are already required by SMCRA such as regrading, replacing topsoil, and establishing vegetation. This was demonstrated in the data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey study, which showed a 98 percent decrease in sediment loadings after implementation of sediment controls.
        Therefore, EPA is also considering establishing an alternative limit for solids until BMPs can be implemented. This option would apply standards for solids such that solids cannot be increased over baseline during remining activities, but that the mine operators would have to meet current standards for Post-Mining Areas prior to obtaining bond release. The current standards for sediment control at post-mining areas is either 0.5 ml/L SS for reclamation areas; or a maximum TSS for any 1 day of 70.0 mg/l and a maximum TSS average daily value of 35.0 mg/l for underground mine drainage. EPA believes that this approach may allow remining operators to remine AML contaminated with sediment, but that it may also continue to encourage reclamation and sediment control. EPA solicits comment on establishing a compliance schedule such that during remining, sediment loads must not exceed baseline loads, but that the solids level must meet existing standards for Post-Mining Areas prior to bond release.
        As with numeric limitations for pH, iron, and manganese, and as stated in the proposed rule, these alternate limits will not be applicable to discharges from active mining operations. Therefore, the existing limits for TSS during surface disturbances from active mining (i.e. for the “extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposits”) would continue to be required to meet the existing solids limits.
        V. Summary of Comment Solicitation
        EPA is soliciting comment on (1) extending the applicability of the remining subcategory to include mine sites abandoned after enactment of SMCRA, (2) the effect that this could have on creating an incentive for a mine operator to abandon a coal mining operation, and (3) the need to limit the date of applicability of the remining subcategory to the effective date of a final rule for the Coal Remining Subcategory.
        EPA is also soliciting comment on (4) providing an alternative limit for solids, (5) on the implementation of an alternative limit for solids by using the same statistical procedures used for other alternative limits and, (6) on establishing a compliance schedule such that during remining, sediment loads must not exceed baseline loads, but that the solids level must meet existing standards for Post-Mining Areas prior to bond release.

          Dated: July 20, 2001.
          Diane C. Regas,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.

      [FR Doc. 01-18887 Filed 7-27-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P