        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [Docket No. 060404093-6093-01; I.D. 032406D]
        RIN 0648-AU37
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes regulations implementing Amendment 21 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and Tanner crabs (FMP). This action proposes a change to the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (Program). If approved, Amendment 21 and its implementing rule would modify the timing for harvesters and processors to match harvesting and processing shares and the timing for initiating arbitration proceedings incorporated in the Program to resolve price and other delivery disputes. This action is necessary to increase resource conservation and economic efficiency in the crab fisheries that are subject to the Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than June 5, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Facsimile: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: 0648-AU37-PRKTC21@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Crab Rationalization RIN 0648-AU37. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of Amendment 21 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP included the Program. A final rule implementing these amendments was published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Regulations implementing Amendments 18 and 19 are located at 50 CFR part 680. Amendment 20 to the FMP, which would authorize the management of an Eastern and Western Tanner crab (C. bairdi), is currently under Secretarial review. A NOA for Amendment 20 was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2006 (71 FR 9770). The comment period on the NOA ends on April 28, 2006. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 20 was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2006 (71 FR 14153). The comment period on the proposed rule ends on May 5, 2006.
        Under the Program, NMFS issued harvester quota share (QS) that yields annual individual fishing quota (IFQ). An IFQ is a permit to harvest a specific portion of the total allowable catch (TAC). A portion of the IFQ issued are “Class A” IFQ. Crab harvested under a Class A IFQ permit must be delivered to a specific processor. NMFS issued processor quota share (PQS) to processors that yield individual processing quota (IPQ). IPQ is a permit to receive and process a portion of the TAC harvested with Class A IFQ. A one-to-one relationship exists between Class A IFQ and IPQ. The Program includes an arbitration system to resolve price, delivery terms, and other disputes in the event that holders of Class A IFQ and IPQ are unable to negotiate those terms.
        After the annual issuance of IFQ and IPQ, the arbitration system regulations at § 680.20(h)(3)(iv)(A) allow harvesters who are not affiliated with a processor through ownership or control linkages (unaffiliated harvesters) to unilaterally commit delivery of harvests from Class A IFQ to a processor with available IPQ. Once committed, the unaffiliated harvester is permitted to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding under § 680.20(h)(3)(v) if the parties are unable to agree to the terms of delivery. Regulations at § 680.20(h)(3)(v) require that an IFQ holder initiate binding arbitration at least 15 days prior to a season opening. This approach is commonly called the “share match” approach to binding arbitration.
        Alternatively, regulations at § 680.20(h)(3)(iii) allow unaffiliated harvesters to match IFQ with processors with available IPQ using a “lengthy season approach.” Although the lengthy season approach allows harvesters and processors to use the arbitration system, it requires a mutual agreement of both partes to schedule arbitration proceedings later in the season, which can affect negotiating positions. The arbitration system under the Program was intended to provide harvesters and processors with the ability to reach price agreements through binding arbitration using two methods: one that results in a binding arbitration decision prior to the season, the share match approach; and the other that would allow a binding arbitration proceeding to begin under a mutually agreed upon negotiation timeline, the lengthy season approach.
        Under NMFS' current schedule for stock assessments and TAC setting, the share match approach to resolve price disputes has not met the needs of IFQ holders. NMFS typically does not issue IFQ and IPQ 15 days prior to a season opening, limiting the ability of IFQ holders to rely on the share match approach to achieve a price resolution.
        If approved, Amendment 21 to the FMP and its implementing rule would link the timing for initiating share matching and a binding arbitration proceeding to the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, providing participants with a reasonable and reliable opportunity to fully use the arbitration system. The timing for share matching and initiation of binding arbitration would be based on the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, including a five-day assessment period for negotiated commitments. For a period of five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, unaffiliated harvesters holding Class A IFQ and holders of IPQ could voluntarily agree to commit their respective shares. After the five-day assessment period, holders of uncommitted Class A IFQ could unilaterally commit that IFQ to any holder of uncommitted IPQ. During the 10-day period beginning five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, any holder of committed Class A IFQ could unilaterally initiate a binding arbitration proceeding with the IPQ holder to which the IFQ were committed. This proposed rule would not change existing requirements that the parties to the arbitration would meet with a contract arbitrator to schedule the submission of information to the arbitrator and the terms and timing for submission of last best offers.

        Amendment 21 would implement an action that is consistent with the original intent of the arbitration system, with the necessary modifications to accommodate the existing stock assessment and TAC announcement processes. Each year, the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) establishes a TAC for BSAI crab through a collaborative process with NMFS. This process is outlined in the FMP. ADF&G considers the most recent and best available scientific data when determining the TAC for a fishery. In most cases, crab stock survey data become available for analysis between mid-August and mid-September. Following the availability of the data becoming available, NMFS and ADF&G analysts perform stock assessment analyses and estimation of stock abundance as needed for determination of stock status relative to overfishing and TACs. For most BSAI crab fisheries, ADF&G has determined that announcement of TACs will occur on October 1. The TAC announcement timing is intended to allow ADF&G and NMFS to conduct a thorough review of the data prior to the TAC determinations by ADF&G, and for NMFS to issue IFQs and IPQs prior to the October 15th season opening. Accelerating the timing of the TAC announcement could compromise the integrity of the results, introduce additional errors, and limit the ability of ADF&G and NMFS to use the most recent and best available data. Once ADF&G announces the TAC, NMFS must issue IFQ to harvesters based upon their holdings of QS, and IPQ to processors based upon their holdings of PQS. This process requires several days after TAC is issued.
        NMFS believes that delaying the start of the season to accommodate the stock assessment process and IFQ and IPQ issuance process is not a viable option. Under the FMP, the State of Alaska has the authority to establish season dates. Modifying season dates would require action by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The Council and NMFS are not proposing a change in season dates. Delaying the season dates could reduce access to valuable markets and is not supported by the BSAI crab fishing industry.
        Modifications proposed under Amendment 21 were discussed and reviewed during a Program workshop in Seattle held on November 18, 2005, (70 FR 10174, November 2, 2005). Industry representatives from both the harvesting and processing sector attended the meeting in roughly equal proportion. Based upon public comments NMFS received during that meeting, the approach described under Amendment 21 was favored by industry representatives from both the harvesting and processing sector over alternative approaches (e.g., delaying the season start date). Particularly favored was a brief assessment period once IFQ and IPQ have been issued before unaffiliated harvesters could unilaterally match their IFQ to IPQ holders. Several industry attendees from the processing sector noted that once IFQ and IPQ have been issued, harvesters and processors require time to assess their holdings and complete any voluntary matching agreements. In December 2005, NMFS briefed the Council detailing the timing conflict and industry comments received during the November 2005 public meeting. The Council considered additional public comments and proposed limiting the alternatives for consideration to those that resolve the timing conflict in a manner that closely matches the timing of the share match approach to binding arbitration prescribed in the FMP. Amendment 21 as adopted by the Council incorporates this approach.
        This proposed rule would not alter the basic structure or management of the Program. It would not alter reporting, monitoring, fee collection, and other requirements to participate in the arbitration system. The proposed rule also would not increase the number of harvesters or processors in the Program fisheries or the current amount of crab that may be harvested. The proposed action would not affect current regional delivery requirements or other restrictions on harvesting and processing. Amendment 21 would provide a mechanism to ensure that a binding arbitration proceeding could occur early in the fishing season in accordance with the original design of the Program. Amendment 21 would not modify the lengthy season approach to binding arbitration proceeding, and would fulfill the intent of the FMP to provide harvesters and processors with effective methods of resolving price disputes under the arbitration system.
        Classification

        At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 21 and the provisions in this rule that would implement Amendment 21 are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making the determination that this proposed rule is consistent, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period (see DATES).

        A Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and qualitative measures. Additionally, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared that describes the impact this proposed rule would have on small entities. Copies of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule incorporates by reference an extensive RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendments 18 and 19 that detailed the impacts of the Program on small entities.
        The IRFA for this proposed action 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. The IRFA contains a description and estimate of the number of directly affected small entities.
        Estimates of the number of small harvesting entities under the Program are complicated by several factors. First, each eligible captain will receive an allocation of QS under the program. A total of 186 captains received allocations of QS for the 2005-2006 fishery. In addition, 269 allocations of QS to license limitation permit (LLP) license holders were made under the Program, for a total of 454 QS allocations. Because some persons participated as LLP license holders and captains and others received allocations from the activities of multiple vessels, only 294 unique persons received QS. Of those entities receiving QS, 287 are small entities because they either generated $4.0 million or less in gross revenue, or they are independent entities not affiliated with a processor. Estimates of gross revenues for purposes of determining the number of small entities, relied on the low estimates of prices from the arbitration reports based on the 2005/2006 fishing season.
        Allocations of PQS under the Program were made to 29 processors. Of these PQS recipients, nine are estimated to be large entities, and 20 are estimated to be small entities. Estimates of large entities were made based on available records of employment and the analysts' knowledge of foreign ownership of processing companies. These totals exclude catcher/processors, which are included in the LLP license holder discussion.

        Other supporting businesses also may be indirectly affected by this action if it leads to fewer vessels participating in the fishery. These impacts are treated in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
        Implementation of the proposed rule would not change the overall reporting structure and recordkeeping requirements of the participants in the BSAI crab fisheries or arbitration system.
        No Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed action have been identified.

        The Council considered alternatives as it designed and evaluated the potential methods for accommodating current fishery management timing and the need to provide an opportunity for a binding arbitration proceeding early during a crab fishing season in the EA prepared for this proposed action. The alternatives differed only in the timing of when unaffiliated harvesters with IFQ could match their shares with processors with uncommitted IPQ. The alternatives have no effect on fishing practices or patterns and therefore have no effects on the physical and biological environment. Effects of the Program, including the arbitration system and the timing of binding arbitration proceedings, on the physical and biological environment (including effects on benthic species and habitat, essential fish habitat, the ecosystem, endangered species, marine mammals, and sea birds) are fully analyzed in the EIS prepared for the Program (Crab EIS) and are incorporated by reference in the EA prepared for this proposed action.

        This proposed action is not anticipated to have additional impacts on the BSAI crab fisheries beyond those identified in the Crab EIS. No new significant information is available that would change these determinations in the Crab EIS. Please refer to the Crab EIS and its appendices for more detail (see ADDRESSES).
        The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 would maintain the existing timing for initiating a binding arbitration proceeding. This would maintain the inconsistency between the timing of the issuance of IFQ and IPQ in a crab QS fishery and the requirement to initiate a binding arbitration prior to the start of the season. Alternative 1 would not provide an opportunity for harvesters to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding early in the season. Alternative 1 does not effectively implement a portion of the Program as recommended by the Council. In effect, the reliability of the arbitration system to resolve price disputes earlier in the season is limited. Although participants have relied on the “lengthy season approach” to effectively extend the deadline for initiating an arbitration proceeding to resolve a dispute concerning terms of delivery, the greater degree of cooperation required by the approach limits its reliability. In addition, the lengthy season approach could delay resolution of disputes beyond the period that would be expected, if the process for initiating arbitration could be applied as expected. The result could be either a loss of operational certainty arising from unsettled terms of delivery and potentially a shift in negotiating leverage if one party were disproportionately affected by the uncertainty.
        Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would provide harvesters with the opportunity to utilize the arbitration system to resolve disputes in a manner consistent with the original intent of Program. Although Alternative 2 likely would not provide a price resolution through arbitration prior to the start of the season as originally envisioned, it would provide an opportunity to resolve price disputes shortly after the start of the season. Alternative 2 would not have effects on harvesters or processors different from those already considered under the EIS prepared for the Program. The five-day assessment period would be likely to contribute to stability in relationships among IFQ holders and IPQ holders, by permitting persons to resolve negotiated commitments prior to allowing unilateral commitments. In addition, this 5-day period could result in more negotiated commitments by prioritizing negotiated relationships over unilateral commitments.
        Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but does not provide a five-day assessment period to match shares after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ. The absence of such a period could provide an advantage to persons who are unable, or unwilling, to develop voluntary commitments. The absence of this period to allow IFQ and IPQ holders to finalize negotiated commitments also could be disruptive to markets by flooding IPQ holders with unilateral commitments from IFQ holders who fear being displaced by others. An orderly settlement of commitments is more likely to take place if a period of negotiated commitments were permitted prior to allowing unilateral commitments.
        Although the different alternatives under consideration in this action would have distributional and efficiency impacts for individual participants, in no case are these impacts in the aggregate expected to be substantial. Although none of the alternatives has substantial negative impacts on small entities, preferred Alternative 2 minimizes the potential negative impacts that could arise under Alternative 3. Differences in efficiency that could arise are likely to affect most participants in a minor way having an overall insubstantial impact. As a consequence, none of the alternatives is expected to have any significant economic or socioeconomic impacts.
        Collection-of-information
        This rule does not contain new collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 14, 2006.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1862.

        2. In § 680.20, paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(A) and (h)(3)(v) introductory text are revised to read as follows:

          § 680.20
          Arbitration System.

          (h) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (iv) * * *
          (A) At any time 5 days after NMFS issues IFQ and IPQ for that crab QS fishery in that crab fishing year, holders of uncommitted Arbitration IFQ may choose to commit the delivery of harvests of crab to be made with that uncommitted Arbitration IFQ to an uncommitted IPQ holder.

          (v) Initiation of Binding Arbitration. If an Arbitration IFQ holder intends to initiate Binding Arbitration, the Arbitration IFQ holder must initiate the Binding Arbitration procedure not later than 15 days after NMFS issues IFQ and IPQ for that crab QS fishery in that crab fishing year. Binding Arbitration is initiated after the committed Arbitration IFQ holder notifies a committed IPQ holder and selects a Contract Arbitrator. Binding Arbitration may be initiated to resolve price, terms of delivery, and other disputes. There will be only one Binding Arbitration Proceeding for an IPQ holder but multiple Arbitration IFQ holders may participate in this proceeding. This limitation on the timing of Binding Arbitration proceedings does not include proceedings that arise due to:

      [FR Doc. E6-5945 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0110; A-1-FRL-9965-12Region 1]
        Air Plan Approval; ME; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Maine's regional haze progress report, submitted on February 23, 2016, as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). Maine's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. Maine's progress report notes that Maine has implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by the date of the progress report and that visibility in federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Maine is improving and has already met the applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is proposing approval of Maine's determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet these reasonable progress goals for the first implementation period covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0110 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision
          A. Regional Haze Progress Report
          B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
          III. Proposed Action
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background
        States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area 1

           (Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On December 9, 2010, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.2

            1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.

            2 On April 24, 2012, EPA approved Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first implementation period for regional haze. See 77 FR 24385.

        On February 23, 2016, ME DEP submitted a revision to the Maine SIP detailing the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in its 2010 regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at the Class I areas affected by emissions from Maine, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. EPA is proposing to approve Maine's February 23, 2016 SIP submittal.
        II. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision
        On February 23, 2016, Maine submitted its “Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report” (Progress Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.

        Maine is home to three Class I areas: Acadia National Park (Acadia), Roosevelt-Campobello International Park (RCIP), and Moosehorn Wilderness Area (Moosehorn). Emissions from Maine sources were also found to be contributing to visibility impairment at nearby Great Gulf Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) in New Hampshire. See 76 FR 73956 (November 29, 2011).
        Through the consultation process, Maine agreed to pursue the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) 3

           to assure reasonable progress toward preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I areas within the MANE-VU region. These strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE-VU “Ask.” The MANE-VU “Ask” includes: A timely implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements; 90 percent or more reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at 167 electrical generating units (EGUs) “stacks” identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures); lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for each State); and continued evaluation of other control measures.4

           In summary, Maine is on track to fulfill the MANE-VU “Ask” by meeting the deadlines for BART requirements, as of the date of the Progress Report, for all BART-eligible facilities described in the Progress Report, adopting a low sulfur fuel oil strategy requiring the use of 0.0015% sulfur by weight in distillate and 0.5% sulfur by weight residual fuel oil by July 1, 2018, and reducing SO2 emissions by 57% from the State's one identified contributing EGU, Florida Power and Light's Wyman Station (Wyman). An additional reduction in SO2 emissions from Wyman is expected with the implementation of 0.5% sulfur by weight residual oil requirement by July 1, 2018.

            3 MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of State governments, Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. Member State and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

            4 The MANE-VU “Ask” was structured around the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and electrical generating units comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See “Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,” January 31, 2001.

        A. Regional Haze Progress Report
        This section includes the EPA's analysis of Maine's Progress Report SIP submittal, and an explanation of the basis of our proposed approval.

        Maine's 2010 regional haze SIP included the following key measures: Implementation of BART for eligible sources, reducing the sulfur in fuel oil content, and reducing SO2 emissions from the Maine EGU identified as contributing to visibility impairment at nearby Class I areas.
        In the Maine 2010 Regional Haze SIP, ME DEP identified 10 facilities subject to BART. For eight of these facilities, the existing controls were determined to be BART. The remaining two sources eligible for BART controls were: Wyman Boiler #3 and Verso Androscoggin at Jay Boilers #1 and #2. As documented in Table 3-1 of the Maine Progress Report, each of these two sources has implemented a permit revision, approved in EPA's April 24, 2012 approval of Maine's regional haze SIP (77 FR 24385), which requires the use of 0.7% sulfur by weight fuel oil by the BART deadline of 2013.5

            5 See EPA's Proposed Approval of Maine's Regional Haze SIP (76 FR 73956, November 29, 2011) for a full discussion of Maine's BART analysis.

        Maine's Progress Report notes the implementation of the MANE-VU “Ask” for sulfur content of fuel oil. The Maine statute, approved by the EPA as part of Maine's regional haze plan, lowers the sulfur content of all distillate fuel oils to 0.0015% sulfur by weight and residual oils to 0.5% sulfur beginning July 1, 2018.6

            6 Maine's Sulfur in Fuel Statute 38 MRSA Section 603-A subsection 2(A) was approved into the Maine SIP on April 24, 2012. See 79 FR 24385.

        Maine has two EGUs among the 167 EGUs stacks identified for control of sulfur dioxide emission in the MANE-VU “Ask.” These stacks are Wyman units #3 and #4. As previously discussed above, unit #3 was required to reduce the sulfur in fuel content to 0.7% by 2013 with a further reduction to 0.5% sulfur by weight in 2018, as required by Maine's sulfur in fuels statute. Unit #4 is following the same timeline. The Progress Report indicates a 1,138 ton/year SO2 (or 57%) emission reduction from Wyman thus far. An additional reduction in SO2 emission is expected from the required use of 0.5% sulfur by weight fuel oil by 2018.
        The Maine Progress Report also includes the status of SO2 emission reductions from states that affect Class I areas in MANE-VU relative to the MANE-VU “Ask.” 7
           Maine consulted with states in the eastern United States that affect visibility at the Class I areas at Acadia, Moosehorn, and RCIP, outlining how they could meet the MANE-VU “Ask” and help achieve the progress goals for Class I areas in Maine and other MANE-VU States. These emission reductions were included in the modeling that predicted progress toward meeting RPGs. The EPA is proposing that Maine's summary of the status of the implementation of measures in its Progress Report adequately addresses the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), as the State demonstrated the implementation of measures within Maine, including applying BART at subject sources.

            7 Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE-VU “Overview of State and Federal Actions Relative to MANE-VU Asks” dated March 28, 2013. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memo-mane-vuasks-20130328-fianl.pdf/.

        During the development of the regional haze SIP for the first planning period, MANE-VU and Maine determined that SO2 was the greatest contributor to anthropogenic visibility impairment at the State's Class I areas. Therefore, the bulk of visibility improvement achieved in the first planning period was expected to result from reductions in SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State. Table 6-1 of Maine's 2016 Progress Report details the SO2 emission reductions from the 2002 Maine regional haze SIP baseline to 2014 for not only the targeted Wyman units, but all Maine EUGs.8

           The Maine EGUs show an emission reduction from 2,022 tons SO2 in 2002 to 856 tons SO2 in 2014, a reduction of 57%. Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from these same sources were also reduced from 1,154 tons in 2002 to 539 tons in 2014, a reduction of 53%.

            8 Maine's Progress Report SIP includes annual unit-level emissions data for SO2 and NOX from EGUs from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for the years 2002 and 2014.

        EPA is proposing to find that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). Maine has detailed the SO2 and NOX reductions from the 2002 regional haze baseline by using the most recently available year of data at the time of the development of Maine's Progress Report, which is 2014.
        The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require that States with Class I areas within their borders provide information on current visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values.
        Maine is home to three Class I areas; Acadia, RCIP, and Moosehorn. Maine relies on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program monitoring network for visibility measurements. One IMPROVE monitor is located within Acadia. A second IMPROVE monitor is located one mile northeast of Moosehorn. The Moosehorn monitor also serves as the monitor for nearby RCIP. In the Progress Report, ME DEP provides the data in deciviews (dv) 9

           for the baseline 2000-2004 five-year average visibility, the most recent 2010-2014 five-year average visibility, the 2018 RPG from the 2010 regional haze SIP, and the calculated visibility improvement. See Table 1.

            9 The deciview is a measure for tracking progress in improving visibility. Each deciview change is an incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999)).

          Table 1—Observed Visibility vs. Established Visibility Goals (deciviews) for Acadia and Moosehorn

            Baseline 2000-2004
              5-year
              average
              visibility
              (dv)

            Most recent 2010-2014
              5-year
              average
              visibility
              (dv)

            Visibility improvement
              (dv)

            2018 Reasonable
              progress
              goal
              (dv)

            Meets 2018 progress
              goals?

              20% Most Impaired Days

            Acadia
            22.9
            17.5
            5.4
            19.4
            Yes.

            Moosehorn
            21.7
            16.5
            5.2
            19.0
            Yes.

              20% Least Impaired Days

            Acadia
            8.8
            7.0
            1.8
            8.3
            Yes.

            Moosehorn
            9.2
            6.7
            2.5
            8.6
            Yes.

        The baseline visibility for Acadia and Moosehorn was 22.9 dv and 21.7 dv, respectively, on the 20% most impaired days. On the 20% least impaired days, the baseline visibility was 8.8 dv and 9.2 dv for these two sites, respectively. The most recent five-year average data for both sites shows an improvement of more than 5 dv on the 20% most visibility impaired days and no visibility degradation on the 20% least impaired days. The 2016 Progress Report demonstrates that the State has already achieved the 2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired days and ensured no visibility degradation for the 20% least impaired days for the first planning period. The Class I area outside of Maine affected by sources in Maine also has achieved the 2018 RPGs.
        EPA is proposing to find that Maine provided the required information regarding visibility conditions to meet the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), specifically providing baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently available IMPROVE monitoring data (2010-2014), and a comparison with the RPGs.

        In its Progress Report SIP, Maine presents data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the years 2002, 2011, and 2014 (EGUs only), and projected inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and volatile organic compounds (VOC).10

           Maine's emissions inventories include the following source classifications; Point EGUs, Point Non-EGU, Area, On-Road Mobile, and Non-road. From 2002 through 2014, Maine's overall EGU SO2 emissions were reduced from 2,022 tons to 856 tons, well below the 2018 projected level of 7,422 tons. The largest SO2 sector, Point Non-EGU, saw emissions drop from 21,709 tons in 2002 to 6,434 tons in 2011, well below the 18,492 tons projected for 2018. Overall, State SO2 emissions dropped from 39,589 tons in 2002 to 15,528 tons in 2011, below the 2018 projection of 31,830 tons. Statewide NOX emissions experienced a similar decrease. Overall, State NOX emissions dropped from 91,928 tons in 2002 to 62,633 tons in 2011. The 2018 projected NOX emissions is 41,922 tons. Additional NOX reductions are expected from the mobile sector. Finally, ME DEP indicated that based on 2011 emission data, the State has already achieved the 2018 projected emissions reduction for direct PM2.5 (2% reduction) and VOC (20% reduction).

            10 The 2002 inventory is the MANE-VU V3.3 which is projected to 2018. The 2011 inventory is based on the 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI). The 2014 inventory was the most recent year of Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) inventory data as reported to EPA.

        EPA is proposing that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308. ME DEP compares the most recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of development of the Progress Report with the baseline emissions in the regional haze SIP. The Progress Report appropriately details the 2011 SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and VOC reductions achieved, by sector, thus far in the regional haze planning period. In addition, the State provided the most recent annual SO2 and NOX emission data for EGUs.

        In its Progress Report SIP, Maine states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf. While Maine mainly focused its analysis on addressing large SO2 emissions from point sources, the State did not find any significant changes in NOX and PM2.5 which might impede or limit progress during the first planning period. In addition, ME DEP cited the 2013 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) report, discussed below, which indicates that all of the MANE-VU Class I areas are on track to meet the 2018 visibility goals established by the States in their Regional Haze SIPs.11

            11 NESCAUM for MANE-VU, “Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-2011,” revised May 24, 2013. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends-2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view. The report was later updated with 2014 IMPROVE data.

        EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The State adequately demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO2, PM2.5, or NOX within the State which have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in the Class I areas impacted by Maine sources.

        In its Progress Report SIP, ME DEP states that the elements and strategies relied on in its original Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable Maine and neighboring States to meet all RPGs. To support this conclusion, ME DEP notes in Table 7-1 of the Progress Report that the 2014 EGU SO2 emissions from the entire MANE-VU area are already less than the 2018 projections for that area (323,704 tons versus 365,024 tons). In addition, Maine discusses visibility data from Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004-2011, prepared by NESCAUM, which updated the progress at MANE-VU Class I areas during the five-year period ending in 2014. The data included information for the Maine Class I areas, between 2000 and 2014, in the context of short- and long-term visibility goals. The report indicates that visibility impairment on the best and worst days from 2000-2014 have dropped at Acadia, Moosehorn, and Great Gulf. Maine notes the NESCAUM report indicates that all the MANE-VU Class I states continue to be on track to meet their 2018 RPGs for improved visibility and that further progress may occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory programs. Based upon the NESCAUM report and visibility data, Maine states in its Progress Report that visibility improvement at Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf has occurred for the most impaired days and no degradation of visibility has occurred for the least impaired days. Therefore, Maine finds that Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf are on track to meet the RPGs for 2018 based on observed visibility improvement.
        EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA views this requirement as an assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information. In its Progress Report, Maine describes the improving visibility trends using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emission trends in key pollutants in the State and the MANE-VU region. Maine determined that the State's regional haze SIP is sufficient for the three Class I areas within the State and the Class I area outside of the State impacted by the State's emissions (Great Gulf) to meet their RPGs.
        Maine's visibility monitoring strategy relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE monitor serving Acadia is located within Acadia National Park. The IMPROVE monitor serving Moosehorn and RCIP is located one mile northeast of Moosehorn. ME DEP finds that there is no indication of a need for additional monitoring sites or equipment.
        EPA is proposing to find that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) by reviewing the State's visibility monitoring strategy and assessing whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary.
        B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
        In its Progress Report SIP, Maine submitted a negative declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emission reductions in Maine beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by 2018 according to Maine's regional haze plan.

        In the 2016 SIP submittal, Maine determined that the existing Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the finding that visibility has improved at all Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. In addition, SO2 and PM2.5 emissions for the State have decreased beyond the original 2018 projections. While NOX reductions have yet to fully meet the 2018 projections, additional substantial NOX reductions are expected by 2018.
        EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility and emission trends indicate that Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and are expected to continue to meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.

        EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
        III. Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve Maine's February 23, 2016 regional haze 5-Year Progress Report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

          Dated: July 5, 2017.
          Deborah A. Szaro,
          Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

      [FR Doc. 2017-15266 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 060209031-6031-01; I.D. 020606C]
        RIN 0648-AU09
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Emergency Secretarial Action; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; emergency action; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          On March 3, 2006, a proposed rule to implement an emergency action for the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan(FMP) was published in the Federal Register. The proposed rule was published with an incorrect end date for receipt of public comments. This document corrects that error.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas W. Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On March 3, 2006 (71 FR 11060), a proposed rule was published that would implement measures intended to immediately reduce the fishing mortality rate (F) on specific groundfish species, include differential days-at-sea (DAS) counting, reduce trip limits for specific species and recreational possession restrictions, continue two programs that would otherwise expire by the end of the 2005 fishing year on April 30, 2006, and implement other provisions. Due to confusion over the date the proposed rule was to be filed for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, the proposed rule was published with an incorrect comment period end date.

        Correction
        In the proposed rule FR Doc. 06-1911, in the issue of Friday, March 6, 2006 (71 FR 11060), make the following correction.

        On page 11060, in column 2, the DATES section is corrected to read “DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2006.”

          Dated: March 7, 2006.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-3524 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 101006A]
        Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Public hearings.

          SUMMARY:

           The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) announces the dates and locations of public hearings to solicit comments on the proposed 15th amendment to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan to allow de minimis ocean fishing impacts on Klamath River fall Chinook during years that would otherwise be closed to ocean salmon fishing.

          DATES:
           Written comments on the salmon management options must be received by Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time.

          ADDRESSES:

           Written comments should be sent to Mr. Donald Hansen, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384, telephone: 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-2299 (fax). For specific hearing locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Mr. Chuck Tracy, telephone: 503-820-2280.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          November 1-2, 2006: Public hearings will be held to receive comments on the proposed de minimis fishing alternatives adopted by the Council at its September 2006 meeting. All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. on the dates and at the locations specified here.

          November 1, 2006: Old Mill Casino, Cedar Room, 3201 Tremont Avenue (Hwy 101), North Bend, OR 97459 541-756-8800.

          November 2, 2006: Hilton Sonoma Wine Country, Nagasawa A Room, 3555 Round Barn Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 707-523-7555.

        Special Accommodations
        The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 (voice), or 503-820-2299 (fax) at least five days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated: October 11, 2006.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Director, Office Of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-17241 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 100217095-1780-03]
        RIN 0648-AY56
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 32

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS published a proposed rule on November 2, 2011 (76 FR 67656) to implement management measures described in Amendment 32 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 32) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). During the comment period for that proposed rule, NMFS identified an inconsistency in the codified text of that rule regarding the accountability measures for recreational gag and red grouper that needs correction. This rule proposes to further revise the recreational accountability measures for gag and red grouper to correctly specify what will occur if the ACL is exceeded and the species is overfished. This proposed rule is intended to end overfishing of gag, allow the gag stock to rebuild, and co-manage gag and red grouper by implementing concurrent management measures.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0135” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, click on “submit a comment,” then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0135” in the keyword search and click on “search.” To view posted comments during the comment period, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0135” in the keyword search and click on “search.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments through means not specified in this rule will not be accepted.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 32, which includes a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web Site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/GrouperSnapperandReefFish.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone (727) 824-5305; email: Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        A proposed rule for Amendment 32 was published on November 2, 2011 (76 FR 67656) with the comment period ending December 2, 2011. That proposed rule included measures to adjust the commercial gag quota and recreational annual catch target (ACT) for 2012 through 2015 and subsequent fishing years, consistent with the gag rebuilding plan established in Amendment 32; adjust the shallow-water grouper quota; adjust the commercial and recreational sector's annual catch limits (ACLs) for gag and red grouper; adjust the commercial ACL for SWG; establish a formula-based method for setting gag and red grouper multi-use allocation for the grouper/tilefish individual fishing quota program in the Gulf of Mexico; set the recreational gag fishing season from July 1 through October 31; reduce the gag commercial size limit to 22 inches (59 cm) total length (TL); and modify the gag and red grouper accountability measures (AMs).

        During the comment period for that proposed rule, NMFS identified an inconsistency in the codified text regarding the AMs for gag and red grouper. In § 622.49, paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C), the codified text for gag recreational AMs states that, “if gag recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), and gag are overfished, based on the most recent status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the ACL for that following year by the amount of the overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.” However, in § 622.49, paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B), the codified text states that, “Without regard to overfished status, and in addition to the measures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A), if gag recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACLs specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to maintain the gag target catch level, specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), for that following fishing year at the level of the prior year's target catch, unless the best scientific information available determines that maintaining the prior year's target catch is unnecessary.” The codified text for red grouper recreational AMs in § 622.49, paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(C) and (B) is identical to the gag codified text. Therefore, if gag or red grouper are overfished and recreational landings exceed the ACL and an overage adjustment is made to the ACL the following year, the ACL could actually be adjusted to a lower poundage than the annual target catch or ACT. The ACT, according to the National Standard 1 guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009) is usually set less than the ACL. “ACT is set at an amount not to exceed the ACL to account for management uncertainty in controlling a fishery's actual catch.” Therefore, there should be a buffer between the ACT and the ACL. This rule proposes to rectify this potential inconsistency in the regulations. If the ACL is exceeded and gag or red grouper are overfished, NMFS proposes that both the ACL and ACT be adjusted by the same ACL overage amount the next fishing year. NMFS also proposed to revise the term “target catch level” with “annual catch target” or “ACT”, which is the language used in Amendment 32 and which is consistent with the language used in the codified text for other Gulf and South Atlantic species with ACLs, AMs, and target catches, or ACTs. The codified text contained in this proposed rule only contains the further revisions to the recreational AMs for gag and red grouper. The codified text for all other measures in Amendment 32 is contained in the proposed rule published on November 2, 2011 (76 FR 67656) and is not repeated here.
        NMFS is requesting comments for a period of 15 days regarding these additional revisions to the codified text. These management measures, as well as the management measures contained in the proposed rule published on November 2, 2011, will be addressed in one final rule to implement Amendment 32. No other revisions or changes to the proposed rule to implement Amendment 32 are included here. All discussion of the management measures contained in Amendment 32 including the accountability measures are provided in the proposed rule that published on November 2, 2011 (76 FR 67656), and in Amendment 32, and are not repeated here.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the AA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 32, 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 IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for the proposed rule to implement Amendment 32 (76 FR 67656). The IRFA analyzed all of the measures contained in Amendment 32, including the accountability measures in this rule, in the rule that published on November 2, 2011 and in Amendment 32, and therefore, are not repeated here. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule does not establish any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: January 6, 2012.
          Paul N. Doremus,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622, as proposed to be amended at 76 FR 67656, November 2, 2011, is proposed to be further 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 § 622.49, paragraphs (a)(4)(ii), and (a)(5)(ii) are revised to read as follows:

            § 622.49
            Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability measures (AMs).
            (a) * * *
            (4) * * *
            (ii) Recreational sector. (A) Without regard to overfished status, if gag recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the applicable ACLs specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limit of gag in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. This bag and possession limit applies in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e. in state or Federal waters. In addition, the notification will reduce the length of the recreational SWG fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure gag recreational landings do not exceed the recreational target catch level in the following fishing year.
            (B) If gag are not overfished, and in addition to the measures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A), if gag recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACLs specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to maintain the gag ACT, specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), for that following fishing year at the level of the prior year's ACT, unless the best scientific information available determines that maintaining the prior year's target catch is unnecessary. In addition, the notification will reduce the length of the recreational SWG fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure gag recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT in the following fishing year.
            (C) In addition to the measures specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), if gag recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(D), and gag are overfished, based on the most recent status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the ACL and the ACT for that following year by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
            (D) The applicable recreational ACLs for gag, in gutted weight, are 1.232 million lb (0.559 million kg) for 2012, 1.495 million lb (0.678 million kg) for 2013, 1.720 million lb (0.780 million kg) for 2014, and 1.903 million lb (0.863 million kg) for 2015 and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACTs for gag, in gutted weight, are 1.031 million lb (0.468 million kg) for 2012, 1.287 million lb (0.584 million kg) for 2013, 1.519 million lb (0.689 million kg) for 2014, and 1.708 million lb (0.775 million kg) for 2015 and subsequent fishing years. Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.
            (5) * * *
            (ii) Recreational sector. (A) Without regard to overfished status, if red grouper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(D), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limit of red grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. This bag and possession limit applies in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e. in state or Federal waters.
            (B) If red grouper are not overfished, and in addition to the measures specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A), if red grouper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(D), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to maintain the red grouper ACT, specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(D), for that following fishing year at the level of the prior year's ACT, unless the best scientific information available determines that maintaining the prior year's ACT is unnecessary. In addition, the notification will reduce the bag limit by one fish and reduce the length of the recreational SWG fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT in the following fishing year. The minimum red grouper bag limit for 2014 and subsequent fishing years is two fish.
            (C) In addition to the measures specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(A) and (B), if red grouper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(D), and red grouper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the ACL and the ACT for that following year by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
            (D) The recreational ACL for red grouper, in gutted weight, is 1.90 million lb (0.862 million kg) for 2012 and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACT for red grouper, in gutted weight, is 1.730 million lb (0.785 million kg) for 2012 and subsequent fishing years. Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.

      [FR Doc. 2012-475 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 050504121-5121-01; I.D. 050205B]
        RIN 0648-AT40
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Spiny Dogfish Management Program and Trawl Individual Quota Program and Establishment of a Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of control date for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) is considering implementing management measures for the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) fishery off Washington, Oregon and California.  This document announces a control date of April 8, 2005, for the spiny dogfish fishery.  The control date for the spiny dogfish fishery is intended to discourage increased fishing effort in the limited entry and open access groundfish fisheries targeting spiny dogfish based on economic speculation while the Pacific Council develops and considers management measures for the spiny dogfish fishery.  In addition, this document provides supplemental information on a control date for a limited entry groundfish trawl individual quota (IQ) program announced in the Federal Register on January 9, 2004, by clarifying that the control date does not preclude processors from being eligible to own quota as part of the trawl IQ program.

          DATES:
          Comments may be submitted in writing by June 23, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by I.D. 050205B by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: dogfish.nwr@noaa.gov:    Include 050205B in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn:   Jamie Goen
          • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn:   Jamie Goen

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The Pacific Fishery Management Council at 866-806-7204; or Steve Freese at 206-526-6140.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Pacific Council established under section 302(a)(1)(F) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(F)) (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is considering management measures for the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) fishery off Washington, Oregon and California.  In addition, NMFS previously announced a control date for a limited entry groundfish trawl IQ program off Washington, Oregon and California that is clarified later in this notice.  The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) approved on January 4, 1982 (47 FR 43964, October 5, 1982), as amended 18 times.  Implementing regulations for the FMP and its amendments are codified at 50 CFR part 660, subpart G.
        Control Date for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery
        Recent interest in the spiny dogfish fishery and concern over the status of the stock has led the Pacific Council to consider management measures for the spiny dogfish fishery off Washington, Oregon and California.  On May 5, 2005 (70 FR 23804), NMFS published a temporary emergency rule to set bycatch limits in the directed open access fishery for canary and yelloweye rockfish in order to protect those species from impacts from new vessels interested in participating in the open access fishery for dogfish (Historically, a limited number of vessels have targeted dogfish off the West Coast even though harvest of the species is currently not limited. [Note:    Spiny dogfish are included in the “Other Fish” category in Pacific Coast groundfish management.  Thus, the harvest of spiny dogfish is included in the optimum yield (OY) for “Other Fish,” which is not limited.]
        In the past few years, large areas along the coast have been closed to the non-trawl groundfish fishery to protect overfished rockfish species.  Some vessels explored accessing these closed areas through an experimental fishing permit (EFP) sponsored by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in an effort to test whether vessels can target spiny dogfish in the closed area while keeping catch of overfished rockfish species limited.  EFP results proved promising in terms of participating vessels maintaining low bycatch rates while targeting dogfish.  However, before the Pacific Council and NMFS might consider moving forward with management measures to create a targeted spiny dogfish fishery additional information is necessary, including an assessment of the status of the stock.
        A formal stock assessment has not been conducted on the West Coast stock of spiny dogfish.  A formal stock assessment is planned for the 2007 stock assessment cycle.  In the meantime, little is known about the status of spiny dogfish on the West Coast, except that like other shark species, they are slow growing, late to mature, and have a low fecundity, making them susceptible to becoming overfished.
        Thus, in an effort to discourage increased fishing effort on spiny dogfish in the limited entry and open access groundfish fisheries based on speculative new entrants while the Pacific Council considers management measures, the Pacific Council recommended and NMFS is announcing a control date of April 8, 2005, in advance of a rulemaking.  Management measures may include setting an acceptable biological catch (ABC) and OY specific to spiny dogfish.  While a control date is not necessary for setting an ABC/OY, it may be used if management measures include limiting future participation in the spiny dogfish fishery.  If the Pacific Council recommends and NMFS adopts management measures for the spiny dogfish fishery, the measures would be implemented through a proposed and final rulemaking, and possibly an FMP amendment.
        The control date announces to the public that the Pacific Council may decide not to count activities occurring after the control date toward determining a person's qualification for participation in the spiny dogfish fishery.  Spiny dogfish landed after April 8, 2005, potentially may not be included in the catch history used to qualify for participation in the spiny dogfish fishery.

        Implementation of any management measures for the fishery will require amendment of the regulations implementing the FMP and may also require amendment of the FMP itself.  Any action will require Council development of a regulatory proposal with public input and a supporting analysis, NMFS approval, and appropriate rulemaking procedures.  Interested parties are urged to contact the Pacific Council office to stay informed of the development of any planned regulations.  Fishers are not guaranteed future participation in the spiny dogfish fishery, regardless of their date of entry or level of participation in the fishery.
        This notification hereby establishes April 8, 2005, for potential use in determining historical or traditional participation in the spiny dogfish fishery.  This action does not commit the Pacific Council to developing any particular management regime or to use any specific criteria for determining entry to the fishery.  The Pacific Council may choose a different control date or a management program that does not make use of such a date.  The Pacific Council may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery.  Any action by the Pacific Council will be taken pursuant to the requirement for FMP development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Trawl IQ Program Control Date Clarification
        As announced in the Federal Register on January 9, 2004 in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (69 FR 1563), the Pacific Council is considering implementing an IQ program for the Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry trawl fishery off Washington, Oregon and California.  In advance of a rulemaking on the trawl IQ program, that notice announced a control date of November 6, 2003, for the trawl IQ program as follows:    “the control date for the trawl IQ program is intended to discourage increased fishing effort in the limited entry trawl fishery based on economic speculation while the Pacific Council develops and considers a trawl IQ program.  This control date will apply to any person potentially eligible for IQ shares.  Persons potentially eligible for IQ shares may include vessel owners, permit owners, vessel operators, and crew.”  To clarify, the control date for the trawl IQ program does not preclude processors from being eligible to own quota in the trawl IQ program should the Pacific Council approve and NMFS implement a trawl IQ program.
        In addition, as mentioned above under the control date for spiny dogfish, the control date previously announced for the trawl IQ program does not commit the Pacific Council to developing any particular management regime or to use any specific criteria for determining entry into the trawl IQ program.  The Pacific Council may choose a different control date or a management program that does not make use of such a date.  The Pacific Council may also choose to take no further action.  Any action by the Pacific Council will be taken pursuant to the requirement for FMP development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

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

          Dated: May 18, 2005.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-10352 Filed 5-23-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; FXES11130900000C2-189-FF09E32000]
        RIN 1018-BD60
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), recently published a proposal to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and we announced the opening of a 60-day public comment period on the proposed action, ending May 14, 2019. We now extend the public comment period 60 days to allow all interested parties additional time to comment on the proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. In addition, we will provide public-hearing information through the Federal Register in the near future.

          DATES:
          The public comment period on the proposed rule that published March 15, 2019 at 84 FR 9648, is extended to July 15, 2019.

            Written Comments: Please note that comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date and comments submitted by U.S. mail must be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration.

          ADDRESSES:

            Availability of Documents: You may obtain copies of the March 15, 2019, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097.

            Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all substantive comments we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)) currently includes the gray wolf (Canis lupus). On March 15, 2019, the Service proposed to remove gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico from the List and opened a 60-day public comment period on the proposed action (84 FR 9648). The Service now extends the comment period as specified above in DATES.
        Public Comments

        We will accept comments and information during this extended comment period on our proposal to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Our final determination will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during the comment period. Therefore, the final decision may differ from the March 15, 2019, proposed rule, based on our review of all information received during this rulemaking.
        If you already submitted comments or information on the March 15, 2019, proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of this rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.

        Our March 15, 2019, proposal replaces our June 13, 2013, proposal to remove gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico from the List (78 FR 35663). Therefore, we ask any persons or entities who submitted comments on the June 13, 2013, proposal that are relevant to the status of wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico as analyzed in the March 15, 2019, proposal to resubmit their comments at this time. Comments must be submitted during the comment period for the March 15, 2019, proposed rule to be considered.

        Comments should be as specific as possible. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you assert. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not meet the standard of best available scientific and commercial data. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is threatened or endangered must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. You may also provide your comments through verbal testimony during the public hearing, details of which will be announced in an upcoming Federal Register document.
        If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097, or by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Our final determination concerning the proposed action will take into consideration all written comments we receive during the open comment periods, comments received during the public hearing, and comments from peer reviewers. These comments will be included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
        Public Hearing

        We will hold one or more public hearings during the open comment period. We will provide information on the location, dates, and times of any hearings through publication in the Federal Register in the near future.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the Ecological Services staff of the Headquarters Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 7, 2019.
          Margaret E. Everson,
          Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-09857 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P