        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 131115973-4630-01]
        RIN 0648-BD74
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment 96 to the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan; Management of Community Quota Entities

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 96 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). If approved, Amendment 96 would amend certain provisions of the Individual Fishing Quota Program for the Fixed-Gear Commercial Fisheries for Pacific Halibut and Sablefish in Waters in and off Alaska (IFQ Program). This action would remove a regulation that prohibits a Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Community Quota Entity (CQE) from transferring and holding small blocks of halibut and sablefish quota share (QS). This action would allow CQEs to acquire additional QS and facilitate sustained participation by CQE community residents in the IFQ Program. This action would promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the FMP, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before September 8, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0161, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0161, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

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

          An electronic copy of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (collectively, Analysis) prepared for Amendment 96 and the regulatory amendment to allow CQE acquisition of small block halibut QS is available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. An electronic copy of the 2010 Review of the CQE Program under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) is available from the Council Web site at www.npfmc.org/community-quota-entity-program/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Murphy, (907) 586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Regulatory Authority

        NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 96 to the FMP and a regulatory amendment to revise the CQE Program. The Council recommended and NMFS approved the FMP in 1978 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Regulations implementing the FMP and general regulations governing groundfish appear at 50 CFR part 679. Fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) is managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and the Council under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Section 773(c) of the Halibut Act authorizes the Council to develop regulations that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Such Council-recommended regulations may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary of Commerce.

        The Council submitted Amendment 96 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43377) with comments invited through September 23, 2014. All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 96 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision.
        Background

        The IFQ Program is a limited access privilege program for the commercial fixed-gear halibut and sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fisheries in and off Alaska. The IFQ Program limits access to the halibut and sablefish fisheries to those persons holding QS in specific regulatory areas. Quota shares equate to individual harvesting privileges that are given effect on an annual basis through the issuance of IFQ permits. An annual IFQ permit authorizes the permit holder to harvest a specified amount of IFQ halibut or sablefish in a regulatory area. A comprehensive explanation of the IFQ Program can be found in the final rule implementing the IFQ Program (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993).
        Although the IFQ Program resulted in significant safety and economic benefits for many fishermen, since the inception of the IFQ Program, many residents of Alaska's smaller remote coastal communities in the GOA who held QS have transferred their QS to non-community residents or moved out of the smaller coastal communities. As a result, the number of resident QS holders has declined substantially in most of the GOA communities with IFQ Program participants. This transfer of halibut and sablefish QS and the associated fishing effort from the GOA's smaller remote coastal communities has limited the ability of residents to locally purchase or lease QS and reduced the diversity of fisheries to which fishermen in remote coastal communities have access. The Council recognized that a number of remote coastal communities were struggling to remain economically viable and developed the CQE Program to provide these communities with long-term opportunities to access the halibut and sablefish resources that have been historically available to resident fishermen.
        The Council recommended the CQE Program as an amendment to the IFQ Program in 2002 (Amendment 66 to the FMP), and NMFS implemented the program in 2004 (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). The CQE Program adopted by the Council, and implemented by NMFS, was specifically intended to provide fishing opportunities to communities in the GOA that had a historic dependence on the halibut and sablefish fisheries. The Council recommended and NMFS implemented a CQE Program that would provide similar opportunities to coastal communities in the Aleutian Islands in 2013, known as the Aleutian Islands CQE Program (79 FR 8870, February 14, 2014). The Aleutian Islands CQE Program would not be affected by this proposed action and is not addressed further. Where the terms “CQE” or “CQE Program” are used in this preamble, they are specifically referring to the regulations and management measures applicable to the GOA CQE Program, and not to the Aleutian Islands CQE Program.
        The CQE Program allows 45 small, remote, coastal communities in the GOA that met historic participation criteria in the halibut and sablefish fisheries to transfer (purchase) and hold catcher vessel halibut and sablefish QS in specific regulatory areas (see Table 21 to 50 CFR Part 679). The communities are eligible to participate in the CQE Program once they are represented by a NMFS-approved non-profit entity called a CQE. After NMFS approval, a CQE may receive catcher vessel QS for the represented community or communities through NMFS-approved transfers. The CQE is the holder of the QS and is issued the IFQ annually by NMFS. Once a CQE holds QS in the GOA, the CQE can lease the annual IFQ derived from its QS to individual GOA community residents. With certain exceptions, the QS must be held by the CQE. This program structure creates a permanent asset for the community to use. The structure promotes community access to QS to generate participation in, and fishery revenues from, the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries. The CQE Program also promotes QS ownership by individual community residents. Individuals who lease annual IFQ from the CQE could use resulting IFQ revenue to transfer their own QS. The Council believed, and NMFS agrees, that both CQE- and non-CQE-held QS are important in terms of providing community residents fishing access that promotes the economic health of communities.
        Current CQE Program regulations include a number of management provisions that originated from the IFQ Program structure and affect the use of CQE-held QS and the annual IFQ derived from the QS. Under some provisions, a CQE has the same privileges and is held to the same limitations as individual QS holders in the IFQ fishery. For example, CQE-held QS is subject to the same IFQ regulatory area use cap that applies to non-CQE held QS. In other instances, the CQE is subject to less restrictive provisions than individual, non-CQE QS holders. For example, a community resident leasing IFQ from a CQE may fish the IFQ assigned to a larger vessel size category on a smaller size category of catcher vessel. In other instances, the CQE must operate under more restrictive provisions than individual, non-CQE QS holders, in part to protect existing QS holders and preserve “entry-level” opportunities for new entrants. A comprehensive explanation of the CQE Program provisions can be found in the final rule implementing the CQE Program (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). Recent modifications to the CQE Program can be found in a rule that amended several components of the CQE Program (78 FR 33243, June 4, 2013).

        A number of IFQ Program provisions that apply to CQE Program participants are important to understanding the proposed action and are summarized in this preamble. These provisions include regulatory area and vessel size categories; QS use caps; and QS blocks. Additional detail on the IFQ Program is available in the final rule implementing the IFQ Program (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). Since implementation of the IFQ Program, there have been changes to halibut and sablefish QS use caps (62 FR 7947, February 21, 1997; 67 FR 20916, April 29, 2002) and to the halibut block use cap (72 FR 44795, August 9, 2007).

          IFQ Regulatory Area and Vessel Size Categories

        The IFQ Program annually issues fixed-gear halibut and sablefish QS specific to IFQ regulatory area and vessel category. In the GOA there are three IPHC halibut regulatory areas: Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska), 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska), and 3B (Western Gulf of Alaska), and four sablefish regulatory areas: Southeast (SE), West Yakutat (WY), Central GOA (CG), and Western GOA (WG). The boundaries for the halibut and sablefish IFQ regulatory areas are defined in regulation (see definition of “IFQ Regulatory Area” at § 679.2). Each QS is assigned to a vessel based upon the size of the vessel from which IFQ halibut and sablefish may be harvested and/or processed (see regulations at § 679.40(a)(5)). Halibut QS and its associated IFQ are assigned to one of four vessel categories in each regulatory area: Freezer (catcher/processor) category (category A); catcher vessel greater than 60 ft. length overall (LOA) (category B); catcher vessel 36 ft. to 60 ft. LOA (category C); and catcher vessel 35 ft. LOA or less (category D). Sablefish QS and its associated IFQ are assigned to one of three vessel categories in each regulatory area: Freezer (catcher/processor) category (category A); catcher vessel greater than 60 ft. LOA (category B); and catcher vessel 60 ft. LOA or less (category C). The vessel categories were designed to ensure that the IFQ Program did not substantially change the structure of the fleet that existed at the time the IFQ Program was implemented. These vessel size restrictions prevent the fishery from being dominated by large vessels or by any particular vessel category.
        CQEs may obtain by transfer and hold QS only in specified areas in order to facilitate local support of community fishing operations (see § 679.40 and Table 21 to part 679). However, CQEs are restricted in terms of the IFQ regulatory area(s) in which they may transfer and hold halibut. Table 1 below illustrates the IFQ regulatory area and vessel category of halibut QS a CQE can transfer and hold based on the location of the community represented by the CQE. As shown in Table 1 (below) and in Table 21 to part 679, a CQE representing an eligible community may transfer and hold halibut QS in the regulatory area in which the community is located (their regulatory area). CQEs are restricted, however, to transferring and holding certain halibut QS inside and outside their regulatory area. For example, CQEs in Area 2C may not transfer and hold halibut category D QS in Area 2C. Generally, CQEs can transfer and hold halibut QS in adjacent regulatory areas. However, CQEs located in Area 3A may not transfer and hold halibut QS in Area 2C, although CQEs located in Area 2C may transfer and hold halibut category A, B and C QS in Area 3A. CQEs located in Areas 3A or 3B may transfer and hold halibut QS in Areas 3A and 3B, but CQEs in Area 3B cannot transfer and hold category D QS in Area 3A. Table 1 (below) illustrates the limitations on CQEs' transferring and holding halibut QS by regulatory area and vessel category. For further explanation and the rationale for the restrictions, see the final rule implementing the CQE Program (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004) and subsequent amendment (78 FR 33243, June 4, 2013).

          Table 1—Authority of a CQE Representing a Community Located in IFQ Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, or 3B (Row) To Obtain Through Transfer and Hold Category A, B, C and/or D Halibut Quota Share by Area 2C, 3A or 3B (Column)

            Area
            Halibut quota share category by area
            Area 2CA, B, C

            Area 2CD

            Area 3AA, B, C

            Area 3AD

            Area 3BA, B, C

            Area 3BD

            2C
            Yes
            No
            Yes
            No
            No
            No.

            3A
            No
            No
            Yes
            Yes
            Yes
            Yes.

            3B
            No
            No
            Yes
            No
            Yes
            Yes.

        The CQE Program authorizes CQEs to obtain by transfer and hold catcher vessel QS: Category B, C, and D halibut QS, with area-specific limitations for category D halibut QS; and category B and C sablefish QS. However, the vessel size categories do not apply to IFQ derived from QS held by a CQE, with an exception for category D halibut QS in Area 3A.
        The Council recommended specific limitations for CQEs to transfer and hold category D halibut QS in Areas 2C and 3A. These limitations were intended to balance the Council's objective for providing CQEs with increased opportunities to acquire halibut QS with its objective to limit potential competition for category D halibut QS between non-CQE and CQE QS holders. Vessel category D halibut QS is generally the least expensive category of halibut QS because non-CQE IFQ derived from category D QS must be used on the smallest category of catcher vessel. It is often transferred and held by smaller operations or by new entrants to the IFQ fisheries. CQE Program regulations at § 679.41(g)(5) prohibit a CQE from transferring and holding category D halibut QS in Area 2C. The Council recommended this prohibition because a greater portion of the total Area 2C halibut QS is issued as category D QS relative to Areas 3A and 3B, and category D halibut QS is more commonly transferred by new entrants in Area 2C than in Areas 3A and 3B.

        A CQE representing one or more communities in Area 3A is allowed to transfer and hold a limited amount of Area 3A category D halibut QS, but the IFQ derived from that QS must (among other restrictions) be fished on a category D vessel, which are vessels less than or equal to 35 ft. LOA (see regulations at § 679.42(a)(2)(iii)). Category D vessels are typically held by new entrants and by most fishery participants residing in Area 3A communities. An Area 3A CQE is limited to transferring and holding no more than the total number of category D halibut QS units initially issued to individual residents of Area 3A CQE communities. The Council recommended this provision to provide opportunities for CQEs to transfer and hold an amount of category D halibut QS up to the amount historically held by CQE residents without increasing potential competition for category D halibut QS between non-CQE and CQE QS holders (78 FR 14490, March 6, 2013).
        A CQE representing one or more communities in Areas 3A and 3B is allowed to transfer and hold Area 3B category D halibut QS. As noted in the final rule implementing the CQE Program (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004), a relatively small amount of category D halibut QS exists in Area 3B, and traditionally few prospective buyers exist for this category of QS.

          CQE Program QS Use Caps

        Individual community use caps limit the amount of halibut QS and sablefish QS that each CQE may transfer and hold on behalf of a community. The use caps accommodate existing QS holders who are concerned that shifting QS holdings to CQEs could disadvantage individual fishermen in the IFQ fishery by reducing the amount of QS available to them in the QS market. In the CQE Program, the CQE individual community use cap is limited to an amount of QS equal to the individual IFQ Program use cap. GOA CQEs are limited to transferring and holding a maximum of 1 percent of the Area 2C halibut QS (see regulations at § 679.42(f)(2)(ii)) and a maximum of 0.5 percent of the combined Area 2C, 3A, and 3B halibut QS (see regulations at § 679.42(f)(2)(i)). GOA CQEs also are limited to transferring and holding a maximum of 1 percent of the Southeast sablefish QS (see regulations at § 679.42(e)(5)) and a maximum of 1 percent of all combined sablefish areas QS (see regulations at § 679.42(e)(4)(i)).
        In addition to individual community use caps, cumulative community use caps limit the amount of halibut QS and sablefish QS that all CQE eligible communities within an IFQ regulatory area can transfer and hold. CQEs are limited to a maximum of 21 percent of the total halibut QS pool (see regulations at § 679.42(f)(5)) and a maximum of 21 percent of the total sablefish QS pool (see regulations at § 679.42(e)(6)) in each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA. Therefore, all CQEs in the GOA are subject to the maximum cumulative community use cap of 21 percent of each species' total QS pool in each IFQ regulatory area.

          QS Blocks

        The IFQ Program initially issued QS in blocks. A block is a consolidation of QS units that cannot be subdivided upon transfer (see regulations at § 679.41(e)(1)). One of the primary purposes of QS blocks and the subsequent amendments to the block provisions was to conserve small blocks of QS that could be transferred at a relatively low cost by crew members and new entrants to the IFQ fisheries. Blocked QS typically is less expensive and more affordable for new entrants. The IFQ Program incorporates a “sweep-up” provision to allow very small blocks of QS to be permanently consolidated, up to specified limits, so as to be practical to fish (see regulations at §§ 679.41(e)(2) and (e)(3)).
        QS Block Use Cap
        A block use cap restricts how many blocks of QS an individual can transfer and hold. In the IFQ Program, an individual may transfer and hold no more than three blocks of halibut QS and two blocks of sablefish QS (see regulations at § 679.42(g)(1)). The purpose of this cap is to limit the consolidation of blocked QS and to ensure that smaller aggregate units would be available on the market. These provisions were established to prevent unrestricted transfer of QS by fishermen with greater capital or operating efficiency. These fishermen could also disadvantage new entrants, particularly fishermen with smaller operations in remote communities who have typically sought to transfer “blocked QS.” The block use cap was intended to preserve the character of the fishing fleet in remote Alaska fishing communities by ensuring that QS would be available to the fleet of smaller operators, thereby maintaining the diversity in operation types that exist in more remote coastal communities.
        The IFQ Program also limits the number of blocks a CQE may transfer and hold. The limitation prevents CQEs from consolidating the type of QS that is most attractive to and feasible for new entrant, non-CQE fishermen to transfer. CQEs may transfer and hold up to a maximum of 10 blocks of halibut QS and 5 blocks of sablefish QS in each GOA regulatory area (see regulations at § 679.42(g)(ii)). These limits on CQE block holdings and the limit on where CQEs can hold QS restrict CQEs to 20 halibut QS blocks (10 blocks in each of two areas) and 20 sablefish QS blocks (5 blocks in each of four areas).
        Minimum Block Size
        During development of the CQE Program, the Council and NMFS were concerned that CQEs would seek to acquire as much of the most affordable QS as they were allowed to hold. The Council and NMFS determined that if no limit on the acquisition of blocked QS was established, then gains in CQE holdings could reflect losses of QS holdings among residents of the same CQE communities. The Council and NMFS were also concerned that CQEs might have greater access to capital than individuals, so they could buy up blocks of QS that are most in demand by non-CQE fishermen with small operations. Fishermen entering the IFQ fishery tend to seek relatively smaller blocks of QS. Smaller blocks of QS are typically designated for vessels of a smaller size category: Category C and D in the halibut fishery and category C in the sablefish fishery. New entrants tend to own or use smaller category C and D vessels. Therefore, smaller blocks are more in demand by new entrants, and less in demand by fishermen using larger vessels. Smaller blocks of QS are typically more affordable due to their low total cost compared to the cost of larger blocks (see Section 2.7.2.2 of the Analysis). Given these factors, the Council and NMFS determined it was appropriate to restrict CQEs from purchasing or holding blocked QS of less than a minimum size to preserve fishing opportunities for new entrants in certain regulatory areas.

        The CQE program prohibits CQEs from transferring and holding a QS block that is less than the “sweep up” limit, or the number of QS units initially issued as blocks that could be combined to form a single block (see regulations at §§ 679.41(e)(4) and (e)(5)). Quota share blocks that are less than or equal to the “sweep up” limit are known as “small blocks.” The amount of QS units that comprise a small block in each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA is specified for the halibut fishery (see regulations at § 679.41(e)(3)) and for the sablefish fishery (see regulations at § 679.41(e)(2)) (see Table 2 below). Currently, CQEs are prohibited from purchasing or using small blocks of halibut QS in Areas 2C and 3A (see regulations at § 679.41(e)(5)), and sablefish QS in the SE., WY, CG, and WG (see regulations at § 679.41(e)(4)) regulatory areas. The Council did not recommend a small block restriction for Area 3B halibut QS. Fewer small blocks exist in Area 3B and few new entrants in Area 3B have sought these small blocks of halibut QS (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). Therefore, CQEs transferring Area 3B QS are not subject to a small block restriction.

          Table 2—Current and Proposed Restrictions on the Minimum Block Size by IFQ Regulatory Area.

            Species
            Area
            Current minimum block size restriction
            Proposed block size restriction

            Halibut
            2C
            33,320 QS
            No Restriction.

            3A
            46,520 QS
            No Restriction.

            3B
            No Restriction
            No Restriction.

            Sablefish
            SE
            33,270 QS
            No Restriction.

            WY
            43,390 QS
            No Restriction.

            CG
            46,055 QS
            No Restriction.

            WG
            48,410 QS
            No Restriction.

        The total amount of QS units issued in small blocks differs by IFQ regulatory area. Sections 2.6.3.2 and 2.7.1 of the Analysis report that 11.3 percent of the total Area 2C and Area 3A halibut QS is small block halibut QS, and 3.7 percent of the total sablefish QS (i.e., SE., WY, CG, and WG) is small block sablefish QS. Even though a relatively small proportion of QS is issued as small blocks and not available for transfer by CQEs, existing regulations may constrain small block holders from selling their small blocks and CQEs from transferring QS.
        Proposed Action
        This proposed action would amend the FMP and halibut and sablefish CQE regulations to remove the restriction on CQEs' ability to purchase and use small blocks of halibut and sablefish QS less than or equal to the sweep-up limit currently specified in regulations at §§ 679.41(e)(5) and 679.41(e)(4), respectively. Under this proposed action, all CQEs in the GOA could receive by transfer any size block of halibut and sablefish QS to hold for use by eligible community members. CQEs would be able to transfer the similar size of QS blocks in the market place as individual non-CQE QS holders. The objectives of this action are to provide CQE communities in the GOA with increased opportunity to transfer and hold QS and sustain participation of CQE community residents in the IFQ halibut and sablefish fisheries.
        Although the proposed action would allow CQEs to transfer any size block of QS from any QS holder, provisions of the IFQ Program described above would still apply. These include regulatory area restrictions, community QS use caps (individual and cumulative), the prohibition on CQEs' transfer and holding of category D halibut QS in Area 2C, the limitation on the amount of category D halibut QS that an Area 3A CQE may transfer and hold, and the prohibition on transfer and holding of category D halibut QS in Area 3A by CQEs located outside Area 3A.
        The proposed rule would update Table 21 to part 679 to clarify the category of halibut QS (A, B, C and D) and IFQ regulatory area of the QS that a CQE can transfer by area. This revision to Table 21 to part 679 would provide a clearer and more comprehensive summary of CQE harvesting privileges.
        Rationale for and Effects of the Proposed Action
        This proposed action would provide additional opportunities for CQEs to transfer and hold QS, and NMFS expects it will not adversely affect the ability of non-CQE fishery participants to transfer and hold small blocks of QS. In proposing this action, the Council and NMFS considered the current participation of CQE and non-CQE QS holders in the IFQ fishery, and the potential impact on QS access and markets. The Council and NMFS determined that removing the small block restriction from the CQE Program could improve the ability of CQEs to obtain the most affordable blocks of QS without negatively impacting the ability of non-CQE fishery participants to obtain the similar size blocks of QS.

        CQEs participating in the CQE Program have made little progress towards reaching the regulatory limits on the maximum amount of QS that may be transferred or IFQ that may be harvested. Since implementation of the CQE program in 2004, only two of the 45 communities eligible for the CQE program have formed CQEs, transferred QS, and harvested the resulting IFQ. These two CQEs hold less than 0.5 percent of the combined Area 2C, 3A, and 3B halibut QS pool. These two CQEs do not hold sablefish QS. The Council's analysis of the CQE Program indicated that lack of participation in the CQE Program can be attributed to 1) financial barriers to transferring QS, and 2) CQE Program-related restrictions. Key financial barriers to the transfer of QS by CQEs include limited availability of QS for transfer, increased market prices for halibut and sablefish QS, and limited viable options for financing QS transfer. Each of these barriers is a function of market forces and cannot be addressed through regulatory amendment (see the Review of the CQE Program under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program and Section 2.6.3.1 of the Analysis for additional detail (see ADDRESSES)).

        Analysis of the percent of blocked and unblocked QS in 2013 (the year of the most recent available data) indicates that the percentage of small block QS relative to the total amount of QS in the GOA IFQ regulatory areas is greater for halibut (11.3 percent of the total Area 2C and Area 3A halibut QS) than for sablefish (3.7 percent of the total SE., WY, CG, WG sablefish QS). Therefore, while this proposed action would impact sablefish QS holders, it likely would have a greater impact on halibut QS holders. Section 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES) examines the amount of small block QS in the 2013 QS pool by regulatory area and vessel size category and serves as an example of the amount of small block QS that could be made available to CQEs as a result of this action. The Analysis considers the maximum potential impacts of the proposed action, which assumes that all eligible communities form CQEs and secure funding to transfer all the newly available small blocks of QS, up to CQE Program limits described above and in regulations at §§ 679.41 and 679.42. For reasons described above, the Analysis indicates this outcome is unlikely given reasonably foreseeable trends in QS holdings by CQEs.

        Within Areas 2C and 3A, less than 1 percent of the total amount of category A halibut QS could be made available for transfer by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of category A halibut QS; less than 5 percent of the total amount of category B halibut QS could be made available for transfer by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of category B halibut QS; about 50 percent of the total amount of category C halibut QS in these areas could be available for transfer by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of category C halibut QS; and 43 percent of Area 3A category D halibut QS could be available for transfer by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of Area 3A category D halibut QS. This proposed action would not remove the regulation at § 679.41(g)(5) prohibiting a CQE from transferring and holding category D halibut QS in Area 2C. Therefore, no small blocks of category D halibut QS could be transferred and held by a CQE in Area 2C (see Table 1 in the section titled “IFQ Regulatory Area and Vessel Size Categories” of this proposed rule). Because there is no restriction on CQEs transferring and holding small blocks of Area 3B category D halibut QS, this proposed action would not affect the ability of CQEs in Areas 3A and 3B to transfer and hold small blocks of Area 3B category D halibut QS.
        In Southeast, West Yakutat, Central GOA and Western GOA regulatory areas, 2 percent, 7 percent, 3 percent, and 15 percent of the total amount of A share sablefish QS could be available, respectively, for purchase by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of A share sablefish QS; 9 percent, 19 percent, 26 percent, and 37 percent of the B share sablefish QS could be available, respectively, for purchase by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of B share sablefish QS; and 89 percent, 75 percent, 71 percent, and 47 percent of the C share sablefish QS could be available, respectively, for purchase by CQEs if they could hold small blocks of C share sablefish QS.
        Analysis of the amount of small block QS by regulatory area in 2013 indicates that cumulative use caps on CQE QS ownership would not constrain the maximum potential transfer of QS by CQEs. The more likely constraint on CQE transfer and holding of QS would be the limit on the number of blocks that a CQE can own in any one area (10 halibut blocks and 5 sablefish blocks). Based on 2013 data, CQEs in Area 2C would gain access to 507 small blocks of Area 2C halibut QS plus 635 small blocks of Area 3A halibut QS in categories A, B and C. At maximum participation, even if all 23 eligible communities in Area 2C formed CQEs, those CQEs could not transfer and hold more than 230 small blocks of the 507 small blocks of halibut QS available in Area 2C due to the block limit of 10 blocks per CQE eligible to purchase in Area 2C. At maximum participation, even if all 23 eligible communities in Area 2C, all 14 eligible communities in Area 3A, and all 8 eligible communities in Area 3B formed CQEs, those CQEs could not transfer and hold more than 450 of the 635 small blocks of halibut QS available in Area 3A due to the block limit of 10 blocks per CQE eligible to transfer in Area 3A. In addition, the 8 eligible communities in Area 3B would gain access to the same 635 blocks of category A, B and C QS in Area 3A, but none of the category D QS in Area 3A. Even at maximum CQE participation, QS block limits and the reservation of a limited amount of Area 3A category D QS for transfer by CQEs representing communities in Area 3A would prevent CQEs from collectively acquiring all small block halibut QS made available under the proposed action. Thus, the Council and NMFS determined that small block halibut QS would continue to be available to non-CQE participants in the IFQ halibut fishery. See section 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis for additional detail.
        For sablefish, a CQE can own up to 5 blocks of QS in its area plus 5 blocks from each of the other 3 sablefish regulatory areas. Based on 2013 data, CQEs would gain access to 156 small blocks of SE sablefish QS, 122 small blocks of WY sablefish QS, 179 small blocks of CG sablefish QS, and 59 small blocks of WG sablefish QS. At maximum participation, if all 45 eligible communities formed CQEs, those CQEs could transfer and hold 225 small blocks of sablefish QS in each IFQ regulatory area. Under these allowable block limits, CQEs would be able collectively to transfer and hold all the available sablefish small block QS in each IFQ regulatory area. Given the financial barriers to CQE transfers of QS, such as limited availability of QS for transfer, increased market prices for halibut and sablefish QS, and limited viable options for financing QS transfer, described above and in the Analysis, the Council and NMFS determined it is unlikely that CQEs would transfer the maximum amount of small block sablefish QS made available by the proposed action. Thus, small block halibut QS would continue to be available to non-CQE participants in the IFQ sablefish fishery. See sections 2.6.3.1 and 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis for additional detail.
        Although this proposed action would allow CQEs to transfer and hold small blocks of category A halibut and sablefish QS, the Council and NMFS anticipate that CQE transfers of category A QS would be extremely limited. Because IFQ derived from category A halibut and sablefish QS may be caught and processed at sea, category A QS is typically priced much higher than all other QS categories. In addition, the total amount of category A QS issued is small relative to all other categories of QS. Therefore, the potential impact of allowing CQEs to transfer and hold small blocks of category A QS on new entrants, small-boat operations and CQE fishery participants would be minimal. See sections 2.6.3.1 and 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis for additional detail.
        To date, CQEs have transferred and held a limited amount of QS that likely has not negatively impacted non-CQE fishery participants' ability to acquire QS in the open market. Transferring and holding small block QS will benefit CQEs, their community members, and future community members, who tend to rely on these restricted blocks of mainly small vessel category QS. Allowing CQEs to transfer and hold small block QS could also enhance a CQE's ability to keep QS in remote communities and create some operational efficiencies that could provide a net benefit to both the CQEs and their community residents. The impacts of the proposed action can be categorized into (1) changes in access to QS, (2) effects on the QS market, and (3) social and economic tradeoffs. These impacts are described in section 2.7.2.2 of the Analysis and are summarized here.
        Changes in Access to QS
        Under this proposed action, CQE fishery participants gain access to more lower-cost QS, though the extent to which this occurs will be shaped by a CQE's progress in securing the necessary financing for CQE transfers. In turn, CQEs provide fishery access by leasing QS to community residents. Leasing QS from a CQE at favorable financial terms, compared to lease fees on the QS market, can aid new entrants in building up the financial base necessary to transfer and hold QS in the future. While this may facilitate CQE community resident ownership of QS, it may not benefit persons who do not reside in a CQE-eligible community. Transfer of small block QS by CQEs under the proposed action could result in a reduction in the amount of QS that would be available to individual CQE community residents and could constitute an economic loss for these individuals. Conversely, CQE acquisition of QS could also be considered a benefit to community residents because it is a public investment in the community's future. The proposed action would also enable CQE residents retiring from the IFQ fishery to transfer small block QS to a CQE by selling or gifting the QS.
        Effects on the QS Market

        The Council and NMFS considered whether entry of CQEs into the small block QS market could bid up the price of QS. This price effect could occur through price competition and reduced supply of small blocks on the market. If CQEs can afford to pay as much or more for small block QS than existing buyers, then competition could increase the price for small block QS. This type of demand-driven price effect would impact both CQE and non-CQE community residents who are in the market for small block QS. However, based on the 10-year review of the CQE Program (see ADDRESSES), CQEs have not and are not likely to accrue the financial assets to transfer a quantity of QS that would have a large impact on QS price.
        Allowing CQEs to transfer and hold small blocks of QS could reduce the supply of small block QS available for transfer. This could occur when CQE community residents, who are reducing their fishery participation, transfer their QS to benefit other small operators or new entrants in the CQE community. However, allowing CQEs access to small block QS is not expected to reduce QS supply to non-CQE fishery participants or result in a corresponding near-term increase in QS price.
        Social and Economic Tradeoffs
        An increase in CQE QS holdings would likely result in both social and economic trade-offs. Social benefits could include increased fishery participation for communities eligible to form CQEs and transfer QS, as well as increased harvest opportunities for new entrants and fishery participants who live in these communities. These social benefits could have varying distributional impacts since CQEs by nature are localized. From an economic view point, facilitating community QS transfer comes at a cost but also offers some operational efficiency that may not be realized when QS is held by individuals living in remote communities. For example, when CQEs transfer QS they gain an asset that can be leased out to new entrants and small-boat operators who then could build up their own financial base to transfer QS. Benefits from QS holdings that provide future value to the community support the original goals of the CQE Program. Any future value that does not accrue to individual CQE or non-CQE community residents could be viewed as an indirect impact that the Council and NMFS acknowledged as consistent with the goals of the CQE Program.
        Other Alternatives Considered
        The Council and NMFS considered two alternatives for the proposed action, one of which is the status quo. The action alternative (Alternative 2) would revise regulations to allow a CQE to transfer and hold any size block of halibut and sablefish QS from any QS holder (Option 1), or from a subset of QS holders determined by the location of the QS holder's residence (Options 2 and 3). The Council selected the least restrictive option, Option 1 under Alternative 2.
        Option 2 would allow CQE communities to transfer and hold any size block of halibut and sablefish QS from residents of any CQE community. Option 2 was not selected because a relatively small number of small blocks are held by residents of CQE communities, and many of those small blocks are designated as category C and D QS. This would greatly limit the potential number of small blocks available to CQEs, and would increase potential competition among CQEs and residents of CQE communities seeking to transfer these small blocks (see Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis for additional detail).
        Option 3 would allow CQE communities to transfer and hold any size block of halibut and sablefish QS from residents of their CQE community, but not from any non-resident. Option 3 was not selected because an even smaller number of small blocks are held by residents of CQE communities, and in some CQE communities, no CQE resident may hold small blocks, effectively excluding some CQE communities and not others from holding small blocks. Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis notes that no CQE residents hold small blocks of halibut QS in 17 of the 45 eligible CQE communities, and no CQE residents hold small blocks of sablefish QS in 31 of the 45 communities. Overall, option 3 would limit the number of CQEs that could transfer and hold small block QS more than Options 1 or 2 (see Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis for additional detail).
        Classification
        Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that Amendment 96 and this proposed rule are consistent with the FMP, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this action, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA describes the reasons why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule; the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply; any projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules; impacts of the action on small entities; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and would minimize any significant adverse impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The description of the proposed action, its purpose, and the legal basis are contained earlier in this preamble and in the SUMMARY and are not repeated here. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of the Analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 to 20.5 million. The new size standards were used to prepare the IRFA for this action.
        Number and Description of Small Entities Directly Regulated by the Proposed Action

        The proposed action would directly regulate 45 CQEs that would be considered small entities under the RFA (Section 601(3)). The CQEs qualify as small not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their field. CQEs represent small communities that would directly benefit from the proposed action. Each of the communities qualifies as a small entity under the RFA since they are governments of towns or villages with populations less than 50,000 people. The CQE acquires QS and makes the resulting IFQ available by lease to eligible harvesters who are community residents. Those harvesters are required to make a series of reports and declarations to NMFS in order to be found eligible to participate. Therefore, those commercial fishing operations would be directly regulated small entities, although their number is unknown at this time. No adverse economic impact on community residents is expected under the proposed action. Further, NMFS anticipates that any economic impacts accruing from the proposed action to these small entities would be beneficial because their access to the IFQ fisheries will be improved.
        Existing individual halibut and sablefish QS holders and new entrants to the IFQ fishery have potential to be impacted by this proposed action but are not directly regulated by this proposed rule. Currently, there are 2,565 unique halibut QS holders and 845 unique sablefish QS holders across all regulatory areas. These entities and future fishery entrants, of which the number is unknown, could potentially be impacted by this proposed action. Under the IRFA, NMFS considers only those entities that are directly regulated by the proposed action. An impact on existing halibut and sablefish QS holders and new entrants to the IFQ fishery could be realized if CQE transfer of QS results in a significant increase in the price for QS. The Analysis indicates this impact has not been observed in the past and is not likely to occur in the future, given the present constraints on CQE access to investment capital and the range of other factors that also influence QS prices (see Section 2.6.3.1 of the Analysis). Therefore, existing and potential future non-CQE QS holders are not considered to be directly regulated by this action and are not further analyzed in this IRFA.
        Impacts of the Action on Small Entities
        This proposed rule would remove the regulations prohibiting Gulf of Alaska CQE from transferring and holding small blocks of halibut and sablefish quota share. The proposed rule is intended to allow CQEs to acquire small block QS and make the resulting IFQ available by lease to eligible harvesters who are community residents. Allowing CQEs to transfer and hold small block QS should benefit their community members or future community members. Unrestricted transfer of small block QS should enhance the CQEs' ability to keep QS in remote communities and as a result provide for active participation of CQE and community residents in the halibut and sablefish fisheries in the future. By increasing their QS transfers and holdings under the proposed action, CQEs would provide fishery access through leasing to community residents who are new entrants to the fishery or who currently fish small quota holdings and wish to increase their participation. Leasing quota from a CQE at favorable terms, compared to market lease fees, could aid new entrants in building up the financial base necessary to transfer and hold individual QS in the future. However, Section 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis notes that the amount of QS that would become available is likely greater than what CQEs could expect to finance in the present capital market. Increased QS availability to CQEs under the proposed action could provide some operational efficiency that results in a net benefit to both the CQEs and their community residents. One such efficiency that could result from allowing CQEs to transfer and hold small block QS is that community residents would be able to transfer small block QS to a CQE as they retire or otherwise reduce their active participation in the fishery, keeping the QS holdings within the community.
        Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
        The IRFA also requires a description of any significant alternatives to the preferred alternative that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable statutes, and would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The suite of potential actions includes two alternatives and associated options. A detailed description of these alternatives and options is provided in section 2.7 of the Analysis.
        The significant alternative to the proposed action is the status quo alternative (Alternative 1). Under Alternative 1, NMFs would make no changes to the current regulations. Alternative 1 would not have adverse economic impacts on CQEs or the resident QS holders in the CQE qualifying communities, which would be the small entities directly regulated by this action. Alternative 1 does not meet the objectives of the action to promote more CQE access to QS and facilitate the sustained participation by CQE community residents in the IFQ Program. Under Alternative 2, NMFS would implement the proposed action, which is less restrictive on CQEs than Alternative 1, and is the least burdensome of the available alternatives for directly regulated small entities. Alternative 2 specified three options (Options 1, 2 and 3) that allow CQEs to transfer any size block of QS from any QS holder or a subset of QS holders depending on the option and determined by the location of the QS holder's residence.
        Option 1 would allow CQEs to transfer and hold any size block of halibut or sablefish QS. This option is the least burdensome on directly regulated small entities of all the options considered, and would minimize any significant adverse economic impact. Option 2 would allow CQE communities to transfer and hold any size block of halibut and sablefish QS from residents of any CQE community. Option 2 was not selected because it would have greatly limited the potential number of small blocks available to CQEs. This would be more burdensome on directly regulated CQEs than Option 1. Option 3 would allow CQE communities to transfer and hold any size block of halibut and sablefish QS from residents of their CQE community, but not from any non-resident. Option 3 was not selected because it would have limited the potential number of small blocks available to CQEs and the number of CQEs that could transfer and hold small block QS. Option 3 would be more burdensome on directly regulated CQEs than either Option 1 or 2. The Analysis did not identify any other alternatives that would more effectively meet the RFA criteria to minimize adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities.
        Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action does not modify reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.
        Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
        No Federal rules that might duplicate, overlap, or conflict with these proposed actions have been identified.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries.

          Dated: August 1, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out 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.; Pub. L. 108-447.

          § 679.41
          [Amended]

        2. In § 679.41, remove paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5).

        3. Revise Table 21 to part 679 to read as follows:

          Table 21 to Part 679—Eligible Communities, Halibut IFQ Regulatory Area Location, Community Governing Body That Recommends the CQE, and the Fishing Programs and Associated Areas Where a CQE Representing an Eligible Community May Be Permitted to Participate

            Eligible GOA or AI community
            Halibut IFQ regulatory area in which the community is located
            Community governing body thatrecommends
              the CQE

            May hold halibut QS in halibut IFQ regulatory area and vessel category
            Area 2C
            Area 3A
            Area 3B
            Area 4B
            May hold sablefish QS in sablefish IFQregulatory areas

            CG, SE, WG, and WY(All GOA)

            AI
            Maximum number of CHPs that may be held in halibut IFQregulatory area

            Area 2C
            Area 3A
            Maximum number of Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl groundfishlicenses that may be
              assigned in the GOA groundfish regulatory area

            Central GOA
            Western GOA

            Adak
            4B
            City of Adak

            All

            X

            Akhiok
            3A
            City of Akhiok

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Angoon
            2C
            City of Angoon
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Chenega Bay
            3A
            Chenega IRA Village

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Chignik
            3B
            City of Chignik

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            3

            Chignik Lagoon
            3B
            Chignik Lagoon Village Council

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            4

            Chignik Lake
            3B
            Chignik Lake Traditional Council

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            2

            Coffman Cove
            2C
            City of Coffman Cove
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Cold Bay
            3B
            City of Cold Bay

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            2

            Craig
            2C
            City of Craig
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            Edna Bay
            2C
            Edna Bay Community Association
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Elfin Cove
            2C
            Community of Elfin Cove
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            Game Creek
            2C
            N/A
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Gustavus
            2C
            Gustavus Community Association
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            Halibut Cove
            3A
            N/A

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Hollis
            2C
            Hollis Community Council
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Hoonah
            2C
            City of Hoonah
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Hydaburg
            2C
            City of Hydaburg
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Ivanof Bay
            3B
            Ivanof Bay Village Council

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            2

            Kake
            2C
            City of Kake
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Karluk
            3A
            Native Village of Karluk

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Kasaan
            2C
            City of Kasaan
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            King Cove
            3B
            City of King Cove

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            9

            Klawock
            2C
            City of Klawock
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Larsen Bay
            3A
            City of Larsen Bay

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Metlakatla
            2C
            Metlakatla Indian Village
            A.B.C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Meyers Chuck
            2C
            N/A
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Nanwalek
            3A
            Nanwalek IRA Council

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Naukati Bay
            2C
            Naukati Bay, Inc
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Old Harbor
            3A
            City of Old Harbor

            All
            All

            X

            7
            5

            Ouzinkie
            3A
            City of Ouzinkie

            All
            All

            X

            7
            9

            Pelican
            2C
            City of Pelican
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Perryville
            3B
            Native Village of Perryville

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            2

            Point Baker
            2C
            Point Baker Community
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Port Alexander
            2C
            City of Port Alexander
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Port Graham
            3A
            Port Graham Village Council

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Port Lions
            3A
            City of Port Lions

            All
            All

            X

            7
            6

            Port Protection
            2C
            Port Protection Community Association
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Sand Point
            3B
            City of Sand Point

            A,B,C
            All

            X

            14

            Seldovia
            3A
            City of Seldovia

            All
            All

            X

            7
            8

            Tatitlek
            3A
            Native Village of Tatitlek

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Tenakee Springs
            2C
            City of Tenakee Springs
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Thorne Bay
            2C
            City of Thorne Bay
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Tyonek
            3A
            Native Village of Tyonek

            All
            All

            X

            7
            2

            Whale Pass
            2C
            Whale Pass Community Association
            A,B,C
            A,B,C

            X

            4

            Yakutat
            3A
            City of Yakutat

            All
            All

            X

            7
            3

          N/A means there is not a governing body recognized in the community at this time.
          CHPs are Charter halibut permits.
          All means category A, B, C, and D quota share.

      [FR Doc. 2014-18678 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 050101C]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct  experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has received a proposal to conduct experimental fishing and has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue EFPs.  Therefore, NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator proposes to issue EFPs that would allow up to four federally permitted vessels in the limited access multispecies fishery to conduct fishing operations otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  The vessels would collect catch data to support the development of new trawl mesh selectivity curves for the Southern New England (SNE) yellowtail flounder fishery.  Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:
          Comments on this action must be received on or before  May 29, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Rhode Island EFP Proposal.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David M. Gouveia, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9280, e-mail david.gouveia@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife (applicant) submitted an application for EFPs on April 10, 2001.  The EFPs will facilitate the collection of catch data that will support the development of trawl mesh selectivity curves for the SNE yellowtail flounder fishery.  The applicant intends to provide the trawl mesh selectivity curves to fisheries managers as a tool for managers to match the minimum legal yellowtail flounder size with the size of yellowtail flounder retained by the appropriate mesh size. -
        The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is currently developing Amendment 13 to the FMP (Amendment 13), which will include a rebuilding program associated with the overfishing definitions implemented under Amendment 9 to the FMP.  As part of its November 2000 report, the Multispecies Monitoring Committee (MMC) provided management advice for the revised overfishing definitions, which serves as a guide for the development of rebuilding programs associated with the overfishing definitions.  The MMC report concluded that SNE yellowtail flounder is at a low stock abundance and that fishing mortality should be as close to zero as practicable over the foreseeable future.   -
        During the course of the development of Amendment 13, the Council has assembled a wide range of management alternatives in response to the SNE yellowtail flounder recommendations provided by the MMC.  The management alternatives include:  Trip limits; increases to the minimum fish and/or mesh sizes; area closures; and day-at-sea (DAS) reductions.  Of the alternatives currently being considered to achieve the necessary reductions, the applicant states that the alternative for increasing minimum fish and/or mesh sizes may be more acceptable to the fishing community than widespread area closures.  Implementation of large closures would likely have a severe impact on the SNE commercial fishing community, and the applicant is seeking additional information that may support the minimum fish and/or mesh size alternative.     -
        The applicant acknowledges the studies used in the development of the current minimum fish and mesh size restrictions for the yellowtail flounder fishery, but notes that more recent studies conducted within Massachusetts and Rhode Island state waters show different results than did the earlier studies.  -
        The applicant proposes to examine the differences between the mesh selectivity of 6-inch (15.24-cm) diamond and 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) square mesh to 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond and 7-inch (17.78-cm) square mesh.  To accomplish this task, an alternate tow design will be utilized for a comparison of mesh selectivity.  Each net configuration will be tested with and without a 3-inch (7.62-cm) liner.  The applicants will charter up to four federally permitted vessels in the limited access multispecies fishery.  Participating vessels will take four half-day trips (totaling 16 trips).  All trips will be completed during daylight hours and must include at least two scientific personnel.  Each trip will complete six tows (three with a liner and three without).  Tows will last approximately 90 minutes each.   -
        Participating vessels would be fishing under the multispecies DAS program, and thus would be authorized to retain and sell all legal-sized groundfish and bycatch species up to the regulatory amounts for each species.  The proceeds generated from the sale of the fish would help defray the cost associated with the research.  The research would be conducted in areas open to commercial fishing within statistical areas 537 and 539 from the date of the issuance of the EFPs through July 31, 2001. -
        The applicant will select participating vessels based on their owners’ or operators’ knowledge of the trawl fishery for yellowtail flounder, familiarity with local fishing methodology, familiarity with the survey area, and possession of trawl gear (except netting).  The applicant will provide the proper mesh configuration.  Vessels would be required to comply with all conditions of the EFP, as well as all applicable regulations specified under 50 CFR part 648, including the multispecies DAS program and all applicable trip and possession limits for all species caught.   -

        For the purposes of comparing the catch from each mesh configuration, the EFP would also exempt the vessels from the multispecies minimum mesh size restrictions specified under 50 CFR 648.80(b)(2)(i), and allow participating vessels limited use of a 3-inch (7.62-cm) trawl mesh liner.  In order to obtain data on yellowtail flounder catch distribution, the participating vessels may be required to temporarily retain species that are less than the minimum fish size specified at 50 CFR 648.83(a)(1).  No species less than the legal minimum fish size may be landed or sold.   -
        Participating vessels would be required to fish in accordance with a sampling plan designed by the applicant, maintain logbooks documenting fishing activities, carry on-board observers trained in fish taxonomy, and allow biological information to be collected from the catches.

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

          Dated: May 7, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-11944 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 60
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873; FRL-9643-9]
        RIN 2060-AH23
        Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; announcement of extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The EPA is extending the comment period for the proposed rule titled, “Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources” that was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2012. The proposed rule accompanied the direct final rule that was also published on February 14, 2012. The 30-day comment period in the proposed rule is scheduled to end on March 15, 2012. The extended comment period will close on April 30, 2012. The EPA is extending the comment period because of a request we received in a timely manner.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published February 14, 2012 (77 FR 8209), is extended. Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873 by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-9744.
          • Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
          • Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document or visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Procedure 3—Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility and Public Reading Room are open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742, and the telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Lula H. Melton, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2910; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: melton.lula@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone: (919) 541-0880, email: morales.roberto@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873. Clearly mark any of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

        In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this document will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this document will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

          Dated: March 1, 2012.
          Mary Eileen Henigin,
          Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2012-5642 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 071200B]
        Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public hearings to receive comments on a Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP).

          DATES:

          The Council will accept written comments on the draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP until final action is taken. The public hearings will be held in August. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times of the public hearings.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be sent to, and copies of the draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP are available from, Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-769-4520. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific hearing locations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Richard Leard, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The intent of the draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP is to provide a comprehensive management structure for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP will take a precautionary approach to conserve and manage these fishery resources to maintain both optimum yield in the fishery and current allocations among user groups. The draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP's first 10 proposed management actions, with options, contain measures that are applicable to the dolphin and wahoo stocks in the jurisdictions of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. These actions include measures to define the management units; address dealer, vessel, and operator permits; establish data reporting requirements; estimate maximum sustainable yield, optimum yield, and establish overfishing/overfished criteria; and establish a framework procedure that would allow seasonal adjustments to the management structure. Other actions, with options, are separately applicable to each council's area of jurisdiction, and include actions that may be implemented through the framework procedure, (minimum size limits, bag limits, trip limits, and allocations, among others).
        Time and Location for Public Hearings
        Public hearings for the Dolphin/Wahoo FMP will be held at the following locations and dates from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
        1. July 31, 2000, Port Aransas Community Center, 408 North Allister, Port Aransas, TX 78373; telephone: 361-749-4111.
        2. August 1, 2000, Texas A&M, Auditorium, 200 Seawolf Parkway, Galveston, TX 77553; telephone: 409-740-4416.
        3. August 7, 2000, New Orleans Airport Hilton, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062; telephone: 504-469-5000.
        4. August 8, 2000, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, 1141 Bayview Drive, Biloxi, MS 39530; telephone: 228-374-5000.
        5. August 9, 2000, Orange Beach Community Center; 27235 Canal Road, Orange Beach, AL 36561; telephone: 334-981-6028.
        6. August 10, 2000, National Marine Fisheries Service, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; telephone: 850-234-6541.
        7. August 14, 2000, City Hall Auditorium, 300 Municipal Drive, Madeira Beach, FL 33708; telephone: 727-391-9951.
        8. August 15, 2000, Edison Community College, Corbin Auditorium, Room J-103, 8099 College Parkway, Fort Myers, FL 33919; telephone: 941-489-9412.
        9. August 16, 2000, Pier House, 1 Duval Street, Key West, FL 33040; telephone: 305-296-4600.
        The Council will also hear public testimony on the draft Dolphin/Wahoo FMP at the September 2000 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 Anne Alford at the Council office (see ADDRESSES) by July 24, 2000.

          Dated: July 24, 2000.
          Bruce Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-19165 Filed 7-27-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        RIN 1018-AH67
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Approval of Tin Shot as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots During the 2000-01 Season

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to grant temporary approval of tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots during the 2000-2001 season. Acute toxicity studies reveal no adverse effects over a 30-day period on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) dosed with tin shot. Reproductive/chronic toxicity testing over a 150-day period indicated that tin administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect them or the offspring they produced. Tin shot is produced by the International Tin Research Institute, Ltd. (ITRI) of Uxbridge, Middlesex, England.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than November 24, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be sent to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal business hours in Room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted under the Act. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service controls the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to allow the hunting public to use tin shot for hunting migratory birds. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 50 CFR 20.21, which describes illegal hunting methods for migratory birds. Paragraph (j) of § 20.21 pertains to prohibited types of shot. We are proposing to amend § 20.21(j) to allow the use of tin shot (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 2000-01 hunting season only.

        Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot that does not pose a significant toxic hazard to migratory birds or other wildlife. Currently, only steel, bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot are approved as nontoxic. On September 5, 2000 (65 FR 53936) we published a final rule that grants permanent approval to tungsten-matrix shot. We previously granted temporary approval for tin shot during the 1999-2000 hunting season (August 19, 1999; 64 FR 45400). Compliance with the use of nontoxic shot has increased over the last few years (Anderson et al. 2000). We believe that compliance will continue to increase with the approval and availability of other nontoxic shot types.

        ITRI's candidate shot is made from commercially pure tin; no alloying or other alterations are intentionally made to the chemical composition of the shot. This shot material has a density of approximately 7.29 g/cm3, and is 99.9 percent tin, with a low level of iron pickup due to the steel production equipment. The tin shot application from ITRI contains a description of the shot, a toxicological report (Thomas 1997), results of a 30-day toxicity study (Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998), and results of a 150-day reproductive/chronic toxicity study (Gallagher et al. 2000). The toxicological report incorporates known toxicity information (a synopsis of acute and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds, potential for environmental concern, and toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles) and information on environmental fate and transport (shot alteration, environmental half-life, and environmental concentration). On August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45400) we published a detailed literature review on toxicity, environmental fate, and known effect of tin on birds, as well as results from ITRI's 30-day toxicity testing of tin shot.

        ITRI's chronic toxicity/reproductive study revealed no adverse effects when mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 size tin shot and monitored over a 150-day period (Gallagher et al. 2000). At initiation of the test (day 0), and on days 31, 60, and 90, 21 male and 22 female adult mallards were orally dosed with eight No. 4 tin shot. On the same days, 22 male and 22 female adult mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 steel shot (negative control group). An additional 4 male and 4 female mallards were dosed with a single No. 4 lead shot (positive control group). Two lead-dosed birds (1 female, 1 male) died from lead toxicosis on day 10 and 17, respectively, during the study; whereas no mortalities occurred in the other test groups. Biochemical results from blood samples collected during tests revealed no biologically meaningful treatment-related differences between the tin group and the steel shot control group. Low, but measurable levels of tin were found in the testes of males from the steel shot group and in the livers and femurs of both males and females from the tin group. Additionally, low, but measurable, levels of tin were found in the liver and gonads of offspring from the steel group and in gonads of offspring from the tin group. For all treatment groups, mean levels of tin were below the limit of detection in egg yolks and whites. Liver and kidney tissues collected for examination revealed no treatment-related abnormalities.
        No significant differences occurred in egg production, fertility, or hatchability of eggs from birds dosed with tin when compared to steel-dosed ducks. No differences occurred in survival or body weight of ducklings from ducks dosed with tin when compared to ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Blood measurements of ducklings from tin-dosed ducks were similar to measurements from ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Overall, results of the 150-day study indicated that tin shot repeatedly administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect them, or the offspring they produced.
        Nontoxic Shot Approval
        The nontoxic shot approval process contains a tiered review system and outlines three conditions for approval of shot types. The first condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing. Based on the results of the toxicological report and the toxicity tests discussed above, we conclude that tin shot does not pose a significant danger to migratory birds or other wildlife.
        The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead levels. Any shot with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1 percent will be considered toxic and, therefore, illegal. We have determined that the maximum environmentally acceptable level of lead in any nontoxic shot is trace amounts of <1 percent, and incorporated this requirement in the new approval process. ITRI has documented that tin shot meets this requirement.

        The third condition for approval involves law enforcement. In the August 18, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 43314), we indicated our position that a noninvasive field detection device to distinguish lead from other shot types was an important component of the nontoxic shot approval process. At that time, we stated that final approval of bismuth-tin shot would be contingent upon the development and availability of a noninvasive field detection device (60 FR 43315). We incorporated a requirement for a noninvasive field detection device in the revised nontoxic shot approval process published on December 1, 1997 (62 FR 63608); 50 CFR 20.134(b)(6). A field detection method to distinguish tin shot from lead currently is being developed by ITRI. Granting temporary approval for tin shot during the 2000-01 hunting season will facilitate completion of development of such a device. However, we will not consider either additional temporary approvals, or final approval, of tin shot beyond the 2000-01 season until a reliable and acceptable field detection method is developed and is readily available to law enforcement personnel.
        As stated previously, this proposed rule would amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) by temporarily approving tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots during the 2000-2001 hunting season only. It is based on the toxicological report, acute toxicity study, and the reproductive/chronic toxicity study submitted by ITRI. Results of these studies indicate the absence of any deleterious effects of tin shot when ingested by captive-reared mallards. The comment period for the proposed rule has been shortened to 30 days. This time frame will make it possible for tin shot, if temporarily approved, to be available for use by hunters during the 2000-01 hunting season. This will increase the number of nontoxic shot options available to hunters.

          References
          Anderson, W.L., S.P. Havera, and B.W. Zercher. 2000. Ingestion of lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the Mississippi Flyway. J. Wildl. Manage. 64:848-857.
          Gallagher, S.P., J.B. Beavers, R. Van Hoven, M. Jaber. 2000. Pure tin shot: A chronic exposure study with the mallard including reproductive parameters. Wildlife International, Ltd. Project No. 476-102. Easton, Maryland. 322pp.
          Thomas, V.G. 1997. Application for approval of tin shot as non-toxic for the hunting of migratory birds. 26 pp.
          Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998. Tin shot: An oral toxicity study with the mallard. Project No. 476-101. 158 pp.

        NEPA Consideration

        In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), we prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for temporary approval of tin shot in August, 2000. The EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
        Endangered Species Act Considerations

        Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that Federal agencies shall “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat * * *” We are completing a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The result of our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be available to the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. This rule proposes to approve an additional type of nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt migratory birds; this rule would provide one shot type in addition to the existing four that are approved. We have determined, however, that this rule will have no effect on small entities since the approved shot merely will supplement nontoxic shot already in commerce and available throughout the retail and wholesale distribution systems. We anticipate no dislocation or other local effects, with regard to hunters and others.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the final determination under E.O. 12866.

        We invite comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the proposed rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: exsec@ios.doi.gov
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We have examined this regulation under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and found it to contain no information collection requirements. However, we do have OMB approval (1018-0067; expires 08/30/2000; renewal submitted) for information collection relating to what manufacturers of shot are required to provide to us for the nontoxic shot approval process. For further information, see 50 CFR 20.134.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform

        We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, et seq., that this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities.
        Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988
        We, in promulgating this proposed rule, have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
        Takings Implication Assessment
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this proposed rule allow hunters to exercise privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public property.
        Federalism Effects
        Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter 1 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 20—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

          2. Section 20.21 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

            § 20.21
            What hunting methods are illegal?

            (j) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts bismuth: 3 parts tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-iron (55 parts tungsten: 45 parts iron with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 parts Nylon 6 or 11 with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix (95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tin (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or such shot approved as nontoxic by the Director pursuant to procedures set forth in § 20.134, provided that this restriction applies only to the taking of Anatidae (ducks, geese, [including brant] and swans), coots (Fulica americana) and any species that make up aggregate bag limits during concurrent seasons with the former in areas described in § 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones, and further provided that:
            (1) Tin shot (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) is legal as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 2000-2001 hunting season only.
            (2) [Reserved]

            Dated: September 13, 2000
            Stephen C. Saunders,
            Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 00-24543 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P