        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 281
        [EPA-R04-UST-2020-0248; FRL-10009-90-Region 4]
        Commonwealth of Kentucky: Tentative Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of tentative determination on application of the Commonwealth of Kentucky for final approval, public hearing opportunity, and public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Commonwealth of Kentucky (Commonwealth or State) has applied for final approval of its Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Commonwealth's application and made the tentative decision that the State's UST Program application satisfies all the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. The State's UST Program application is available for public review and comment. A public hearing will be held to solicit comments on the application if sufficient public interest is expressed. This Federal Register notice solicits requests for a public hearing and comments on the State's application.

          DATES:

          Comments and/or request for a public hearing on this tentative determination must be received on or before July 31, 2020. A public hearing will be held no earlier than August 31, 2020 if sufficient public interest is expressed. The EPA will determine by August 17, 2020, whether there is sufficient interest to warrant a public hearing. The Commonwealth will be invited to participate in any public hearing held by the EPA on this action. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Item C, for details.

          ADDRESSES:

          For detailed instructions and additional information on the rulemaking process, please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Item C.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ben Singh, RCRA Programs and Cleanup Branch, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; Phone number: (404) 562-8922; email address: singh.ben@epa.gov. Please contact Ben Singh by phone or email for further information.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        Section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, authorizes the EPA to approve state UST programs to operate in lieu of the Federal UST program. Pursuant to RCRA section 9004(b), approval may be granted if the state program: Provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with the UST standards of RCRA section 9004(a); is “no less stringent” than the Federal program for the seven elements set forth at RCRA section 9004(a)(1) through (7); and includes the notification requirements of RCRA section 9004(a)(8).
        B. Commonwealth of Kentucky
        The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KYDEP) within the Energy and Environment Cabinet is the lead implementing agency for the UST Program in the State. On October 7, 2019, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.50, the State submitted an application seeking Federal approval of the State UST Program. The application was determined complete by the EPA on March 13, 2020. Per the application, the most recent amendments to the KYDEP UST regulations became effective April 5, 2019 and include revisions which correspond to the EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566), which revised the 1988 UST regulations and the 1988 state program approval (SPA) regulations. The KYDEP has broad statutory and regulatory authority to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance, and closure of USTs, as well as UST releases, pursuant to Title XVIII of the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS), Chapter 224, Subchapter 60, and Title 401 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR), Chapter 42 (2019). In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 281.50(b), the State provided an opportunity for public notice and comment during the development of its UST regulations.
        C. Public Participation

        Submit comments and requests for public hearings, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-UST-2020-0248, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submission. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket without change. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. The EPA encourages electronic submittals, but if you are unable to submit electronically or need other assistance, please contact Ben Singh, the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT provision above. Please also contact Ben Singh if you need assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you.

        Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 4 Offices are closed to public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. For further information on the EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. All documents in the docket are available on the https://www.regulations.gov website.
        The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
        D. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews
        This action merely notifies the public of the EPA's tentative determination to approve the Commonwealth's UST Program pursuant to RCRA section 9004, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and does not impose additional requirements beyond those already imposed by State law. For that reason, these actions:
        • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because UST program approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

        • Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Are not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with RCRA; and
        • Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        • Do not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. The rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
        As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.

          Authority:
          This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), 9004, 9005 and 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), and 6991(e).

          Mary Walker,
          Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2020-13763 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BE55
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 29

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 29 proposes actions to update the Council's acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule to incorporate methodology for determining the ABC of unassessed species; adjust ABCs for 14 unassessed snapper-grouper species through application of the updated ABC control rule; adjust annual catch limits (ACLs) and recreational annual catch targets (ACTs)for four snapper-grouper species and three species complexes based on revised ABCs; and revise management measures for gray triggerfish to modify minimum size limits, establish a commercial split season, and specify a commercial trip limit.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before January 23, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 29 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0132” by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0132, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of Amendment 29 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 29 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karla Gore, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: Karla.Gore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 29 was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) has recommended an update of the Council's ABC control rule to incorporate new methodology for species without assessments but for which there are reliable catch data. Amendment 29 updates the ABC control rule and includes revised ABCs for 14 unassessed snapper-grouper species based on the new control rule. Amendment 29 also includes revisions to ACLs and recreational annual catch targets (ACTs) for four species and three species complexes based on the revised ABCs. These actions are based on the best scientific information available.
        A stock assessment for the South Atlantic stock of gray triggerfish was initiated in 2013 but completion of the assessment has been postponed to 2015. Meanwhile, fishermen have approached the Council with requests for management measures due to concerns about early closures in the commercial sector and the stock status of gray triggerfish. While the Council had intended to wait for the results of the stock assessment to make changes to management measures for this stock, the unforeseen delays in the assessment prompted the Council to be proactive and consider actions in Amendment 29. These actions include modifying minimum size limits for gray triggerfish, establishing a commercial split season, and specifying a commercial trip limit for gray triggerfish.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 29
        Amendment 29 includes actions to revise ACLs for three species complexes and four snapper-grouper species based on the revised ABC values. In addition, Amendment 29 includes actions to revise management measures for gray triggerfish in Federal waters of the South Atlantic region.
        Amendment 29 to Update the ABC Control Rule
        Amendment 29 modifies the ABC control rule to use the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) approach, recommended by the Council's SSC, to calculate ABC values for unassessed stocks for which there is only reliable catch information available. The approach involved selection of a “catch statistic” based on the maximum landings from 1999-2007, similar to the period of landings used in the Council's Comprehensive ACL Amendment, and to minimize the impact of a decrease in landings that may have been caused by the economic downturn and the effect of recent regulations. The catch statistic was then multiplied by a scalar (number) ranging from 1.25 to 2, based on SSC consensus and expert judgment, to denote the stock's risk of overexploitation (how likely the stock is to become overfished), and a scalar ranging from 0.50 to 0.90 to denote the stock's management risk level. The SSC provided the first two criteria for each stock at issue and the Council developed the risk tolerance level. The amendment employed the ORCS approach to revise ABC values for the following unassessed snapper-grouper species: Bar jack, margate, red hind, cubera snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, Atlantic spadefish, gray snapper, lane snapper, rock hind, tomtate, white grunt, scamp, and gray triggerfish.
        Revise ACLs for Select Species
        Amendment 29 would revise the ACLs and recreational ACTs for three species and four species complexes of unassessed snapper-grouper species, based on the revised ABC values. In Amendment 29, the Council defines ACL = OY = ABC for the snappers complex, grunts complex, shallow-water complex, bar jack, Atlantic spadefish and gray triggerfish. For scamp, the Council chose to revise the definition to ACL = OY = 0.90(ABC) to provide a buffer between the ABC and the ACL for scamp due to concerns about the stock status of scamp.
        Amendment 29 would not change the specified sector allocations or the recreational ACT definitions for the snapper-grouper species contained in Amendment 29.
        Modify Minimum Size Limit for Gray Triggerfish

        Amendment 29 includes an action to establish a 12-inch (30.5-cm) fork length (FL) minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in Federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia for both the commercial and recreational sectors. This action would also increase the minimum size limit for gray triggerfish off the east coast of Florida from 12 inches (30.5 cm), total length to 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL for both the commercial and recreational sectors, which is consistent with the commercial and recreational minimum size limit in place off the west coast of Florida, however, this is inconsistent with the 12-inch (30.5-cm) minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in state waters off the east coast of Florida. The rationale for increasing the minimum size limit to 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL, off the east coast of Florida is to implement consistent regulations for fishermen in South Florida, specifically off the Florida Keys. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission is expected to discuss implementing compatible regulations for state waters off the east coast of Florida.
        Establish a Commercial Split Season for Gray Triggerfish
        The fishing year for gray triggerfish begins on January 1. Weather conditions can be poor off North Carolina and South Carolina during the early part of the year, making fishing for gray triggerfish difficult. Amendment 29 includes an action to divide the annual commercial fishing season for gray triggerfish into two 6-month fishing seasons, to provide opportunities to fish for gray triggerfish throughout the South Atlantic and throughout the calendar year. This action would allocate 50 percent of the commercial gray triggerfish ACL for the time period January 1 through June 30, and 50 percent for the time period July 1 through December 31. As a result, the commercial ACL would be divided into two seasonal quotas of equal amounts of 156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight. When the quota would be reached for a given season, the commercial sector would close. In addition, any unused portion of the quota from the first season would be added to the quota in the second season. Any unused portion of the quota specified in the second season, including any addition of quota from the first season, would become void and would not be added to any subsequent quota.
        Establish a Commercial Trip Limit for Gray Triggerfish
        Amendment 29 would establish a commercial trip limit of 1,000 lb (454 kg), round weight, for gray triggerfish, to extend the commercial fishing season for this species.

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 29 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted Amendment 29 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by January 23, 2015, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: November 19, 2014.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-27740 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 120409402-2402-01]
        RIN 0648-BB06
        Second Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishery

          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 a second fishing capacity reduction program (also commonly known as “buyback”) and an industry fee system to repay a $2.7 million loan for a single latent permit within the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock groundfish fishery (Reduction Fishery). The purpose of this action is to permanently reduce the greatest amount of fishing capacity at the least cost. This should result in increased harvesting productivity for the permit holders remaining in the fishery. The loan for this program will be added to the previous program loan of $35,700,000 authorized by the FY 2005 Appropriations Act (the Appropriations Act). For purposes of this regulation, the terms license and permit are used interchangeably.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing on or before August 29, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by [NOAA-NMFS-2012-0050] by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov; to submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter [NOAA-NMFS-2012-0050] in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “submit a comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: BSAI Non-Pollock Groundfish Buyback Rulemaking, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          • Fax: 301-713-1306; Submit comment Attn: Paul Marx.

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

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the mailing address above or by calling Michael A. Sturtevant (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Send comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule to Michael A. Sturtevant at the address specified above and also to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer) or email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7825.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael A. Sturtevant at (301) 427-8799, fax (301) 713-1306, or michael.a.sturtevant@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Statutory and Regulatory Background
        In 1996, in response to the finding that many U.S. fisheries have excess fishing capacity, Congress provided for fishing capacity reduction programs. The intent of a program is to decrease the number of harvesters in the fishery, increase the economic efficiency of harvesting, and facilitate the conservation and management of fishery resources in each fishery in which NMFS conducts a reduction program. Typically, permit holders are paid to voluntarily surrender their fishing permits including relevant fishing histories for that fishery, or surrender all their fishing permits and cancel their fishing vessels' fishing endorsements by permanently withdrawing the vessels from all fisheries. The cost of the program is paid either by the remaining harvesters through a loan or taxpayers through a direct appropriation from Congress. Section 312(b)-(e) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)-(e)) was added to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to authorize such programs. Congress also amended Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (Title XI), adding new sections 1111 and 1112 to finance capacity reduction costs. The Title XI provisions involving fishing capacity reduction loans have been codified at 46 U.S.C. 53735.

        To implement capacity reduction programs, NMFS promulgated regulations published as subpart L to 50 CFR part 600 (50 CFR 600.1000 et seq.), which contain a framework rule for buyback programs generally. For each individual program, NMFS promulgates regulations at subpart M to 50 CFR part 600 to implement the specific terms of that particular buyback. To undertake this second round of capacity reduction for the BSAI Longline Catcher Processor Subsector, NMFS must publish these regulations.
        Initial Reduction Program
        The measures contained in this proposed rule to establish the capacity reduction program are authorized the by Appropriations Act. The Appropriations Act authorizes the establishment of fishing capacity reduction programs for catcher processor subsectors within the Alaska groundfish fisheries (i.e., the longline catcher processor subsector, the American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher processor subsector, the non-AFA trawl catcher processor subsector, and the pot catcher processor subsector) based on capacity reduction plans and contracts developed by industry and approved by NMFS. Additionally, Public Law 108-199 provided the initial $500,000 subsidy cost to fund a $50 million loan, and Public Law 108-447 provided an additional $250,000 subsidy cost to fund $25 million more (in addition to providing for the buyback program itself). Under the Authorization Act, each subsector was allocated a specific amount of the total loan authority.
        In 2007, NMFS approved and implemented a $35.7 million fishing capacity reduction loan program for the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector, which represented the full amount authorized for that subsector. The initial program removed three fishing vessels and 12 fishing licenses and permits for a loan amount of $35 million. All long-line catcher processors harvesting non-pollock groundfish were required to pay and forward a fee to NMFS to repay the loan. The original fee assessment was $0.02 per pound caught with payment and collection beginning on October 24, 2007, which has since been reduced to $0.015.
        None of the other subsectors have expressed an interest in implementing a capacity reduction program for their subsector. A provision in the Appropriations Act permits the Secretary of Commerce to make available any of the unused loan amounts, originally allocated for each subsector, for capacity reduction programs in any of the subsectors after January 1, 2009.
        Program Summary
        Members of the BSAI Longline Catcher Processor Subsector informed NMFS that they wished to access the remaining loan amounts to undertake a second buyback. To implement this next buyback, the Freezer Longline Conservation Cooperative (FLCC) on behalf of the Reduction Fishery was required by the Appropriations Act to draft and submit to NMFS a Reduction Plan. On August 27, 2010, the FLCC submitted a Reduction Plan to access $2.7 million of the remaining funds. A Reduction Agreement, Reduction Contract, and application of the statutes and regulations referred to above are the basis for the Reduction Plan. The FLCC's Reduction Plan involves just one permit.
        The Reduction Agreement and the Reduction Contract are the two key components of the Reduction Plan and this proposed rule. Substantive provisions of the Reduction Agreement and the Reduction Contract would be codified at 50 CFR 600.1108.
        Reduction Program—Overview
        All permit holders in the Longline Subsector who wished to relinquish their fishing permits were welcome to participate in the Reduction Program. The Program was divided into four phases: (1) Enrollment; (2) offer selection; (3) plan submission; and (4) implementation, after approval by referendum. The first three phases have been completed. Thus, this rule concerns itself only with the implementation phase of the program.
        Reduction Program: The Capacity Reduction Agreement
        Reduction Agreement Terms and Definitions
        Capitalized terms used in the Reduction Agreement are defined in Schedule A to the Reduction Agreement; other terms are defined within the text of the Reduction Agreement. Reduction Agreement terms that are essential to understanding the regulatory provisions are set forth in the proposed § 600.1108(b).
        Reduction Agreement: Major Sections
        There are three major sections of the Reduction Agreement: Qualification and Enrollment of Subsector Members; Selection of Offers to Remove Fishing Capacity by the Reduction Plan; and Submission of the Reduction Plan, including the repayment requirements. Identical provisions previously codified in 50 CFR 600.1105 will be incorporated into this section by reference. The proposed rule will also include a fee collection system similar to the one codified at § 600.1106.
        Qualification and Enrollment

        The FLCC received four offers from the Subsector Members. Each of the four offerors executed a Reduction Agreement and submitted specified supporting documents evidencing an applicant's status as a Subsector Member. The FLCC Auditor reviewed all documents for strict compliance with the regulatory provisions in § 600.1105.

        Selection of Offers To Remove Fishing Capacity by the Reduction Plan
        The selection process was consistent with the buyback previously codified at § 600.1105(d) except that the funding source for the loan comes from the residual funds outlined above. In accordance with the previously developed procedures, the FLCC completed the selection process to rank the offers. Following completion of the selection process, the FLCC accepted only one latent permit to be bought out for $2,700,000.
        Plan Submission
        After the Selection Process was completed, the FLCC developed the Reduction Plan. The Reduction Plan was submitted to NMFS for its approval on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. As required by the Appropriations Act, the FLCC has notified the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Only one License Limitation Program (LLP) license and its fishing history are being submitted for removal from the Reduction Fishery. This latent LLP license is not associated with a vessel. Therefore, no vessel is being removed from the fishery under this Reduction Program. Fees to repay the loan will be collected as set forth in the proposed § 600.1108.
        Approval of the Reduction Plan
        The criteria for NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, to approve any Reduction Plan are specified in § 600.1108(k). Among other things, the Assistant Administrator of NMFS must find that the Reduction Plan is consistent with the Appropriations and the Magnuson-Stevens Acts, and that it will result in the maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity at the least cost and in the minimum amount of time.
        The Reduction Plan includes the LLP license selected through the offer process as the asset to be purchased in the Reduction Program. The Reduction Plan also includes the FLCC's supporting documents and rationale for establishing that the current offer represents the expenditure of the least money for the greatest capacity reduction. Acceptance of the offer is at the sole discretion of NMFS.
        The FLCC may be required to revise and resubmit the Reduction Plan to conform to the provisions of the final rule after the final rule (resulting from this proposed rule) is published.
        The Referendum
        NMFS will conduct a referendum to determine the industry's willingness to repay a fishing capacity reduction loan to purchase the license and fishing rights identified in the Reduction Plan. A successful referendum by a majority of all members of the Reduction Fishery would bind all parties and complete the reduction process.
        The current Fishing Capacity Reduction Framework regulatory provisions at § 600.1010 stipulate the procedural and other requirements by which NMFS shall conduct referenda on fishing capacity reduction programs. The proposed § 600.1108(l) makes those framework referendum requirements applicable to this Reduction Program. Only after approval of the Reduction Program via a referendum will the Reduction Program be implemented.
        Loan Repayment
        Upon completion of a successful referendum to approve a fishing capacity reduction loan, the repayment plan, amortized over a 30-year term, will be implemented. Once the Reduction Program is implemented, repayment of the loan by monthly collection of fees from the remaining Subsector Members operating in the Reduction Fishery will be initiated.
        In accordance with § 600.1013, the fees for each individual program should not exceed 5 percent of the average ex-vessel production value of the Reduction Fishery. Thus, the total possible fee from two programs (this proposed rule and the rule codified under § 600.1105) will not exceed 10 percent of the average ex-vessel pacific cod revenues for one year. In the event that the total principal and interest due for this program exceeds this level, an additional fee for the season will be assessed. This temporary fee assessment will be $0.01 per pound round weight for pollock, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, skate, yellowfin sole and rock sole.
        The fee will be calculated on an annual basis as: the principal and interest payment amount necessary to amortize the loan over a 30-year term, divided by the Reduction Fishery portion of the BSAI Pacific cod initial total allowable catch (ITAC) allocation in metric tons (converted to pounds). NMFS estimates that the actual fees for this program will be $0.001 per pound, based upon the estimated fishery revenue from 2010 amortized over a 30-year loan. This program, coupled with the previously codified program in § 600.1105, will bring total fish catch fees to approximately $0.016 per pound.
        For more specific information on submission of the Reduction Plan, including fees to repay the Reduction Loan, see § 600.1108(e) of this proposed rule. For specific information on the fee payment and collection system, see provision (m) of this proposed rule.
        The Reduction Program: Other Matters Relating to the Reduction Agreement and Reduction Plan Review/Disputes
        The Reduction Agreement provided for an expedited process to review any decision by the Auditor and for settlement of disputes utilizing an expedited review process by pre-selected legal counsel and, if necessary, binding arbitration. However, this provision was not activated as no disputes occurred during the selection process of this proposed buyback.
        Other Provisions of the Reduction Agreement
        Proposed regulatory provisions mirroring the Reduction Agreement's provisions for Specific Performance, Miscellaneous, Amendment, and Warranties are specified at § 600.1108(g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively.
        The Fee Payment and Collection System
        The payment and collection system will remain the same for the loan the subsector previously approved in 2007. Under this proposed rule, provision § 600.1108(m) outlines the requirements for repayment of this loan. This provision mirrors the fee system codified in § 600.1106 for the 2007 loan, except in total amount. The amount of the loan in this proposed rule is $2,700,000.
        The Contract
        An appendix to the proposed § 600.1108 sets forth the Contract component of the Reduction Program for the Longline Subsector. The appendix, or Contract, was previously codified as an appendix to the regulatory text of § 600.1105. This proposed rule will reference the appendix without reprinting it.
        In addition to public comment about the proposed rule's substance, NMFS also seeks public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule.
        Classification
        The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Appropriations and the Magnuson-Stevens Acts, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS prepared an environmental assessment for this proposed rule. The assessment discusses the impact of this proposed rule on the natural and human environment and integrates a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). NMFS will send the assessment, the review, and the analysis to anyone who requests a copy (see ADDRESSES).
        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to describe the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. NMFS intends the analysis to aid us in considering regulatory alternatives that could minimize the economic impact on affected small entities. The proposed rule does not duplicate or conflict with other Federal regulations.
        Summary of IRFA
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined small entities as all fish harvesting businesses that are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual receipts of $4 million or less. In addition, processors with 500 or fewer employees for related industries involved in canned or cured fish and seafood, or preparing fresh fish and seafood, are also considered small entities. Small entities within the scope of this proposed rule include individual U.S. vessel owners and fish dealers. There are no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities.
        Description of the Number of Small Entities
        The IRFA uses the most recent year of data available to conduct the analysis (2009-2010). The vessel owners that might be considered large entities were either affiliated with owners of multiple vessels or were catcher processors. In the Reduction Fishery, 17 of the 36 vessel owners meet the threshold for small entities based on gross revenue. However, these vessels are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA because of their affiliations with the larger fishing entities through the FLCC. All vessels in the Longline Subsector would benefit from a permit buyback because there will be less potential competition for the harvest. Because the proposed action would not result in changes to allocation percentages and participation is voluntary, net effects are expected to be minimal relative to the status quo.
        Implementation of the buyback program will not change the overall reporting structure and recordkeeping requirements of the vessels in the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries. However, this program will impose collection of information requirements totaling 16 hours 10 minutes.
        The proposed rule's impact would be positive for both the selected Offeror and for the post-reduction catcher processors whose landing fees repay the reduction loan because the Offeror and a majority of the remaining catcher processors will have voluntarily assumed the impact:
        1. The Offeror voluntarily made an offer of $2,700,000. Presumably, no Offeror would volunteer to make an offer with an amount that is inconsistent with the Offeror's interest; and
        2. Reduction loan repayment landing fees would be instituted, and NMFS will complete the Reduction Program, only if a majority of all Subsector Members vote in favor of the Reduction Plan in a referendum. Presumably, Subsector Members will not vote in favor of the Reduction Plan unless they conclude that the Reduction Program's prospective capacity reduction will be sufficient to enable them to increase their revenues enough to justify the fee.
        Those participants who remain in the fishery after the buyback will incur additional fees of up to 5 percent of the ex-vessel production value of post-reduction landings. However, the additional costs would likely be mitigated by increased harvest opportunities for those remaining in the fishery.
        NMFS believes that this proposed rule would not affect authorized BSAI Pacific cod ITAC or other non-pollock groundfish harvest levels nor harvesting practices.
        NMFS rejected the no action alternative considered in the EA because NMFS would not be in compliance with the mandate of section 219 of the Appropriations Act to establish a buyback program. In addition, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of the non-pollock groundfish fishery would remain overcapitalized. Although too many vessels compete to catch the current subsector's total allowable catch (TAC) allocation, fishermen remain in the fishery because they have no other means to recover their significant capital investment. Overcapitalization reduces the potential net value that could be derived from the non-pollock groundfish resource by dissipating rents, driving variable operating costs up, and imposing economic externalities. At the same time, excess capacity and effort diminish the effectiveness of current management measures (e.g. landing limits and seasons, bycatch reduction measures). Overcapitalization has diminished the economic viability of members of the fleet and increased the economic and social burden on fishery-dependent communities.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule contains information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved this information collection under OMB Control Number 0648-0376 with requirements for 878 respondents with a total response time of 38,653 hours.
        NMFS estimates that Sector Members would require an average of four hours to vote in a referendum. Persons affected by this proposed rule would also be subject to other collection-of-information requirements referred to in the proposed rule and also approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0376. These requirements and their associated response times are: completing and filing a fish ticket (10 minutes), submitting monthly fish buyer reports (2 hours), submitting annual fish buyer reports (4 hours), and tendering fish buyer/fish seller reports when a person fails either to pay or to collect the loan repayment fee (2 hours).

        These response estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Interested persons may send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this data collection requirement, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to both NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
        This action would not result in any adverse effects on endangered species or marine mammals.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
          Fisheries, Fishing capacity reduction, Fishing permits, Fishing vessels, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—business, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 24, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the 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 600 to read as follows:

          PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

            Subpart M—Specific Fishery or Program Fishing Capacity Reduction Regulations

          1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 600, subpart M, is revised to read as follows:

            Authority:
             5 U.S.C. 561, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1861a(b) through (e), 46 App. U.S.C. 53735, section 144(d) of Division B of Pub. L. 106-554, section 2201 of Pub. L. 107-20, and section 205 of Pub. L. 107-117, Pub. L. 107-206, Pub. L. 108-7, Pub. L. 108-199, and Pub. L. 108-447.

          2. Section 600.1108 is added to subpart M to read as follows:

            § 600.1108
            Longline catcher processor subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock groundfish fishery program.
            (a) Purpose. This section implements the capacity reduction program that Title II, section 219(e) of Public Law 108-447 established for the longline catcher processor subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock groundfish fishery.
            (b) Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this section, the terms defined in § 600.1000 of subpart L and § 600.1105 of subpart M expressly apply to this section. The following terms have the following meanings for the purpose of this section:

              Reduction fishery means the Hook & Line, Catcher Processor (Longline Subsector); sometimes referred to as the AH&LCP Subsector) portion of the BSAI Pacific cod ITAC (in metric tons) set by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) in December of each year multiplied by 2,205 (i.e., the rounded number of pounds in a metric ton)or the Longline Subsector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery that § 679.2 of this chapter defined as groundfish area/species endorsement.
            (c) Capacity Reduction Program. As a result of the completion of the Selection Process, written notification from the FLCC to NMFS identifying the selected offeror, and submission of the reduction plan, the capacity reduction program is implemented as follows:
            (1) Loan repayment—(i) Term. As authorized by section 219(B)(2) of the Appropriations Act, the capacity reduction loan (the Reduction Loan) shall be amortized over a thirty (30) year term. The Reduction Loan's original principal amount may not exceed the amount approved by the subsector. The subsector has currently approved a loan of two million seven hundred thousand dollars ($2,700,000). Subsector Members acknowledge that in the event payments made under the Reduction Plan are insufficient to repay the actual loan, the term of repayment shall be extended by NMFS until the loan is paid in full. Repayment calculations and records will be kept separately for each program.
            (ii) Interest. The Reduction Loan's interest rate will be the U.S. Treasury's cost of borrowing equivalent maturity funds plus 2 percent. NMFS will determine the Reduction Loan's initial interest rate when NMFS borrows from the U.S. Treasury the funds with which to disburse reduction payments. The initial interest rate will change to a final interest rate at the end of the Federal fiscal year in which NMFS borrows the funds from the U.S. Treasury. The final interest rate will be 2 percent plus a weighted average, throughout that fiscal year, of the U.S. Treasury's cost of borrowing equivalent maturity funds. The final interest rate will be fixed, and will not vary over the remainder of the reduction loan's 30-year term. The Reduction loan will be subject to a level debt amortization. There is no prepayment penalty.
            (iii) Fees. The Reduction Loan shall be repaid by fees collected from the Longline Subsector. The fee amount will be based upon: The principal and interest due over the next twelve months divided by the product of the Longline Subsector. In the event that the Longline Subsector portion for the ensuing year is not available, the Longline Subsector portion forecast from the preceding year will be used to calculate the fee.
            (A) The fee will be expressed in cents per pound rounded up to the next one-tenth of a cent. For example: If the principal and interest due equal $2,900,000 and the Longline Subsector portion equals 100,000 metric tons, then the fee per round weight pound of Pacific cod will equal 1.4 cents per pound. [2,900,000/(100,000 × 2,205) = .01315]. The fee will be assessed and collected on Pacific cod to the extent possible and if not, will be assessed and collected as provided for in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.
            (B) Fees must be assessed and collected on Pacific cod used for bait or discarded. Although the fee could be up to 5 percent of the ex-vessel production value of all post-reduction Longline Subsector landings, the fee will be less than 5 percent if NMFS projects that a lesser rate can amortize the fishery's reduction loan over the reduction loan's 30-year term. In the event that the total principal and interest due exceeds 5 percent of the ex-vessel Pacific cod revenues, a standardized additional fee will be assessed. The additional fee shall be one cent per pound round weight, which is calculated based on the latest available revenue records and NMFS conversion factors for pollock, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, skate, yellowfin sole and rock sole.
            (C) To verify that the fees collected do not exceed 5 percent of the fishery revenues, the annual total of principal and interest due will be compared to the latest available annual Longline Subsector revenues. In the event that any of the components necessary to calculate the next year's fee are not available, or for any other reason NMFS believes the calculation must be postponed, the fee will remain at the previous year's amount until such a time that new calculations are made and communicated to the post-reduction fishery participants.
            (D) It is possible that the fishery may not open during some years and no Longline Subsector portion of the ITAC is granted. Consequently, the fishery will not produce fee revenue with which to service the reduction loan during those years. However, interest will continue to accrue on the principal balance. When this happens, if the fee rate is not already at the maximum 5 percent, NMFS will increase the fishery's fee rate to the maximum 5 percent of the revenues for Pacific cod and the species mentioned in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, apply all subsequent fee revenue first to the payment of accrued interest, and continue the maximum fee rates until all principal and interest payments become current. Once all principal and interest payments are current, NMFS will make a determination about adjusting the fee rate.
            (iv) Reduction loan. NMFS has promulgated framework regulations generally applicable to all fishing capacity reduction programs in subpart L of this part. The reduction loan shall be subject to the provisions of § 600.1012, except that: the subsector members' obligation to repay the reduction loan shall be discharged by the owner of the Longline Subsector license regardless of which vessel catches fish under this license and regardless of who processes the fish in the reduction fishery in accordance with § 600.1013. Longline Subsector license owners in the reduction fishery shall be obligated to collect the fee in accordance with § 600.1013.
            (v) Collection. The LLP License holders of vessels harvesting in the post-capacity reduction plan Longline Subsector shall be responsible for self-collecting the repayment fees owed by the LLP License holder. Fees shall be submitted to NMFS monthly and shall be due no later than fifteen (15) calendar days following the end of each calendar month.
            (vi) Recordkeeping and reporting. The holder of the LLP Licenses on which vessels harvesting in the post-capacity reduction plan Longline Subsector is designated shall be responsible for compliance with the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
            (2) Agreement with Secretary. The Selected Offeror shall complete and deliver to the FLCC for inclusion in the Reduction Plan submitted to NMFS, designee for the Secretary, a completed and fully executed Reduction Contract. The LLP License set forth on the Selected Offer shall be included as Reduction Fishing Interests in such Reduction Contract.
            (d) Decisions of the Auditor and the FLCC. Time was of the essence in developing and implementing a Reduction Plan and, accordingly, the Offeror is limited to, and bound by, the decisions of the Auditor and the FLCC.
            (1) The Auditor's examination of submitted applications, Offers, Prequalification Offers and Rankings was solely ministerial in nature. That is, the Auditor verified whether the documents submitted by Subsector Members were, on their face, consistent with each other and the Database, in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Reduction Agreement, and signed by an Authorized Party. The Auditor presumed the validity of all signatures on documents submitted. The Auditor made no substantive decisions as to compliance (e.g., whether an interim LLP License satisfies the requirements of the Act, or whether a discrepancy in the name appearing on LLP Licenses and other documents was material).
            (2) [Reserved]
            (e) Specific Performance. The parties to the Reduction Agreement have agreed that the opportunity to develop and submit a capacity reduction program for the Longline Subsector under the terms of the Appropriations Act is both unique and finite and that failure of the Selected Offeror to perform the obligations provided by the Reduction Agreement will result in irreparable damage to the FLCC and the Subsector Members. Accordingly, the parties to the Reduction Agreement expressly acknowledge that money damages are an inadequate means of redress and agree that upon the failure of the Selected Offeror to fulfill their obligations under the Reduction Agreement that specific performance of those obligations may be obtained by suit in equity brought by the FLCC in any court of competent jurisdiction without obligation to arbitrate such action.
            (f) Miscellaneous—(1) Termination. The Reduction Agreement may be terminated at any time prior to approval of the Reduction Plan by NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, by written notice from 50 percent of Subsector Members.
            (2) Choice of law/venue. The Reduction Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington without regard to its choice of law provisions. The parties submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of the United States District Court located in Seattle, Washington, with respect to any litigation arising out of or relating to the Reduction Agreement or out of the performance of services hereunder.
            (3) Incorporation. All executed counterparts of the Reduction Agreement, Application Forms and Offers constitute the agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of the Reduction Agreement and are incorporated into the Reduction Agreement as if fully written.
            (4) Counterparts. The Reduction Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and will be effective as to signatories on the Effective Date. The Reduction Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which shall be deemed to be an original instrument. All such counterparts and duplicate originals together shall constitute the same agreement, whether or not all parties execute each counterpart.
            (i) The facsimile signature of any party to the Reduction Agreement shall constitute the duly authorized, irrevocable execution and delivery of the Reduction Agreement as fully as if the Reduction Agreement contained the original ink signatures of the party or parties supplying a facsimile signature.
            (ii) [Reserved]
            (g) Amendment. All Subsector Members acknowledge that the Reduction Agreement, the Reduction Contract, and the Reduction Plan may be subject to amendment to conform to the requirements for approval of the Reduction Plan by NMFS on behalf of the Secretary. The Auditor shall distribute to each Subsector Member in electronic format the amended form of the Reduction Agreement, the Reduction Contract, and the Reduction Plan, which amended documents in the form distributed by the Auditor and identified by the Auditor by date and version, the version of each such document then in effect at the time of any dispute arising or action taken shall be deemed binding upon the parties with respect to such dispute and/or action.
            (h) Warranties. The Offeror must expressly warrant and represent in the Reduction Agreement that:
            (1) The Offeror has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney or other advisors with respect to the Reduction Agreement, the Reduction Contract, and the Act and the ramifications of the ratification of the Reduction Plan contemplated therein;
            (2) The Offeror has full understanding and appreciation of the ramifications of executing and delivering the Reduction Agreement and, free from coercion of any kind by the FLCC or any of its members, officers, agents and/or employees, executes and delivers the Reduction Agreement as the free and voluntary act of the Offeror;
            (3) The execution and delivery of the Reduction Agreement, does not and will not conflict with any provisions of the governing documents of the Offeror;
            (4) The person executing the Reduction Agreement has been duly authorized by the Offeror to execute and deliver the Reduction Agreement and to undertake and perform the actions contemplated herein; and
            (5) The Offeror has taken all actions necessary for the Reduction Agreement to constitute a valid and binding obligation, enforceable in accordance with its terms.
            (i) Approval of the Reduction Plan. Acceptance of the Offer is at the sole discretion of NMFS on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. To be approved by NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, any Reduction Plan developed and submitted in accordance with this section and Subpart M to this part must be found by the Assistant Administrator of NMFS, to:
            (1) Be consistent with the requirements of section 219(e) of the FY 2005 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108-447);

            (2) Be consistent with the requirements of section 312(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861(a)) except for the requirement that a Council or Governor of a State request such a program (as set out in section 312(b)(1)) and for the requirements of section 312(b)(4);
            (3) Contain provisions for a fee system that provides for full and timely repayment of the capacity reduction loan by the Longline Subsector and that it provide for the assessment of such fees;
            (4) Not require a bidding or auction process;
            (5) Result in the maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity at the least cost and in the minimum amount of time; and
            (6) Permit vessels in the Longline Subsector to be upgraded to achieve efficiencies in fishing operations provided that such upgrades do not result in the vessel exceeding the applicable length, tonnage, or horsepower limitations set out in Federal law or regulation.
            (j) Referendum. The following provisions apply to the Reduction Plan of this section to the extent that they do not conflict with subpart L including §§ 600.1009, 600.1010, 600.1013, and 600.1014 or 16 U.S.C. 1861a; except where the referendum is successful if a majority of all permit holders within the fishery vote in favor of the Reduction Program is accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1861a(d)(1)(B).
            (k) Fee payment and collection system. Upon successful completion of the Referendum discussed above as authorized by Public Law 108-447 and in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1861a and § 600.1012 this fee collection system establishes:
            (1) The subsector members' obligation to repay the reduction loan, and
            (2) The loan's principal amount, interest rate, and repayment term; and
            (3) In accordance with §§ 600.1013 through 600.1016, implements an industry fee system for the reduction fishery.
            (l) Reduction loan amount. The reduction loan's original principal amount is $2,700,000.
            (m) Interest accrual from inception. Interest begins accruing on the reduction loan from the date which NMFS disburses such loan.
            (n) Interest rate. The reduction loan's interest rate shall be the applicable rate which the U.S. Treasury determines at the end of fiscal year in which loan is disbursed plus 2 percent.
            (o) Repayment terms. For the purpose of determining fee rates, the reduction loan's repayment term is 30 years from the date NMFS disburses the loan. However, fee collections shall continue indefinitely until the loan is fully repaid.
            (p) Reduction loan repayment. The subsector members shall repay the reduction loan in accordance with § 600.1012. Both fish buyers and fish sellers are considered subsector members for purposes of fee collection, deposit, disbursement, and accounting in accordance with § 600.1013.
            (1) Subsector members in the reduction fishery shall collect and pay the fee amount in accordance with § 600.1105;
            (2) Subsector members in the reduction fishery shall deposit and disburse, as well as keep records for and submit reports about, the applicable fees in accordance with § 600.1014, except the requirements under paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section. All collected fee revenue a fish buyer collects to repay the loan identified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be made to NMFS no later than fifteen (15) calendar days following the end of each calendar month. The annual reports identified in paragraph (e) of this section shall be submitted to NMFS by February 1 of each calendar year.
            (3) The reduction loan is, in all other respects, subject to the provisions of §§ 600.1012 through 600.1017.
            (q) Enforcement for failure to pay fees. The provisions and requirements of § 600.1016 (Enforcement) shall also apply to fish sellers and fish buyers subject to this fishery.

      [FR Doc. 2012-18398 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 101119575-1397-01]
        RIN 0648-BA46
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 7

          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 measures in Framework Adjustment 7 (Framework 7) to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (Monkfish FMP). The New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Councils) developed Framework 7 to adjust the annual catch target (ACT) for the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) to be consistent with the most recent scientific advice regarding the acceptable biological catch (ABC) for monkfish. The New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) has recommended a revision to the ABC based on information from a 2010 stock assessment (50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 50)). Framework 7 would also specify a new day-at-sea (DAS) allocation and trip limits for the NFMA commensurate with the new ACT, and Framework 7 and would also adopt revised biomass reference points for the NFMA and Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA), based on the recommendations of SARC 50 and the SSC.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on September 6, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for Framework 7 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Framework 7, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (Council), 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.

          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA46, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Jason Berthiaume.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Monkfish Framework 7 Proposed Rule.”

            Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jason Berthiaume, Fisheries Management Specialist, (978) 281-9177; fax: (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the Councils, with the New England Council having the administrative lead. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina, and is divided into two management units: The NFMA and the SFMA. Details on the background and need for Amendment 5 and this framework are contained in the amendment and the preambles for the proposed (76 FR 11737; March 3, 2011) and final rules (76 FR 30265; May 25, 2011) for Amendment 5, and are not repeated here.
        Amendment 5, which was partially approved by NMFS on April 28, 2011, was intended to bring the Monkfish FMP into compliance with the requirements of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that all fishery management plans contain annual catch limits (ACL) to prevent overfishing, and measures to ensure accountability. Among other measures, Amendment 5 implemented accountability measures (AMs) and ACLs, established biological and management reference points and control rules, and specified an ACT, DAS and trip limits for the SFMA.

        However, NMFS disapproved Amendment 5's proposed ACT for the NFMA, and specification of DAS and trip limits to achieve that ACT. Amendment 5 proposed an ACT for the NFMA of 10,750 mt, an allocation of 40 DAS, and trip limits of 1,250 lb (567 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category A and C vessels, and 800 lb (363 kg) tail wt. per DAS for Category B and D vessels based on the 2007 Data Poor Working Group (DPWG) Assessment, which were considered to be the best scientific information available at the time the Amendment 5 document was finalized by the Councils. Subsequent to the Councils taking final action on Amendment 5, the results of SARC 50 became available, which revealed new scientific information that, when included in the Councils' interim ABC approach, reduced the monkfish NFMA ABC. In response to the new assessment, the SSC revisited its previous ABC recommendation at a meeting in August 2010. The SSC, after much discussion concerning the uncertainty with the new assessment and alternate methods for calculating ABC to account for this uncertainty, agreed to maintain the existing interim ABC approach it previously recommended. Using this interim ABC approach, the SSC recalculated the recommended ABC in Amendment 5 to incorporate the results of SARC 50. Based on the recalculation of the ABCs, the SFMA's ACT and associated DAS and trip limit measures were found to still be consistent with the new ABC and ACL, and they were approved by NMFS in Amendment 5. The recalculated ABC for the NFMA, on the other hand, was reduced from 10,750 mt to 7,592 mt, creating an inconsistency with the Amendment 5 recommended ABC, ACT, and associated NFMA DAS and trip limit measures. Based on this inconsistency, NMFS disapproved Amendment 5's proposed specifications for the NFMA.
        This disapproval left current measures in effect for the NFMA until they are superseded by a revised ACT and specification of DAS and trip limits as proposed in this action. Because it was too late for the Councils to revise Amendment 5's NFMA measures in a timely fashion for fishing year (FY) 2011, the Councils initiated Framework 7 in September 2010, to revise the ACT for the NFMA to be consistent with the most recent scientific advice. Leaving the current measures in place was considered as an acceptable interim measure because they are more conservative than measures being proposed by this framework. This framework reconfirms the SFMA ABC and associated specifications and management measures that were included in the approval and implementation of Amendment 5. This framework would also update the biomass reference points in the monkfish FMP to be consistent with the results of SARC 50.
        Proposed Measures
        1. ACT
        Framework 7 would adjust the ACT for the NFMA to be consistent with the most recent scientific advice regarding the monkfish NFMA ABC. The SSC recommended a revision of the NFMA ABC, based on SARC 50, to 7,592 mt. The proposed ACT for the NFMA in this framework adjustment is slightly higher than the current total allowable landing (TAL) in place for the NFMA. Because NFMA landings have been well below the TAL for the past 2 years (29 percent of the TAL in 2008, and 33 percent of the TAL in 2009) it is not expected that monkfish landings will exceed this proposed ACT before Framework 7 is implemented. Any landings that occur between when Amendment 5 was implemented on May 25, 2011, and the time the Framework 7 final rule is effective would accrue against the ACT for the current FY and be used to trigger AMs, if necessary.
        Three options (from 73 to 86.5 percent of the ABC) were considered by the Council for setting the NFMA ACT at a level below the revised ACL. The Councils' preferred alternative, and the alternative in this proposed rule, would set the ACT at 86.5 percent of the ABC, or 6,567 mt. Once implemented, this NFMA ACT would be midway between the current TAL and the ABC.
        2. Specification of DAS and Trip Limits
        The DAS allocations and trip limit options proposed in this action are calculated so as to achieve, but not go over the recommended ACT. The proposed trip limits for the NFMA for permit Categories A and C would be 1,250 lb (567 kg) and 600 lb (272 kg) for permit Categories B and D, with all categories having a DAS allocation of 40.
        3. Revision to Biological Reference Points

        This action would revise the biological reference points in the Monkfish FMP to be consistent with those recommended by the SSC and SARC 50. In the SARC 50 report, the Southern Demersal Working Group recommended an approach that would set biomass target reference points based on the long-term projected biomass (B) corresponding to the fishing mortality rate (F) at maximum sustainable yield, or its proxy, which for monkfish is Fmax. This recommendation, along with the recommendation to set B threshold reference points at one-half of the target, would be more consistent with National Standard 1 Guidelines. This would establish a Btarget of 52,930 mt for the NFMA and 74,490 mt for the SFMA, and Bthreshold of 26,465 mt for the NFMA and 37,245 mt for the SFMA.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, Framework 7, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

        The New England Council prepared an EA for Framework 7 to the Monkfish FMP that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        An IRFA has been prepared for this rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), that consists of the draft IRFA in Framework 7, this preamble, and the following summary. The IRFA describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the New England Council (see ADDRESSES).
        For purposes of the IRFA, all of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the Small Business Administration size standards for small fishing businesses ($4.0 million in annual gross sales). Although multiple vessels may be owned by a single owner, available tracking of ownership is not readily available to reliably ascertain affiliated entities. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, each permitted vessel is treated as a single entity. Information on costs in the fishery is not readily available and individual vessel profitability cannot be determined directly; therefore, expected changes in gross revenues were used as a proxy for profitability.
        This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply
        The management measures proposed in Framework 7 have the potential to affect all Federally permitted monkfish vessels that are actively participating in the fishery. As of September 2009, there were 758 limited access monkfish permit holders and 2,156 open access permit holders. Of these, 573 limited access permit holders (76 percent) actively participated in the monkfish fishery during the 2008 FY, while only 504 open access permit holders (23 percent) actively participated in the fishery during this time period. Thus, this action is expected to impact at least 1,077 currently active monkfish permit holders.

        The majority of the measures proposed in this action are specific to the NFMA, and, thus, would apply to vessels that fish primarily in the NFMA. Of the 546 vessels that participated in the fishery in FY 2009, 232 reported fishing in the NFMA. Of the 232, 115 reported fishing only in the NFMA and 171 in both the NFMA and SFMA. Accordingly, this action would mainly impact approximately 232 vessels that fish in the NFMA.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives
        1. ACT
        The purpose of establishing an ACT as a measure for triggering a proactive AM is to account for management uncertainty in the ability of management measures in the Monkfish FMP (mainly DAS and trip limits) to limit catch to the prescribed level. The ACT is set lower than the ACL to serve as buffer between the ACL and the ACT to account for management uncertainty, and is intended to prevent overfishing from occurring in the event management measures to limit catch are not entirely successful. Since the ACT incorporates discards, actions that reduce discards or management uncertainty would allow for the establishment of an ACT that is closer to the ACL, resulting in higher monkfish revenues and benefits to vessels, but only if the allocation is actually landed versus discarded or left uncaught.
        The Councils considered three ACT alternatives which would set the ACT at 73 percent, 80 percent, and 86.5 percent of the monkfish NFMA ABC, or 5,550 mt, 6,074 mt, and 6,567 mt respectively. The proposed ACT is 6,567 mt, or 86.5 percent of the monkfish NFMA ABC, the highest of the three levels considered by the Councils. This level results in the potential for higher revenues than the other alternatives considered, while still maintaining a robust buffer between the ACT and ACL to account for management uncertainty. By setting the ACT at this level, it is likely, based on historical landings in the NFMA that vessels will harvest this amount, although in FY 2008 landings were only 71 percent of the proposed ACT.
        The no action alternative would not establish the ABC, ACL, or ACT for the NFMA of the monkfish fishery, and, therefore, would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1 Guideline requirements to do so. Although there is likely no direct economic effect of taking no action, it could have a negative economic impact if the long-term sustainability of the monkfish fishery were affected by not establishing these management measures.
        Actual quantification of the economic impacts of the proposed ACT requires specification of management measures, in the form of DAS and trip limits, to achieve the proposed ACT levels, as described below.
        2. Specification of DAS and Trip Limits
        A modified trip limit model was utilized to assess the impact of the DAS and trip limit options, under each ACT option, on monkfish revenues. The model is different from models used for prior monkfish actions in that it accounts for potential impacts on monkfish trips (higher retention and additional trips) resulting from increases in DAS and trip limits. A detailed description of the model was provided in Amendment 5 to the Monkfish FMP. Specification options comparable to those associated with the preferred NFMA ACT option were analyzed in Amendment 5 using FY 2008 data. This analysis is used to predict impacts of the revised DAS and trip limits under the proposed ACT levels in this framework adjustment.
        The trip limit model was used to assess the impacts on monkfish revenues of the proposed DAS and trip limit options included in the framework on vessels fishing in only the NFMA, only in the SFMA, and in both management areas. For all alternatives, permit Categories A and C trip limits remain at 1,250 lb (567 kg), while the permit Categories B and D trip limits range from 465 lb (211 kg) to 686 lb (311 kg), and DAS allocations for all limited access permit types range from 31 to 45 DAS. For vessels fishing only in the NFMA, the trip limit model predicts that, under the proposed DAS and trip limit options for the NFMA, per trip average vessel return would increase from 0.2 percent to 1.7 percent, whereas average crew payment would increase from 0.5 percent to 1.6 percent, depending on different DAS allocations and trip limit alternatives. The increase in total monkfish revenue ranges from 0.8 percent to 16.1 percent under the proposed alternatives. Compared to the status quo, the proposed DAS and trip limits would maintain the current A and C Category permit holders trip limits at 1,250 lb (567 kg) and would increase B and D Category permit holders trip limits to 600 lb (272 kg), as well as increase DAS to 40 for both permit Categories. These measures would lead to a 0.5-percent increase in per trip average vessel return, 0.5-percent increase in crew payment, and 10.0-percent increase in total monkfish revenue. The maximum benefit in terms of percentage increase in average vessel return and monkfish revenue is expected to result from option 3B, the Councils' proposed option 3C, which would increase trip limits for Category B and D permit holders while maintaining current trip limits for Category A and C permit holders and also increase the DAS allocation for both permit categories. Although option 3B could lead to a higher percent increase in average vessel return, the Councils preferred a higher trip limit rather than a higher DAS allocation, thus preferred option 3C.
        Vessels fishing in both management areas would be simultaneously affected by DAS and trip limit alternatives proposed for the NFMA. Although vessels that fish in both the NFMA and the SFMA may be more likely to change fishing locations than those that fish solely in one area, the trip limit model assumes that these vessels will continue to fish in the same locations. The results of the trip limit model indicate that there is no single DAS and trip limit alternative combination for the NFMA that leads to a best outcome in terms of impact on average vessel return, average crew payment, and total monkfish revenue. The largest increase in monkfish revenue is realized under option 3B with an incidental limit of 300 lb (136 kg), a 1,250-lb (567-kg) trip limit for Category A and C vessels, a 470-lb (213-kg) trip limit for Category B and D vessels, and 45 DAS in the NFMA, in combination with the SFMA levels of a 50-lb (23-kg) incidental limit; 550-lb (249-kg) trip limit for A, C, and G vessels; 450-lb (204-kg) trip limit for B, D and H vessels; and 28 DAS in the SFMA. Under the proposed measures for NFMA, the monkfish revenue for the vessels fishing in both the NFMA and SFMA would increase by 17.4 percent.
        3. Biological Reference Point Alternatives

        The proposed action to change the biological reference points in the Monkfish FMP would have no immediate impact on vessels, since these changes do not directly change any management measures or modify vessel level aspects of the Monkfish FMP. However, the establishment of new reference points that are consistent with NS1 guidance would allow for better monitoring and management of the monkfish fishery, potentially resulting in positive effects on vessels in the future. The no action alternative would maintain the existing biological and management reference points in the Monkfish FMP. As a result, taking no action would result in no additional economic impacts beyond those identified in earlier actions affecting this fishery.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: August 2, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 648.92, revise paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:

            § 648.92
            Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) General provision. Limited access monkfish permit holders shall be allocated 40 monkfish DAS each fishing year to be used in accordance with the restrictions of this paragraph (b), unless otherwise restricted by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section or modified by § 648.96(b)(3), or unless the vessel is enrolled in the Offshore Fishery Program in the SFMA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section. The annual allocation of monkfish DAS shall be reduced by the amount calculated in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section for the research DAS set-aside. Limited access NE multispecies and limited access sea scallop permit holders who also possess a limited access monkfish permit must use a NE multispecies or sea scallop DAS concurrently with each monkfish DAS utilized, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, unless otherwise specified under this subpart F.

            3. In § 648.94, revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

            § 648.94
            Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (ii) Category B and D vessels. Limited access monkfish Category B and D vessels that fish under a monkfish DAS exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight or 1,746 lb (792 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 2011-19925 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P