        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 060515131-6131-01; I.D. 050806B]
        RIN 0648-AU49
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Amendment 14; Small-mesh Multispecies Limited Access Program and Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); reaffirmation of a control date for the small-mesh multispecies fishery; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces consideration of proposed rulemaking to control future access to the New England small-mesh multispecies (whiting) fishery. The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has indicated that limited access may be necessary to control participation in the fishery at a level that reduces the risk of overcapitalization and constrains fishing to a level that minimizes the risks of overfishing or creating an overfished stock, as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
          This announcement alerts interested parties of potential limitation on future access, commonly referred to as limited access, to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while the Council considers how access to the fishery should be controlled during the upcoming development of Amendment 14 to the FMP. By this notification, NMFS reaffirms, on behalf of the Council, that March 25, 2003, may be used as a “control date” to establish eligibility criteria for determining levels of future access to the fishery.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, July 12, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be sent to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA, 01950. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Small-mesh Multispecies Reaffirmation of Control Date.” Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to: (978) 465-3116. Comments may be submitted by e-mail as well. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is SmallMeshControlDate@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments-SmallMeshControlDate.” Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9104; fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The New England small-mesh multispecies complex is composed of three species: Silver hake (whiting), Merluccius bilinearis; red hake (ling), Urophycis chuss; and offshore hake, Merluccius albidus. The fishery is currently an open access fishery, meaning anyone may apply for and receive a permit to commercially fish for small-mesh multispecies.
        In the most recent Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report published in 2003, the members of the Council's Whiting Monitoring Committee (WMC) indicated concerns about declining survey mean weights for both red and offshore hake in portions of their stock areas. The 2005 stock assessment summary for silver hake indicated continued declines in the overall northern stock biomass index from historic levels and the showed the southern stock biomass index to be above the management threshold but below the target level. The WMC has also expressed concern for the potential of a rapid expansion of the small-mesh fishery by new entrants displaced by declining stocks and tightening regulations in other fisheries. For these reasons, the Council may develop a limited access management program as part of Amendment 14 to the FMP to limit participation and afford additional input control protections to the small-mesh stocks.
        The Council initially considered limiting entry into the small-mesh multispecies fishery by establishing September 9, 1996 (61 FR 47473), as the control date for determining eligibility criteria. The Council used this control date to propose a limited access program as part of Amendment 12 to the FMP. However, the limited access program was not approved in the final Amendment 12 rule (65 FR 16766, March 29, 2000) because it was determined to be inconsistent with certain provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        By 2003, the Council recognized that fishing practices had substantially changed in the small-mesh fishery. Many changes to the fishery resulted from actions contained in Amendment 5 and Framework 35 to the FMP. These actions restricted the use of small-mesh in some areas and created new small-mesh exemption areas in others that changed fishing dynamics. The Council acknowledged that these changes in the characteristics of the small-mesh fishery had made the 1996 control date an unreliable indicator of historic participation. As a result, NMFS published a second control date for determining limited entry criteria at the request of the Council on March 25, 2003 (68 FR 14388). The Council implemented this second control date citing the previously mentioned changes to fishing practices and locations and to address the potential overcapitalization concerns expressed by the WMC. The intent of both control dates was to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while potential management regimes to control access into the fishery were discussed and possibly developed by the Council.
        The Council is now beginning to develop Amendment 14 to the FMP, which will pertain to the small-mesh multispecies fishery. This amendment is in the very early stages of development. At their April 4, 2006, meeting in Mystic, CT, the Council voted to request that NMFS publish an ANPR to reaffirm the most recent control date for this fishery (March, 25, 2003) and to notify the public of the potential development of a limited access program in Amendment 14. Other measures may be considered in the amendment development process; this announcement is for informational purposes only and does not commit the Council to this or any other specific actions. The Council has indicated that distribution of the final scoping document with public hearing dates will occur within the next few weeks. NMFS anticipates publishing the meeting notice for scoping public hearings in the Federal Register before the end of May 2006.

        In order to be approved and implemented, any measures proposed by the Council in Amendment 14 must be found consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the measures and alternatives being considered by the Council through public meetings and public comment periods required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and as provided by the Administrative Procedure Act.
        This reaffirmation of the March 25, 2003, control date is intended to strongly discourage speculative entry into the fishery while limited access measures are developed and considered by the Council. Fishermen who have not participated in the small-mesh multispecies fishery or who change their level of participation in this fishery are notified that entering this fishery or changing their level of participation after March 25, 2003, may not qualify them as previous participants, should such a criterion be the basis for future access to the small-mesh multispecies resources. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their entry dates or intensity of participation in this fishery before or after the control date. The Council and NMFS may choose to give variably weighted consideration to fishermen active in the fishery before and after the control date. Any action by the Council or NMFS will be taken pursuant to the requirements for FMP development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the small-mesh multispecies fishery in Federal waters.
        Classification
        This ANPR has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated: June 6, 2006.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-9125 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 79
        [CG Docket No. 05-231; DA 05-2974]
        Closed Captioning of Video Programming, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.; Petition for Rulemaking

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau grants a request for an extension of time to file reply comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted by the Commission in the “Closed Captioning of Video Programming” proceeding. The extension is granted to provide parties the necessary time to coordinate and file reply comments that will result in a more complete record.

          DATES:
          Reply comments are due on or before December 16, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit reply comments, identified by CG Docket No. 05-231, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations  (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone (202) 418-0539 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Amelia Brown, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-2799 (voice), (202) 418-7804 (TTY), or e-mail at Amelia.Brown@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Order, DA 05-2974, in CG Docket No. 05-231, adopted November 16, 2005, released November 17, 2005, which extends the reply comment filing deadline in the “Closed Captioning of Video Programming” proceeding. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Reply comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

        • Electronic Filers: Reply comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal Rulemaking  Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. All comments received are viewable by the general public at any time through the Web site.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which ex parte communications are subject to disclosure.

        The full text of document DA 05-2974 and copies of any subsequently filed documents relating to this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's contractor at their Web site www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 1-800-378-3160. A copy of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Request for Extension of Time may also be found by searching ECFS at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs (insert CG Docket No. 05-231 into the proceeding block).

        To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document DA 05-2974 can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb.dro.
        Synopsis
        On July 21, 2005, the Commission released an NPRM in CG Docket No. 05-231; FCC 05-142, which was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56150) which set the deadline for filing reply comments as November 25, 2005. On November 15, 2005, the Commission received a Request for Extension of Time for this proceeding from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). NAB requests that the Commission extend the reply comments deadline until December 16, 2005 because of the significant amount of time required to review, analyze and respond to the hundreds of comments filed in this proceeding.  NAB notes that the current reply comment deadline is the day after the Thanksgiving holiday. Additionally, NAB asserts that the proposed extension will enable the Commission to gather and consider a more complete factual record of the relevant legal issues, which is in the public interest.
        Though the Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time, an extension in this proceeding will afford parties the necessary time to file reply comments that will result in a more complete record in this proceeding. The extension will not cause undue delay to the Commission's consideration of the issues.
        Ordering Clauses
        The Request for Extension of Time filed by the National Association of Broadcasters on November 15, 2005, is granted. Interested parties may file reply comments on or before December 16, 2005.
        This action is taken pursuant to the authority provided in § 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, and under delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.141 and 0.361 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.141 and 0.361.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Monica Desai,
          Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E5-6585 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 141110950-4999-01]
        RIN 0648-BE63
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to establish requirements for fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion. The proposed rule is intended to implement fishery management measures consistent with Presidential Proclamation 9173.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments on the proposed rule by February 13, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0142, by either of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0142, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            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), and will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          You may review Presidential Proclamation 9173 (establishing the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion) (PRI Monument Expansion), Presidential Proclamation 8663 (establishing the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument) (PRI Monument), and the PRI Monument fishing requirements established in Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas published in 2013, available from www.regulations.gov. Amendment 2 is also available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or from www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, tel 808-725-5170.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS and the Council manage Pacific Island fisheries through fishery ecosystem plans (FEP) for American Samoa, the Mariana Archipelago (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA), Hawaii, and western Pacific pelagic fisheries. Fishing regulations for the Pacific Islands are found mainly in 50 CFR part 665.
        In 2009, President Bush issued Presidential Proclamations that established three Marine National Monuments in the Pacific Islands under the authority of the Antiquities Act: The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument (Proclamation 8335), the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRI Monument, Proclamation 8336), and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument (Proclamation 8337). The Proclamations directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to take appropriate action pursuant to their respective authorities under the Antiquities Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and such other authorities as may be available to implement the Proclamations, to regulate fisheries, including allowing for traditional indigenous fishing practices, and to ensure proper care and management of the monuments.

        In 2013, the Council incorporated the Proclamations' fishery management provisions into its FEPs. With respect to the PRI Monument, the Council adopted Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas establishing (a) the boundaries of the PRI Monument and various management units, (b) the prohibition on commercial fishing, and (c) management measures for non-commercial and recreational fishing. The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 2 on May 2, 2013. NMFS then implemented a final rule that, among other things, established a new subpart H in 50 CFR part 665 for the PRI Monument, based on the Council's recommendations in Amendment 2 (78 FR 32996, June 3, 2013). Specifically, the rule codified the Monument's boundaries and prohibited commercial fishing throughout the Monument. It further established management measures for non-commercial and recreational fishing (i) prohibiting all fishing within 12 nm of islands in the PRI Monument, subject to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service authority to allow non-commercial fishing in consultation with NMFS and the Council; (ii) requiring federal permits and reporting for non-commercial and recreational charter fishing to aid in monitoring of fishing activities; (iii) prohibiting sale or exchange through barter or trade of fish caught by a recreational charter boat and all customary exchange; and (iv) prohibiting commercial fishing outside the Monument and non-commercial fishing within the Monument during the same trip.
        On September 27, 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 9173 titled “Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion” (PRI Monument Expansion). The PRI Monument Expansion includes the waters and submerged lands of Jarvis and Wake Islands and Johnston Atoll that lie from the PRI Monument boundary established in Proclamation 8336 to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) (as established in Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983). The additional area is approximately 308,316 square nautical miles. The intent of the PRI Monument Expansion was to provide expanded protection to objects of scientific interest, including seamounts, deep sea corals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other migratory species.
        Proclamation 9173 prohibited commercial fishing in the PRI Monument Expansion and directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to ensure that recreational and non-commercial fishing continue to be managed as sustainable activities in the PRI Monument and Monument Expansion. Nothing in Proclamation 9173 changed the management of the PRI Monument, and it did not affect the management or change the boundaries of any island or atoll in the PRI Monument.
        At its 161st meeting held from October 20-23, 2014, in Honolulu, the Council recommended amending the FEP regulations to implement the PRI Monument Expansion at Jarvis Island, Wake Island and Johnston Atoll as directed in Proclamation 9173. The Council further recommended that the regulations that now apply within the PRI Monument would be applicable within the PRI Monument Expansion. In this proposed action, and consistent with the existing requirements in the PRI Monument, commercial fishing would be prohibited within the PRI Monument Expansion, and managed non-commercial fishing would be allowed within the Monument Expansion as described above.
        Consistent with the Proclamation and Council recommendations, this rule would amend regulations at 50 CFR part 665, subpart H. The fishing requirements for the Monument Expansion would include, among other things, the following:
        • Prohibition of commercial fishing;
        • Permit and reporting requirements for non-commercial and recreational fishing;
        • Prohibition of conduct involving commercial fishing outside the PRI Monument and Monument Expansion and non-commercial fishing within the PRI Monument and Monument Expansion during the same trip; and
        • Administrative housekeeping changes made in the 2013 final rule to the Federal permit and reporting requirements at §§ 665.13 and 665.14, and the vessel identification requirements at § 665.16.
        Additional background information on this action is found in 78 FR 32996 (June 3, 2013), 78 FR 39583 (July 2, 2013), and 79 FR 58645 (September 29, 2014), and is not repeated here.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for the Pacific Remote Island Areas and western Pacific pelagic fisheries, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.
        In January 2009, President Bush established, by Presidential Proclamation, the PRI Monument. NMFS implemented a final rule that codified the PRI Monument boundaries, prohibited commercial fishing in the PRI Monument, and established measures for managing non-commercial and recreational fishing in the Monument.
        In September 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 9173 that expanded the PRI Monument around Jarvis Island, Wake Island, and Johnston Atoll to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The additional area is approximately 308,315 square nautical miles, which, when combined with the PRI Monument, is an area of approximately 339,960 square nautical miles. This proposed rule would codify the PRI Monument Expansion boundaries and extend the existing fishing management measures, including those that apply to non-commercial fishing, to the expanded area.
        The proposed rule would apply to the following categories of small entities: Commercial fishing vessels (NAICS code 114111) and recreational charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 487210). NMFS believes that almost all businesses operating as commercial and recreational charter vessels in the U.S. territories and in Hawaii would be considered small entities, with annual revenues below $7.5 million and $20.5 million, respectively. The proposed rule would apply to hundreds of fishing vessels, regardless of gear type and size, many of which are primarily non-commercial fishing vessels that occasionally sell fish or take clients out on charter fishing trips. However, as discussed below, the rule will likely have little effect on overall commercial fishing and charter fishing activities relative to the status quo.

        Fishing interest and activity in the PRIA, even before the PRI Monument was created, and including fishing within EEZ waters outside of PRI Monument boundaries that were recently included in the expanded boundary around three PRI islands and an atoll, has been low. As of November 2014, the type and number of PRIA fishing permits issued are as follows: Western Pacific pelagic squid (0), troll handline (7), bottomfish (2), crustaceans (0), precious corals (0), coral reef ecosystem (0), and Marine National Monument fishing (0). Even though NMFS issued several permits, fishing has been limited. In addition to the above permits, some commercial longline and purse seine fishing has also occurred in the EEZ around the PRIA in recent years, outside of PRI Monument waters. Within the EEZ around the PRIA, based on anecdotal information, a small amount of recreational fishing may be occurring by charter vessels visiting Palmyra Atoll from Hawaii, and this low amount of voyaging and fishing could extend to the PRI Monument Expansion areas around Jarvis. With the limited interest, activity, and information on commercial, non-commercial, and recreational fishing in and near the PRI Monument, NMFS estimates that up to 15 vessels would each make one trip annually to the PRI Monument, and most of these trips would be to Palmyra Atoll, which has facilities to support visitors.
        This proposed rule would extend all existing PRI Monument requirements to the Monument Expansion areas. Proclamation 9173 prohibits commercial fishing in the Monument Expansion, so this proposed rule would codify that prohibition. This proposed rule could affect businesses operating commercial fishing and charter fishing vessels choosing to operate in the Monument Expansion. This is because the proposed rule prohibits the engaging in commercial fishing outside the Monument Expansion and non-commercial fishing inside the Monument Expansion during the same trip. Fishermen who wish to sell fish caught during their trip would not be able to fish non-commercially inside the Monument Expansion boundaries; this applies to all fishing vessels, as well as charter fishing vessels. This is likely to have little to no effect on revenues, as fishermen whose primary trip goal is to earn revenue, however modest, will choose not to fish non-commercially in the Monument.
        Recreational charter vessel owners and operators would continue to be allowed to fish in the Monument Expansion under a Monument permit, but they may not sell, barter, or trade fish caught in the Monument Expansion, nor may they supplement trip fee revenues by selling fish caught outside the Monument Expansion on the same fishing trip in which they, their customers, or guests, conducted non-commercial or recreational fishing in the Monument Expansion.
        In general, the primary revenue sources for charter fishing vessels are charter fees paid by customers and any revenue earned from selling fish would supplement trip fees. The restriction on supplemental fish sales is not expected to have a significant impact to small charter fishing entities because the overall number of recreational fishing trips to the PRI Monument is likely to be less than ten to fifteen each year; indeed, none have been made in 2013-2014 within the Monument Expansion area. The potential overall number of recreational fishing trips to the newly Monument Expansion is likely to be very small relative to the total annual number of charter fishing trips taken by affected vessels outside the Monument Expansion.
        The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations or government jurisdictions. There do not appear to be disproportionate economic impacts from the proposed rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size primarily because the remote distances required to be traveled by non-commercial fishing vessels is likely to reduce interest in fishing by most fishermen, except for fishermen who were already destined to visit the area (such as would occur at Palmyra Atoll Monument). The rule will not result in a benefit to any one class of vessel owners relative to home port, gear type, or relative vessel size: All vessels are welcome to apply for non-commercial permits, and only authorized gear types would be allowed to be used in the Monument Expansion. The proposed rule also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
        In 2013, the Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA, April 30, 2013) that described the impact on the human environment that would result from implementation of the fishing requirements for the three monuments. Based on the EA, Regulatory Impact Review, evaluation of the economic impacts under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, review of the NEPA criteria for significant effects, NMFS criteria for significance evaluated above, and the information provided in the finding of no significant impact (FONSI, May 1, 2013), NMFS found that there would be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of the action. For this proposed rule, NMFS considered relevant new information and circumstances, and none of the new information indicated that the proposed action would result in a change to impacts previously considered. Thus, NMFS concluded that there is no need to supplement the EA or FONSI.
        Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
        Because this proposed rule would occur outside the coastal zone of any State and will not have reasonably foreseeable effects on any coastal use or resource, NMFS is not required to coordinate with State agencies under section 307 of the CZMA.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial fishing, Fisheries, Monuments and memorials, Pacific Remote Islands.

          Dated: January 9, 2015.
          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 665 as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. Revise § 665.930 to read as follows:

          § 665.930
          Scope and purpose.
          The regulations in this subpart codify certain provisions of the Proclamations, and govern the administration of fishing in the Monument.

        3. In § 665.931, revise paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) to read as follows:

          § 665.931
          Boundaries.
          (a) Wake Island. The Wake Island unit of the Monument includes the waters and submerged and emergent lands around Wake Island to the seaward limit of the U.S. EEZ.

          (c) Jarvis Island. The Jarvis Island unit of the Monument includes the waters and submerged and emergent lands around Jarvis Island to the seaward limit of the U.S. EEZ.
          (d) Johnston Atoll. The Johnston Atoll unit of the Monument includes the waters and submerged and emergent lands around Johnston Atoll to the seaward limit of the U.S. EEZ.

        4. In § 665.932, revise the definition of “Monument”, remove the definition of “Proclamation”, and add the definition of “Proclamations” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 665.932
          Definitions.

            Monument means the waters and submerged and emergent lands of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion, as defined in § 665.931.

            Proclamations means Presidential Proclamation 8336 of January 6, 2009, “Establishment of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument,” and Presidential Proclamation 9173 of September 29, 2014, “Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion.”

      [FR Doc. 2015-00444 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 55
        [FRL-7622-2]
        Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for California

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule—Consistency Update.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (“COA”), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (“the Act”). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Ventura County APCD) is the designated COA. The intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the above District is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements onshore. The change to the existing requirements discussed below is proposed to be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and is listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed update must be received on or before March 15, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be mailed (in duplicate if possible) to: EPA Air Docket (Air-4), Attn: Docket No. A-93-16 Section XXIX, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105.

            Docket: Supporting information used in developing the rules and copies of the document EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference are contained in Docket No. A-93-16 Section XXIX. This docket is available for public inspection and copying Monday—Friday during regular business hours at the following locations:
          EPA Air Docket (Air-4), Attn: Docket No. A-93-16 Section XXIX, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105.
          EPA Air Docket (LE-131), Attn: Air Docket No. A-93-16 Section XXIX, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
          A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Christine Vineyard, Air Division (Air-4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 947-4125, vineyard.christine@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background Information
        A. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
        On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,1
           which established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in order to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25 miles of a state's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. Because the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that EPA update the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore requirements.

            1 The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and the preamble to the final rule promulgated September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background and information on the OCS regulations.

        Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will occur (1) at least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent under § 55.4; or (3) when a state or local agency submits a rule to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55. This proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of rules by a local air pollution control agency. Public comments received in writing within 30 days of publication of this document will be considered by EPA before publishing a final rule.
        Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the Act. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.
        II. EPA's Evaluation
        A. What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate Rules Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part 55?
        In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA reviewed the rules submitted for inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12 (e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural rules,2
           and requirements that regulate toxics which are not related to the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient air quality standards.

            2 Each COA which has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce part 55, will use its administrative and procedural rules as onshore. However, in those instances where EPA has not delegated authority to implement and enforce part 55, EPA will use its own administrative and procedural requirements to implement the substantive requirements. 40 CFR 55.14(c)(4).

        B. What Rule Revisions Were Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part 55?
        1. After review of the rules submitted by Ventura County APCD against the criteria set forth above and in 40 CFR part 55, EPA is proposing to make the following rules applicable to OCS sources for which the Ventura County APCD is designated as the COA:

            Rule No.
            Rule name
            Adoption date

            23
            Exemptions from Permit
            11/11/03.

            56
            Open Burning
            11/11/03.

            74.20
            Adhesives and Sealants
            09/09/03.

            74.6
            Surface Cleaning and Degreasing (Now includes Cold Cleaning Operations previously Rule 74.6.1)
            11/11/03 (effective 7/1/04).

            74.6.1
            Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers—previously 74.6.2 repealed and renamed 74.6.1; (74.6.1 previously named Cold Cleaning Operations is now included in Rule 74.6)
            11/11/03 (effective 7/1/04).

            74.12
            Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products
            11/11/03.

            74.24
            Marine Coating Operations
            11/11/03.

            74.30
            Wood Products Coatings
            11/11/03.

        III. Administrative Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
        EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

          Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
        F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
        EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
        H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

          Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
        H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
        The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55
          Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

          Dated: January 27, 2004.
          Wayne Nastri,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

        Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 55—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as amended by Public Law 101-549.
            2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(H) to read as follows:

            § 55.14
            Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.

            (e) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (ii) * * *
            (H) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources.

            Appendix to Part 55—[Amended]
            3. Appendix A to CFR Part 55 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) under the heading “California” to read as follows:

              Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 55—Listing of State and Local Requirements Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

              California

              (b) * * *
              (8) The following requirements are contained in Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources:

              Rule 2 Definitions (Adopted 11/10/98)
              Rule 5 Effective Date (Adopted 5/23/72)
              Rule 6 Severability (Adopted 11/21/78)
              Rule 7 Zone Boundaries (Adopted 6/14/77)
              Rule 10 Permits Required (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 11 Definition for Regulation II (Adopted 6/13/95)
              Rule 12 Application for Permits (Adopted 6/13/95)
              Rule 13 Action on Applications for an Authority to Construct (Adopted 6/13/95)
              Rule 14 Action on Applications for a Permit to Operate (Adopted 6/13/95)
              Rule 15.1 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 10/12/93)
              Rule 16 BACT Certification (Adopted 6/13/95)
              Rule 19 Posting of Permits (Adopted 5/23/72)
              Rule 20 Transfer of Permit (Adopted 5/23/72)
              Rule 23 Exemptions from Permits (Revised 11/11/03)
              Rule 24 Source Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Emission Statements (Adopted 9/15/92)
              Rule 26 New Source Review (Adopted 10/22/91)
              Rule 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 26.2 New Source Review—Requirements (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 26.3 New Source Review—Exemptions (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 26.6 New Source Review—Calculations (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 26.8 New Source Review—Permit To Operate (Adopted 10/22/91)
              Rule 26.10 New Source Review—PSD (Adopted 1/13/98)
              Rule 26.11 New Source Review—ERC Evaluation At Time of Use (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 28 Revocation of Permits (Adopted 7/18/72)
              Rule 29 Conditions on Permits (Adopted 10/22/91)
              Rule 30 Permit Renewal (Adopted 5/30/89)
              Rule 32 Breakdown Conditions: Emergency Variances, A., B.1., and D. only. (Adopted 2/20/79)
              Rule 33 Part 70 Permits—General (Adopted 10/12/93)
              Rule 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 33.2 Part 70 Permits—Application Contents (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit Content (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 33.4 Part 70 Permits—Operational Flexibility (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 33.5 Part 70 Permits—Time frames for Applications, Review and Issuance  (Adopted 10/12/93)
              Rule 33.6 Part 70 Permits—Permit Term and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93)
              Rule 33.7 Part 70 Permits—Notification (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 33.8 Part 70 Permits—Reopening of Permits (Adopted 10/12/93)
              Rule 33.9 Part 70 Permits—Compliance Provisions (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 33.10 Part 70 Permits—General Part 70 Permits (Adopted 10/12/93)
              Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 3/14/95)
              Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted 11/12/96)
              Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/6/98)
              Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 5/14/02)
              Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee (Adopted 9/10/96)
              Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 6/19/90)
              Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and Call-Back Fees (Adopted 6/22/99)
              Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 8/4/92)
              Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 2/20/79)
              Rule 52 Particulate Matter—Concentration (Adopted 5/23/72)
              Rule 53 Particulate Matter—Process Weight (Adopted 7/18/72)
              Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 6/14/94)
              Rule 56 Open Burning (Revised 11/11/03)
              Rule 57 Combustion Contaminants—Specific (Adopted 6/14/77)
              Rule 60 New Non-Mobile Equipment—Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Particulate Matter (Adopted 7/8/72)
              Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and Renovation (Adopted 6/16/92)
              Rule 63 Separation and Combination of Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78)
              Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 4/13/99)
              Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices (Adopted 7/5/83)
              Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 6/14/77)
              Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94)
              Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and Separation (Adopted 6/16/92)
              Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 9/26/89)
              Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 6/16/92)
              Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, and Well Cellars (Adopted 6/8/93)

              Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/13/94)

              Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Adopted 4/10/01)
              Rule 73 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) (Adopted 04/10/01)
              Rule 74 Specific Source Standards (Adopted 7/6/76)
              Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/12/91)
              Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 11/13/01)
              Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing (Revised 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04)
              Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers ( Adopted 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04)
              Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Organic Compounds at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted 10/10/95)
              Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Waste-water Separators and Process Turnarounds (Adopted 7/5/83)
              Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Adopted 11/14/00)
              Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil Production Facilities and Natural Gas Production and Processing Facilities (Adopted 3/10/95)

              Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential Water Heaters-Control of NOX (Adopted 4/9/85)
              Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (Adopted 9/14/99)
              Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Adopted 9/10/96)
              Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 11/8/94)
              Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 6/13/00)
              Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations (Adopted 1/8/91)
              Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants (Adopted 9/9/03)
              Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines (Adopted 1/08/02)
              Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations (Revised 11/11/03)
              Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted 1/08/02)
              Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94)
              Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94)
              Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations (Adopted 5/10/94)
              Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings (Revised 11/11/03)
              Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78)
              Rule 100 Analytical Methods (Adopted 7/18/72)
              Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 5/23/72)
              Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 11/21/78)
              Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems (Adopted 2/9/99)
              Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91)
              Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91)
              Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91)
              Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 9/17/91)
              Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures (Adopted 9/17/91)
              Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/95)
              Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 11/9/99)

      [FR Doc. 04-3079 Filed 2-11-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary of Transportation
        49 CFR Part 13
        [Docket No. DOT-OST-2020-0229]
        RIN 2105-AE97
        Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of denial of request for extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          This document denies the request to extend the comment period on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. This NPRM contains the Department's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and outlines the Department's internal policies and procedures for environmental reviews of DOT's actions. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2020.

          DATES:
          The closing date for comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 23, 2020 (85 FR 74640), remains December 23, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may review the petitions to extend the public comment period and other comments under Docket Number DOT-OST-2020-0229 through the Federal Regulations website at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          April Marchese, Director, Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center, 202-366-2074, april.marchese@dot.gov, or Krystyna Bednarczyk, Office of the General Counsel, 202-366-5283, krystyna.bednarczyk@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 23, 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (85 FR 7460) to codify the Department's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This NPRM would codify internal policies applicable to the Department's performance of environmental reviews. The NPRM would direct the Department's Operating Administrations to update their procedures consistent with regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and the Department's own implementing procedures, when finalized. The Department's existing procedures, which are contained in an internal order, have not been updated since 1985 and are inconsistent with current practice, and thus, modifications and changes are needed to make DOT's regulations consistent with intervening statutory and policy changes. This NPRM would codify existing processes and policies and ensure consistency with CEQ regulations published in July 2020 and effective as of September 14, 2020 (85 FR 43304 (July 16, 2020)).
        To date, DOT has received four petitions to extend the comment period, each asking for different lengths of an extension. Petitioners note that the comment period for the NPRM coincides with the holiday season. In addition, petitioners cite the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public health emergency as an unprecedented circumstance necessitating the extension of the comment period.
        While DOT appreciates the concerns raised by the petitioners, we decline to extend the comment period for this rulemaking. The changes proposed by the NPRM would incorporate best practices, codify internal processes, provide conforming updates based on CEQ regulations, and provide consistency across the Department. The NPRM does not propose major discretionary changes to the way the Department analyzes the effects of proposed actions or ranges of alternatives; nor would the NPRM modify any analyses done in the Section 4(f) analysis.
        DOT believes there is a strong interest in the timely issuance of these procedures to allow for the DOT Operating Administrations to issue their own procedural updates in accordance with the CEQ regulations. CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3(b) require Federal agencies to develop or revise, as necessary, procedures to implement the CEQ regulations, including eliminating any inconsistencies with the CEQ regulations by September 14, 2021. Before that date, DOT must review comments received on this pending NPRM and, based on the comments received, develop a final rule that would set the minimum standard for all of the Department's procedures to follow. Once this NPRM is finalized, DOT Operating Administrations can begin to update their own procedures, many of which will also require notice and an opportunity for public comment before they can also be finalized. Individuals will have the opportunity to comment further on these implementing procedures, which will be more detailed than this NPRM and specifically tailored to the unique environmental programs overseen by each DOT Operating Administration.

        The Department further acknowledges that DOT administrative policy provides that “Generally, absent special considerations, the comment period for . . . significant DOT rules should be at least 45 days” (emphasis added) (49 CFR 5.13(i)(3)). For the reasons cited above, DOT found special considerations exist that necessitate a comment period less than 45 days for this NPRM, which was designated significant by the Office of Management and Budget. DOT therefore denies the petitions to extend the comment period.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2020, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.23.
          Steven G. Bradbury,
          General Counsel (and performing the functions and duties of Deputy Secretary).

      [FR Doc. 2020-28467 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 031017264-3264-01; I.D. 100103C]
        RIN 0648-AR48
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Referendum Procedures for a Potential Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule to provide potential participants information about the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for participating in referendums to determine whether an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery should be prepared and, if so, whether it subsequently should be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review.  The intended effect of this proposed rule is to implement the referendums consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on November 12, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
          Copies of supporting documentation for this proposed rule, which includes a regulatory impact review (RIR) and a Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (RFAA), are available from NMFS at the address above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Phil Steele, telephone:   727-570-5305, fax:   727-570-5583, e-mail:  phil.steele@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP).  The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background
        During the early to mid-1990s, the Council began development of an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.  Development of this program involved extensive interaction with the fishing industry, other stakeholders, and the public through numerous workshops, public hearings, and Council meetings.  The program was approved by NMFS and scheduled for implementation in 1996.  However, Congressional action in late 1995 prohibited implementation of any new IFQ programs in any U.S. fishery before October 2000.  Subsequent Congressional actions incorporated this prohibition and related provisions into the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ultimately extended the prohibition until October 1, 2002.

        Under § 407(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council is now authorized to prepare and submit a plan amendment and regulations to implement an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery under certain conditions.  First, the preparation of such a plan amendment and implementing regulations must be approved in a referendum.  If the referendum is approved by a majority of the votes cast, the Council would be responsible for preparing any such plan amendment and regulations through the normal Council and rulemaking processes that would involve extensive opportunities for industry and public review and input at various Council meetings and public hearings and during public comment periods on the plan amendment and regulations.  Second, the submission of the plan amendment and regulations to the Secretary for review, approval/disapproval, and implementation must be approved in a subsequent referendum.  Both referendums must be conducted in accordance with § 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Section 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also specifies that, “Prior to each referendum, the Secretary, in consultation with the Council, shall: (A) Identify and notify all such persons holding permits with red snapper endorsements and all such vessel captains; and (B) make available to all such persons and vessel captains information about the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum and the proposed individual fishing quota program.”
        Purpose of This Proposed Rule and the Referendums
        NMFS, in accordance with the provisions of § 407(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, will conduct referendums to determine, based on the majority vote of eligible voters, whether a plan amendment and regulations to implement an IFQ program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery should be prepared and, if so, whether any subsequently prepared plan amendment and implementing regulations should be submitted to the Secretary for review, approval/disapproval, and implementation.  The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to notify potential participants in the referendums, and members of the public, of the procedures, schedule, and eligibility requirements that NMFS would use in conducting the referendums.  The procedures and eligibility criteria used for purposes of conducting the referendums have no bearing on the procedures and eligibility requirements that might be applied in any future IFQ program that may be developed by the Council.  The provisions of any proposed IFQ program would be developed independently by the Council through the normal plan amendment and rulemaking processes that would involve extensive opportunities for public review and comment during Council meetings, public hearings, and public comment on any proposed rule.  There is no relation between eligibility to vote in the referendums, as described in this proposed rule, and any eligibility regarding a subsequent IFQ program.
        Referendum Processes
        Who Would Be Eligible To Vote in the Referendums?Section 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes criteria regarding eligibility of persons to vote in the referendums.  Those criteria are subject to various interpretations.  After careful consideration of those criteria and the practicality and fairness of several possible interpretations, NMFS has determined that the following persons would be eligible to vote in the referendums.
        (I) For the initial referendum:

        (A) A person who according to NMFS permit records has continuously held their Gulf red snapper endorsement/Class I license from September 1, 1996, through the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final rule implementing these referendum procedures;

        (B) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred through sale since September 1, 1996, the person who according to NMFS' permit records holds such Class 1 license as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final rule implementing these referendum procedures;

        (C) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred through lease since September 1, 1996, both the final lessor and final lessee as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final rule implementing these referendum procedures, as determined by NMFS' permit records; and
        (D) A vessel captain who harvested red snapper under a red snapper endorsement in each red snapper commercial fishing season occurring between January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996.
        (II) For the second referendum:

        (A) A person who according to NMFS permit records has continuously held their Gulf red snapper endorsement/Class I license from September 1, 1996, through the date of publication in the Federal Register of a subsequent notice announcing the second referendum;

        (B) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred through sale since September 1, 1996, the person that according to NMFS' permit records holds such Class 1 license as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of a subsequent notice announcing the second referendum;

        (C) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred through lease since September 1, 1996, both the final lessor and final lessee as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of a subsequent notice announcing the second referendum, as determined by NMFS' permit records; and
        (D) A vessel captain who harvested red snapper under a red snapper endorsement in each red snapper commercial fishing season occurring between January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996.
        A person who was simultaneously the holder of an endorsement/Class 1 license and a vessel captain operating under that endorsement/Class 1 license would not be granted dual eligibility.  Such person may only receive eligibility under one of the eligibility criteria.
        NMFS will have sufficient information in the Southeast Regional Office fisheries permit database to identify those persons eligible to vote in the referendums based on their having held a red snapper endorsement/Class 1 license during the required periods.  However, NMFS did not have sufficient information to identify vessel captains whose eligibility would be based on the harvest of red snapper under a red snapper endorsement in each red snapper commercial fishing season occurring between January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996.  To obtain that information, NMFS prepared and distributed a fishery bulletin that described the general referendum procedures and provided a 20-day period (ending August 18, 2003) for submittal of detailed information by those vessel captains.  That fishery bulletin was widely distributed to all Gulf reef fish permitees, including dealers, and to major fishing organizations, state fisheries directors, and others.  Information received from that solicitation would be used to identify vessel captains whose eligibility to vote in the referendums is based on the red snapper harvest criterion.
        How Would Votes Be Weighted?

        Section 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS develop a formula to weight votes based on the proportional harvests under each eligible endorsement and by each eligible captain during the period January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996.  NMFS would obtain applicable red snapper landings data from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center reef fish logbook database.  Information from NMFS' Southeast Regional Office permit database would be used to assign total applicable landings to each eligible voter (red snapper endorsement/Class 1 license holder, lessee/lessor, or vessel captain).
        The weighting procedure is complicated somewhat by requirements to protect the confidentiality of landings data, when the applicable landings history involves landings by different entities.  To address confidentiality concerns, NMFS would establish a series of categories (ranges) of red snapper landings, e.g., 1,000-1,500 lb (454-680 kg); 1501-2000 lb (681-907 kg); etc..  Each eligible voter's total landings during the period January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996, would be attributed to the appropriate category.  The overall average landings attributed to each category would be determined.  That average number of pounds would be the vote weighting factor, i.e., one vote for each such pound, for each eligible voter whose landings fall within that category.  For example, if the overall average number of pounds attributed to the 1,000-1,500-lb (454-689-kg) category is 1,328 lb (602 kg), each eligible voter within that category would receive 1328 votes.
        How Would the Vote Be Conducted?
        On or about November 1, 2003, NMFS would mail each eligible voter a ballot that would specify the number of votes (weighting) that that voter is assigned.  NMFS would mail the ballots and associated explanatory information, via certified mail return receipt requested, to the address of record indicated in NMFS' permit database for endorsement/Class I license holders and, for vessel captains, to the address provided to NMFS by the captains during the prior information solicitation that ended August 18, 2003.  All votes assigned to an eligible voter must be cast for the same decision, i.e., either all to approve or all to disapprove the applicable referendum question.  The ballot must be signed by the eligible voter.  Ballots must be mailed to Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Ballots for the initial referendum must be received at that address by 4:30 p.m., eastern time, December 15, 2003; ballots received after that deadline would not be considered in determining the outcome of the initial referendum.  Although it would not be required, voters may want to consider submitting their ballots by registered mail.
        How Would the Outcome of the Referendums Be Determined?

        Vote counting would be conducted by NMFS.  Approval or disapproval of the referendums would be determined by a majority of the votes cast.  NMFS would prepare a fishery bulletin announcing the results of each referendum that is conducted and would distribute the bulletin to all Gulf reef fish permitees, including dealers, and to other interested parties.  The results would also be posted on NMFS' Southeast Regional Office's website at http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov.
        What Would Happen After the Initial Referendum?

        NMFS would present the results of the initial referendum at the January 13-16, 2004, Council meeting in San Antonio, TX.  If the initial referendum fails, the Council cannot proceed with preparation of a plan amendment and regulations to implement an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.  If the initial referendum is approved, the Council would be authorized, if it so decides, to proceed with development of a plan amendment and regulations to implement an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.  The proposed IFQ program would be developed through the normal Council and rulemaking processes that would involve extensive opportunities for industry and public review and input at various Council meetings and public hearings and during public comment periods on the plan amendment and regulations.  The plan amendment and regulations could only by submitted to the Secretary for review, approval/disapproval, and implementation if in a second referendum approval of the submission was passed by a majority of the votes cast by the eligible voters as described in this proposed rule.  NMFS would announce any required second referendum by publishing a notice in the Federal Register that would provide all pertinent information regarding the referendum.  Any second referendum would be conducted in conformance with § 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the provisions outlined in this proposed rule.
        Background Information About a Potential IFQ Program
        In anticipation of the October 2002 expiration of the Congressional moratorium on development of IFQ programs, some members of the commercial red snapper fishery requested that the Council develop an IFQ profile for the fishery.  Based on that request, the Council convened an Ad Hoc Red Snapper Advisory Panel (AHRSAP), comprised of participants in the commercial red snapper fishery and other individuals knowledgeable about the fishery and/or IFQ programs, to develop a profile.  This profile, later referred to as an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Options Paper for the Problems Identified in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Fishery, provides background information about historical management of the red snapper fishery, problems in the fishery, management goals, and issues and management alternatives associated with a potential IFQ/ITQ program.  The profile addresses such issues as:   ITQ units of measurement (percentage of quota or pounds of red snapper); duration of ITQ rights; set-aside for non-ITQ catches under current commercial quota; actions to be taken if the quota increases or decreases; types of ITQ share certificates; initial allocation of ITQ shares and annual coupons (including eligibility, apportionment, transferability of landings histories, etc.); possible controls on ownership and transfer of ITQ shares; whether to include a “use it or lose it” provision; disposition of unused or sanctioned ITQ shares and coupons; possible landings restrictions; monitoring of ITQ share certificates and annual coupons; quota tracking; an appeals process; and size limit changes.
        This profile represents an outline of an IFQ program as envisioned by the AHRSAP, with input from the Council—it does not reflect any final decisions by the Council regarding the structure of a proposed IFQ program for the red snapper commercial fishery.  The Council may consider the options in the profile, and perhaps a variety of other options, if it chooses to pursue development of an IFQ program for the fishery.  However, for purposes of the initial referendum, the Council intentionally refrained from adopting the profile.  Any subsequent development of a proposed IFQ program for the red snapper commercial fishery would be conducted through the normal Council and Federal rulemaking processes that ensure numerous opportunities for review and comment by industry participants and members of the public.

        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The basis for this certification follows:
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule.  The proposed rule would implement up to two referendums on a potential IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to notify potential participants in the referendums, and members of the public, of the procedures, schedule, and eligibility requirements that NMFS would use in conducting the referendums.
        One hundred and thirty-seven entities have been identified as having a vessel permit with a red snapper Class 1 License during the specified eligibility time frame and, therefore, qualify for participation in the referendums.   Approximately 35 of these licenses are currently being fished on vessels operated by other entities through lease arrangements.  An additional four vessel captains have been identified as referendum qualifiers.  Although the number of Class 1 Licenses and vessel captains is known with certainty, lease arrangements may be subject to cancellation prior to a referendum such that the total number of eligible entities due to lease arrangements is not known with certainty.  Although new lease arrangements are also a possibility, such that the number of lease arrangements could increase from the current total, increased leasing is not expected since this would dilute the voting power of the Class 1 License holder, absent control over the subsequent vote by the lessee.  Thus, it is expected that the number of lease qualifiers will decline by some unknown amount.  Assuming, however, that all current qualifiers maintain their status, the total number of entities that qualify for participation in the referendum is 176.  The total red snapper fishery is valued at approximately $10 million in ex-vessel revenue on an annual basis.  Although participants in this fishery do not harvest red snapper exclusively, among those vessels that target red snapper (as determined by whether the revenues from red snapper on an individual trip were greater than the revenues from any other individual species), approximately 57 percent of annual revenues for these vessels came as red snapper sales.  If all qualifiers target red snapper and all red snapper ex-vessel revenues are attributed to these participants, and assuming red snapper revenues equal 57 percent of total commercial revenues for these participants, the average ex-vessel revenue per entity is approximately $100,000 ([($10 million/0.57]/176).  If evaluated over the number of Class 1 licenses (137), the appropriate average revenue is approximately $128,000.  Although it is logical to assume that the qualifiers target red snapper, these estimates are biased high because all red snapper revenues cannot be attributed to either category of entities.  Thus, the average ex-vessel revenue per entity is less than either figure.
        All referendum qualifiers that would be directly affected by the proposed rule are commercial fishing operations.  The Small Business Administration defines a small business that engages in commercial fishing as a firm with receipts up to $3.5 million.  Based on the revenue profile provided above, all commercial entities that would qualify for participation in the referendums are considered small entities.  Because all qualifying entities would be affected by the proposed rule, it is concluded that the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.
        The outcome of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two issues: Disproportionality and profitability.  The disproportionality question is, do the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities?  Because all the entities that would be affected by the proposed rule are considered small entities, the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case.
        The profitability question is, do the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities?  Since the proposed rule simply defines the procedures, schedule, and eligibility requirements that NMFS would use in conducting the referendums, there are no implementing regulations associated with the proposed rule and, therefore, there would be no direct effects on current fishery participation, effort, harvests, or other use of the resource.  All current entities can continue to participate in the fishery in the manner in which they currently operate.  Therefore, all current harvests, costs, and profits would remain unchanged.  Any effects, adverse or otherwise, on small entities that participate in the fishery would only occur in the future, should an IFQ program be implemented.  The likelihood of this occurring in either the near or distant future is unknown.  Further, the resultant impacts of such a program are unknown because the specific program has not been designed.  These impacts, however, would be determined should an IFQ program be proposed.  Because the proposed rule would not directly affect fishery participation or harvest in any way, the rule would not reduce business profit for any fishery participants or related businesses.  Profits are therefore not expected to be significantly reduced by the proposed rule.  On this basis, the proposed rule may be adjudged not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not required or prepared.  Copies of the RIR and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis are available (see ADDRESSES).

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

          Dated: October 22, 2003.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-27035 Filed 10-24-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S