        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Office of the Secretary
        45 CFR Parts 160 and 164
        RIN 0991-AB62
        HIPAA Privacy Rule Accounting of Disclosures Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act; Request for Information

          AGENCY:
          Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services.

          ACTION:
          Request for information.

          SUMMARY:
          Section 13405(c) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act expands an individual's right under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to receive an accounting of disclosures of protected health information made by HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. In particular, section 13405(c) of the HITECH Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services (“Department” or “HHS”) to revise the HIPAA Privacy Rule to require covered entities to account for disclosures of protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations if such disclosures are through an electronic health record. This document is a request for information (RFI) to help us better understand the interests of individuals with respect to learning of such disclosures, the administrative burden on covered entities and business associates of accounting for such disclosures, and other information that may inform the Department's rulemaking in this area.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before May 18, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods specified below. Please do not submit duplicate comments.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: You may submit electronic comments at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting electronic comments. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.
          • Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Attention: HITECH Accounting of Disclosures, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 509F, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Office for Civil Rights, Attention: HITECH Accounting of Disclosures, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 509F, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the mail drop slots located in the main lobby of the building.)

            Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period will be available for public inspection, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We will post all comments received before the close of the comment period at http://www.regulations.gov. Because comments will be made public, they should not include any sensitive personal information, such as a person's social security number; date of birth; driver's license number, state identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information, or any non-public corporate or trade association information, such as trade secrets or other proprietary information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Andra Wicks, 202-205-2292.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Covered entities under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Title II, Subtitle F—Administrative Simplification, Public Law 104-191, 110 Stat. 2021, are currently required by the HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 CFR 164.528 to make available to an individual upon request an accounting of certain disclosures of the individual's protected health information over the past six years. For each disclosure, the accounting must include: (1) The date of the disclosure; (2) the name (and address, if known) of the entity or person who received the protected health information; (3) a brief description of the information disclosed; and (4) a brief statement of the purpose of the disclosure (or a copy of the written request for the disclosure). For multiple disclosures to the same person for the same purpose, the accounting is only required to include: (1) For the first disclosure, a full accounting, with the elements described above; (2) the frequency, periodicity, or number of disclosures made during the accounting period; and (3) the date of the last such disclosure made during the accounting period. Section 164.528(a)(1)(i) of the Privacy Rule currently exempts disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations from these accounting requirements.1

            1 The core health care activities of “Treatment,” “Payment,” and “Health Care Operations” are defined in the Privacy Rule at 45 CFR 164.501.

        Section 13405(c) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 265-66, provides that the exemption at § 164.528(a)(1)(i) of the Privacy Rule for disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations no longer applies to disclosures “through an electronic health record.” Under section 13405(c), an individual has a right to receive an accounting of such disclosures that covers disclosures made during the three years prior to the request. Section 13400 of the statute defines “electronic health record” as “an electronic record of health-related information on an individual that is created, gathered, managed, and consulted by authorized health care clinicians and staff.” We take the opportunity in this RFI to request public comment to inform our regulations under the HITECH Act, which requires that we take into account both the interests of individuals in learning the circumstances under which their protected health information is being disclosed and the administrative burden of accounting for disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations through an electronic health record.
        We request comments specifically on the questions below. The Department welcomes comments from all stakeholders on these issues, but in addition to hearing from covered entities, is particularly interested in hearing from individuals, consumer advocates and groups, and, regarding technical capabilities, from vendors of electronic health record systems.
        II. Questions
        1. What are the benefits to the individual of an accounting of disclosures, particularly of disclosures made for treatment, payment, and health care operations purposes?
        2. Are individuals aware of their current right to receive an accounting of disclosures? On what do you base this assessment?
        3. If you are a covered entity, how do you make clear to individuals their right to receive an accounting of disclosures? How many requests for an accounting have you received from individuals?
        4. For individuals that have received an accounting of disclosures, did the accounting provide the individual with the information he or she was seeking? Are you aware of how individuals use this information once obtained?

        5. With respect to treatment, payment, and health care operations disclosures, 45 CFR 170.210(e) currently provides the standard that an electronic health record system record the date, time, patient identification, user identification, and a description of the disclosure. In response to its interim final rule, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology received comments on this standard and the corresponding certification criterion suggesting that the standard also include to whom a disclosure was made (i.e., recipient) and the reason or purpose for the disclosure. Should an accounting for treatment, payment, and health care operations disclosures include these or other elements and, if so, why? How important is it to individuals to know the specific purpose of a disclosure—i.e., would it be sufficient to describe the purpose generally (e.g., for “for treatment,” “for payment,” or “for health care operations purposes”), or is more detail necessary for the accounting to be of value? To what extent are individuals familiar with the different activities that may constitute “health care operations?” On what do you base this assessment?
        6. For existing electronic health record systems:
        (a) Is the system able to distinguish between “uses” and “disclosures” as those terms are defined under the HIPAA Privacy Rule? Note that the term “disclosure” includes the sharing of information between a hospital and physicians who are on the hospital's medical staff but who are not members of its workforce.
        (b) If the system is limited to only recording access to information without regard to whether it is a use or disclosure, such as certain audit logs, what information is recorded? How long is such information retained? What would be the burden to retain the information for three years?

        (c) If the system is able to distinguish between uses and disclosures of information, what data elements are automatically collected by the system for disclosures (i.e., collected without requiring any additional manual input by the person making the disclosure)? What information, if any, is manually entered by the person making the disclosure?

        (d) If the system is able to distinguish between uses and disclosures of information, does it record a description of disclosures in a standardized manner (for example, does the system offer or require a user to select from a limited list of types of disclosures)? If yes, is such a feature being utilized and what are its benefits and drawbacks?

        (e) Is there a single, centralized electronic health record system? Or is it a decentralized system (e.g., different departments maintain different electronic health record systems and an accounting of disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations would need to be tracked for each system)?

        (f) Does the system automatically generate an accounting for disclosures under the current HIPAA Privacy Rule (i.e., does the system account for disclosures other than to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations)?

        i. If yes, what would be the additional burden to also account for disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations? Would there be additional hardware requirements (e.g., to store such accounting information)? Would such an accounting feature impact system performance?
        ii. If not, is there a different automated system for accounting for disclosures, and does it interface with the electronic health record system?
        7. The HITECH Act provides that a covered entity that has acquired an electronic health record after January 1, 2009 must comply with the new accounting requirement beginning January 1, 2011 (or anytime after that date when it acquires an electronic health record), unless we extend this compliance deadline to no later than 2013. Will covered entities be able to begin accounting for disclosures through an electronic health record to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations by January 1, 2011? If not, how much time would it take vendors of electronic health record systems to design and implement such a feature? Once such a feature is available, how much time would it take for a covered entity to install an updated electronic health record system with this feature?
        8. What is the feasibility of an electronic health record module that is exclusively dedicated to accounting for disclosures (both disclosures that must be tracked for the purpose of accounting under the current HIPAA Privacy Rule and disclosures to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations)? Would such a module work with covered entities that maintain decentralized electronic health record systems?
        9. Is there any other information that would be helpful to the Department regarding accounting for disclosures through an electronic health record to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations?

          Dated: April 26, 2010.
          Georgina Verdugo,
          Director, Office for Civil Rights.

      [FR Doc. 2010-10054 Filed 4-30-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4153-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 000714206-0206-01; I.D. 061400A]
        RIN 0648-AM53
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule to reduce observer coverage and experience requirements for some catcher vessels and shoreside processors participating in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries. This action is necessary to reduce costs associated with the observer coverage requirements in the CDQ fisheries. It is intended to further the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 23, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel. Hand or courier delivered comments may be sent to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453, Juneau, AK 99801. Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. A copy of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared for this action can be obtained from the same address, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alan Kinsolving, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS manages fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        Through the CDQ program, NMFS allocates a portion of the BSAI groundfish, prohibited species, halibut, and crab total allowable catch (TAC) to 65 eligible Western Alaska communities. These communities must use the proceeds from the CDQ allocations to start or support commercial fishery activities that will result in ongoing, regionally based, commercial fishery or related businesses. The CDQ program began in 1992 with the allocation of 7.5 percent of the BSAI pollock TAC. The fixed gear halibut and sablefish CDQ allocations began in 1995, as part of the halibut and sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program. In 1998, allocations of 7.5 percent of the remaining groundfish TACs, 7.5 percent of the prohibited species catch limits, and 7.5 percent of the crab guidelines harvest levels were added to the CDQ program. In 1999, the amount of pollock allocated to the CDQ program was increased to 10 percent of the BSAI pollock TAC as a result of the American Fisheries Act.
        On June 4, 1998, NMFS published a final rule imposing catch monitoring and observer coverage requirements for all vessels and processors participating in the multispecies CDQ fisheries (63 FR 30381). On April 26, 1999, NMFS extended these requirements to vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA) that participate in the halibut CDQ fishery. These regulations were issued because, in the CDQ fisheries, all groundfish and prohibited species catch by vessels fishing for CDQ groups accrue against the individual allocations for each CDQ group (64 FR 20210). Because individual vessels, processors, and CDQ groups are accountable for the catch of groundfish and prohibited species, the catch monitoring standards must be more stringent than in many other fisheries. These final rules also impose experience and training requirements for observers that, in most cases, exceed the requirements in the non-CDQ fisheries.
        Following completion of the first year of fishing under these regulations, NMFS reviewed the observer coverage and experience requirements and has determined that observers without gear-specific experience were able to perform their duties as well as observers with gear-specific experience on catcher vessels choosing to retain all catch and in shoreplants. Further, NMFS has determined that the data collected by the shoreplant observer were not necessary for effective program management when a CDQ observer from the vessel making a delivery was available to collect shoreside data. Thus, the observer coverage requirements can be reduced without affecting the ability of NMFS to collect the data necessary to monitor and manage the CDQ fishery.
        Current CDQ Observer Requirements
        The current CDQ catch monitoring and observer coverage requirements were imposed to provide accurate and verifiable catch estimates for all CDQ and prohibited species quota (PSQ) species. This led NMFS to issue catch accounting regulations that rely primarily on NMFS-certified CDQ observers to collect data necessary to estimate the catch of all CDQ and PSQ species, or to ensure that all catch was being retained and accounted for at a shoreside processor.

        Table 1 summarizes the current observer coverage requirements for the CDQ fisheries. Table 2 summarizes the experience requirements necessary for a CDQ observer and a lead CDQ observer.

          Table 1. Current Observer Coverage Requirements for the CDQ Fisheries.

            Category
            CDQ Observer Requirements

            Catcher vessel, < 60 ft
            none

            Catcher vessel, ≧ 60 ft
            1 lead CDQ observer (obs.)

            Mothership or catcher/processor using trawl or hook-and-line gear
            2 total (1 lead CDQ obs., 1 CDQ obs.)

            Catcher/processor using pot gear
            1 lead CDQ obs

            Shoreside processor
            1 lead CDQ obs. for each CDQ delivery, except deliveries from catcher vessels < 60' LOA fishing halibut CDQ

          Table 2. Requirements for CDQ Observer and “Lead” CDQ Observer in 50 CFR 679.50

            CDQ Observer Classification
            Experience Requirements

            All CDQ observers
            Prior experience as an observer with 60 days observer data collection,

            - minimum evaluation rating of 1 or 2,

            - successfully complete CDQ observer training course

          ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR “LEAD” CDQ OBSERVERS

            Lead observer on a factory trawler or a mothership
            At least 2 cruises (contracts) and sampled at least 100 hauls on a factory trawler or a mothership

            Lead on catcher vessel using trawl gear
            At least 2 cruises (contracts) and sampled at least 50 hauls on a catcher vessel using trawl gear

            Lead on vessel using nontrawl gear
            At least 2 cruises (contracts) of at least 10 days each and sampled at least 60 sets on a vessel using nontrawl gear

            Lead in shoreside plant
            Observed at least 30 days in a shoreside processing plant

        The current regulations require lead CDQ observers on all vessels and shoreside processing plants for which observer coverage is required because NMFS believed that the CDQ observers needed prior experience specific to the vessel or processor type in order to collect the data needed to manage the CDQ fisheries. However, after reviewing the first year of the multispecies CDQ fisheries, NMFS has concluded that a lead CDQ observer is not necessary on some catcher vessels while CDQ fishing or in shoreside processing plants taking CDQ deliveries.
        NMFS proposes the following reductions in observer coverage and experience requirements:
        1. Eliminate the requirement for a lead CDQ observer on all catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using trawl gear. A CDQ observer would still be required. This reduction is justified because the vessel must retain all groundfish CDQ and salmon PSQ and deliver it to a shoreside processor, where it is sorted by species, weighed, and reported to NMFS. The lead CDQ observer on the vessel estimates the at-sea discards of halibut PSQ and crab PSQ and monitors compliance with retention requirements. NMFS believes that these duties can be performed adequately by a CDQ observer who has prior experience as an observer, but not necessarily vessel-specific experience.
        2. Eliminate the requirement for a lead CDQ observer on a catcher vessel greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using nontrawl gear that chooses to retain all groundfish CDQ species (option 1 defined at 50 CFR 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A)). A CDQ observer would still be required. Under current regulations, catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using nontrawl gear must select one of two options as the basis for CDQ catch accounting. Option 1 requires the vessel operator to retain all groundfish CDQ and salmon PSQ and deliver them to a processor to be sorted by species, weighed, and reported to NMFS. Under this option, CDQ catch accounting is based on the processor's reports for groundfish CDQ and salmon PSQ and on the observer data for halibut PSQ. NMFS believes the gear-specific experience of a lead CDQ observer is unnecessary for vessels choosing catch accounting option 1. NMFS would continue to require a lead CDQ observer on catcher vessels using nontrawl gear that select option 2, which is to use observer data as the basis for all CDQ catch accounting. Option 2, which is set forth at 50 CFR 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B), allows the vessel operator to discard groundfish CDQ species at sea and to use data collected by the observer to estimate the catch of all groundfish CDQ species and halibut PSQ.

        3. Eliminate the requirement that a shoreside processing plant provide a CDQ observer to monitor deliveries from catcher vessels that use nontrawl gear and select option 2. Under option 2, only data collected by the observer on the catcher vessel is used for CDQ catch accounting. Therefore, neither a lead CDQ observer nor a CDQ observer would be necessary at the plant. To date, no catcher vessel has selected option 2 for CDQ catch accounting, so this reduction would not have affected any shoreside processors that participated in the 1999 CDQ fisheries.
        4. Eliminate the requirement that shoreside processors required to provide CDQ observers provide a lead CDQ observer when taking CDQ deliveries. A CDQ observer would still be required. NMFS has determined that experience in a shoreside plant would not be necessary for the observer to adequately monitor the sorting and weighing of CDQ deliveries.
        5. Reduce the observer coverage requirements for shoreside processors taking CDQ deliveries from catcher vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using nontrawl gear and using option 1 (full retention) for CDQ catch accounting to allow the vessel observer to monitor the CDQ delivery in the processing plant. A separate CDQ observer for the shoreside processor is not necessary if the vessel observer can monitor the sorting and weighing of catch at the shoreside processor without exceeding the regulatory working hour limits. Under this revision, the shoreside processor could still choose to provide an additional observer at the processing plant if the shoreside processor did not want its activities to be limited by the working hour limits for the vessel observer.
        This proposed rule would also make a minor revision to the introductory paragraph of 50 CFR 679.50(c)(4). The current paragraph requires the owner or operator of a vessel engaged in CDQ fishing to comply with CDQ observer coverage requirements for each day the vessel is used to harvest, transport, process, deliver, or take deliveries of CDQ or PSQ species. NMFS proposes to remove the requirement that CDQ observers be onboard catcher/processors or motherships when they are being used only to transport CDQ catch. The regulations would continue to require an observer on a catcher vessel while CDQ species are being transported. In some cases, catcher/processors continue to process CDQ catch onboard long after catching and processing of the CDQ catch has been completed. There is no need for a CDQ observer to be onboard solely to monitor the transport of processed product.
        Classification
        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 impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          This proposed rule would apply to the 21 catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and 10 shoreplants that participate in the CDQ fishery. The proposed rule would remove the gear-specific experience requirements for CDQ observers deployed in shoreplants and on some types of vessels, which would increase the number of observers qualified to be deployed in the CDQ fisheries. This increased flexibility in observer deployment would reduce the possibility that a qualified observer would not be available when a vessel or processor wants to participate in a CDQ fishery. This proposed action would also allow shoreside plants taking CDQ deliveries from some non-trawl catcher vessels to provide a regular, rather than a CDQ observer, and would reduce observer coverage levels in certain circumstances.
          Based on the analysis presented in the Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this rule, NMFS estimates that this action will have a positive impact on the vessels and processors that will be directly impacted by the action and will have no negative impact on observer contractors.

        Because of the absence of negative impacts, and because positive impacts are not deemed to have a “significant” impact on small entities, an Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.
        A copy of the RIR can be obtained from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations. To comply with that directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: July 17, 2000.
          Andrew A. Rosenberg,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et
              seq., 1801 et
              seq., and 3631 et
              seq.

          2. In § 679.50, paragraph (h)(1)(i)(E)(4) is removed, the first sentence of the introductory text in paragraph (c)(4) is revised, paragraph (c)(4)(v) is added, and paragraphs, (c)(4)(iv), and (d)(4) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.50
            Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 31, 2000.

            (c) * * *
            (4) Groundfish and halibut CDQ fisheries. The owner or operator of a vessel groundfish CDQ fishing or halibut CDQ fishing as defined at § 679.2 must comply with the following minimum observer coverage requirements each day that the vessel is used to transport (catcher vessels only), harvest, process, deliver or take delivery of CDQ or PSQ species. * * *

            (iv) Catcher vessel using trawl gear. A catcher vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using trawl gear, except a catcher vessel that delivers only unsorted codends to a processor or another vessel, must have at least one CDQ observer as described at paragraph (h)(1)(i)(D) of this section aboard the vessel.
            (v) Catcher vessel using nontrawl gear. A catcher vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using nontrawl gear must meet the following observer coverage requirements:
            (A) Option 1. If the vessel operator selected Option 1 (as described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A)) for CDQ catch accounting, then at least one CDQ observer as described at paragraph (h)(1)(i)(D) of this section must be aboard the vessel.
            (B) Option 2. If the vessel operator selected Option 2 (as described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B)) for CDQ catch accounting, then at least one lead CDQ observer as described at paragraph (h)(1)(i)(E) of this section must be aboard the vessel.

            (d) * * *
            (4) Groundfish and halibut CDQ fisheries.—(i) CDQ deliveries requiring observer coverage. Subject to paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, each shoreside processor taking deliveries of groundfish or halibut CDQ must have at least one CDQ observer as described at paragraph (h)(1)(i)(D) of this section present at all times while CDQ is being received or processed.
            (ii) CDQ deliveries not requiring observer coverage. A shoreside processor is not required to provide a CDQ observer for CDQ deliveries from the following vessels:
            (A) Vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA that are halibut CDQ fishing;

            (B) Vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using nontrawl gear that have selected Option 1 (as described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A)) for CDQ catch accounting, so long as the CDQ observer on the catcher vessel monitors the entire delivery without exceeding the working hour limitations described in paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section; and
            (C) Vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using nontrawl gear that have selected Option 2 (as described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B)) for CDQ catch accounting.
            (iii) Observer working hours. The time required for the CDQ observer to complete sampling, data recording, and data communication duties may not exceed 12 hours in each 24-hour period, and the CDQ observer is required to sample no more than 9 hours in each 24-hour period.

      [FR Doc. 00-18650 Filed 7-21-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 98
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934; FRL-9789-1]
        RIN 2060-AR52
        2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements
        Correction
        In proposed rule document 2013-06093, appearing on pages 19802-19877 in the issue of Tuesday, April 2, 2013, make the following correction:

          § 98.173
          Calculating GHG emissions. [Corrected]
          On page 19854, the equation titled as “(Eq. Q-5)” is corrected to read as set forth below:

            EP25AP13.000

      [FR Doc. C1-2013-06093 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 224
        [I.D. 021607C]
        Endangered and Threatened Species. Proposed Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          On April 20, 2007, NMFS proposed the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). As part of that proposal, NMFS announced a public comment period to end on June 19, 2007, and then extended the comment period to August 3, 2007. NMFS has received requests for public hearings on this issue. In response, NMFS is announcing that public hearings will be held at two locations in Alaska to provide additional opportunities and formats to receive public input.

          DATES:
          The hearings will be held on July 19, 2007, from 6 to 9 p.m. in Homer and on July 20, 2007, from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. in Anchorage, AK. Written comments must be received by August 3, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          The July 19, 2007, hearing will be held at the Maritime Refuge, Island and Oceans, 95 Sterling Highway #1, Homer, AK. The July 20, 2007, hearing will be held in hte Loussac Public Library, Wilda Marston Room, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, AK.
          Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
          • E-mail: CIB-ESA-Endangered@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.
          • Mail: P. O Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building : 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brad Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99517, telephone (907) 271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS, (907) 586-7235; or Marta Nammack, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On April 20, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule (72 FR 19854) to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. This action followed completion of the Cook Inlet beluga whale status review, which found this population to be at risk of extinction within the next 100 years and described NMFS' determination that this population constitutes a “species”, or distinct population segment under the ESA.
        Public Hearings
        Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In past ESA rule-making NMFS has conducted traditional public hearings, consisting of recorded oral testimony from interested individuals. This format, although providing a means for public input, does not provide opportunities for dialogue and information exchange. NMFS believes that the traditional public hearing format can be improved upon by also including a brief presentation on the results of the Cook Inlet beluga Status Review and other topics of interest.
        The preferred means for providing public comment to the official record is via written testimony prepared in advance of the meeting which may also be presented orally. Blank “comment sheets” will be provided at the meetings for those without prepared written comments, and opportunity will also be provided for additional oral testimony. There is no need to register for these hearings.

        In scheduling these public hearings, NMFS has anticipated that many affected stakeholders and members of the public may prefer to discuss the proposed listing directly with staff during the public comment period. These public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposal (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on August 3, 2007.
        References

        The proposed rule, status review, maps, a list of the references cited in this document, and other materials relating to the proposed listing can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: June 8, 2007.
          Wanda L. Cain,
          Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-11420 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
        [IB Docket No. 16-408; Report No. 3084]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petitions for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Joseph A. Godles, on behalf of Iridium Constellation LLC et al., Brian D. Weimer, on behalf of WorldVu Satellites Limited, and John P. Janka, on behalf of Viasat, Inc.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 20, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 2, 2018.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803, Clay.DeCell@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3084, released January 26, 2018. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, FCC 17-122, published at 82 FR 59972, December 18, 2017. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 3.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

      [FR Doc. 2018-02195 Filed 2-2-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R8-ES-2007-0022; 1111 FY07 MO; ABC Code: B2]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as Threatened or Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition To list the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this species, which was also requested in the petition, if and when we initiate a listing action.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on January 8, 2008. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, data, comments, and information must be submitted to us on or before March 10, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2007-0022; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office by mail (see ADDRESSES), by telephone (775-861-6300), or by facsimile (775-861-6301). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Information Solicited
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the pygmy rabbit. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties. We are opening a 60-day comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the pygmy rabbit throughout its range, including:
        (1) Information regarding the species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;
        (2) information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4 (a) of the Act, which are:
        (a) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
        (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (in relation to the pygmy rabbit, this includes hunting and research);
        (c) disease or predation;
        (d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; or
        (3) information on management programs for the conservation of the pygmy rabbit.

        Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. Please note that we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section in our final determination.

        Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502-7147; telephone 775-861-6300.
        Background

        For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the pygmy rabbit, please refer to the “Species Information” section in our previous 90-day finding published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2005 (70 FR 29253).

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species.
        On April 21, 2003, we received a formal petition, dated April 1, 2003, from the Committee for the High Desert, Western Watersheds Project, American Lands Alliance, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, and Mr. Craig Criddle, requesting that the pygmy rabbit found in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming be listed as threatened or endangered in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The petition also requested that we designate critical habitat concurrently with listing, if listing occurs. The petition, which was clearly identified as such, contained information on the natural history, biology, and distribution of the pygmy rabbit. It also contained information on what the petitioners reported as potential threats to the species, including but not limited to, habitat loss due to agricultural practices, sagebrush conversion, livestock grazing, fire, mining, energy development, and recreation; hunting; research practices; disease; predation; intra- and inter-specific competition; natural stochastic events such as floods and drought; mortality caused by collisions with off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and automobiles; and life history traits. The petition also discussed existing regulatory mechanisms and their perceived inadequacies.

        In response to the petitioner's requests, we sent a letter to the petitioners dated June 10, 2003, explaining that we would not be able to address their petition until fiscal year 2004. Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2003. On May 3, 2004, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue, and on September 1, 2004, we received a complaint regarding our failure to carry out the 90-day and 12-month findings on the status of the pygmy rabbit. On March 2, 2005, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to submit to the Federal Register a completed 90-day finding by May 16, 2005, and to complete, if applicable, a 12-month finding by February 15, 2006 (Western Watersheds Project  et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CV-04-0440-N-BLW) (D. Idaho).
        On May 20, 2005, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (70 FR 29253) stating that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. On March 28, 2006, we received a complaint regarding alleged violations of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act with regard to our May 20, 2005, 90-day finding (Western Watersheds Project et al. v. Gale Norton and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CV 06-CV-00127-S-EJL) (D. Idaho)). On September 26, 2007, the court issued a judgment and memorandum order stating that the Service improperly imposed a higher standard than required for a 90-day petition finding when we reviewed the petition, and therefore found the Service's denial of the petition was contrary to the applicable law. More specifically, the court found that the Service inappropriately disputed the accuracy and the reliability of the information offered in the petition as to habitat and population loss without providing a rationale based on more accurate evidence of the species' range and reduction of population or habitat. The ruling states, and the Service agrees, that what is required at this stage of the listing process is a review of the petition for a determination of whether or not it presents substantial information indicating to a reasonable person that the petitioned action may be warranted. This standard is in contrast to the “best scientific and commercial data” standard applied to actually listing a species. The court's order remanded our May 20, 2005, 90-day finding and required the Service to issue a new 90-day finding on or before December 26, 2007. This notice constitutes our new 90-day finding to comply with the September 26, 2007, court ruling.
        This finding does not address our prior listing of the Columbia Basin distinct population segment (DPS) of the pygmy rabbit. On November 30, 2001, we published an emergency listing and concurrent proposed rule to list this DPS of the pygmy rabbit as endangered (66 FR 59734 and 66 FR 59769, respectively). We listed the Columbia Basin DPS of the pygmy rabbit as endangered in our final rule dated March 5, 2003 (68 FR 10388).
        Finding
        Based on our reconsideration of the information provided in the petition, we find that it presents substantial scientific information that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific and commercial information” threshold (as mentioned above). Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.
        If we determine that listing the pygmy rabbit is warranted, we intend to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

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

          Dated: December 17, 2007.
          Kenneth Stansell,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

       [FR Doc. E7-25017 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0633; FRL-9982-79—Region 3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Revisions to Regulation for Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of West Virginia. The revisions pertain to a West Virginia regulation that established the nitrogen oxides (NOX) ozone season trading program under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which implemented requirements for NOX reductions necessary to reduce interstate transport of pollution. The EPA-administered trading programs under CAIR were discontinued upon the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was promulgated by EPA to replace CAIR. CSAPR established federal implementation plans (FIPs) for 28 states, including West Virginia, and applied to electric generating units (EGUs) as defined. The SIP submittals are comprised of revisions to the West Virginia regulation that implemented the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program and that had previously been included in the West Virginia SIP. The revised West Virginia regulation removed the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program provisions, which also addressed certain large non-electric generating units (non-EGUs), established new requirements for these large non-EGUs, included a state-wide NOX emissions cap, and recodified certain other provisions that address the NOX emission reductions required for cement kilns and internal combustion engines. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before September 27, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017- 0633 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On July 13, 2016, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a revised version of West Virginia Regulation 45CSR40—Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxides Emissions for inclusion in the West Virginia SIP. The revised 45CSR40 made the following changes—(1) removed the provisions that implemented the CAIR ozone season trading program, (2) added new requirements to address the NOX reduction obligations for non-EGUs in the State that were trading under the CAIR ozone season trading program but are no longer part of a trading program, and (3) recodified the requirements that applied to cement kilns and internal combustion engines. On October 13, 2017, WVDEP provided a supplemental SIP submission comprised of a demonstration showing that NOX emissions from applicable non-EGUs do not exceed the West Virginia NOX budget under the NOX SIP Call.
        I. Background

        On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the “Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone”—commonly called the NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call was designed to mitigate significant transport of NOX, one of the precursors of ozone. EPA developed the NOX Budget Trading Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt to meet their obligations under the NOX SIP Call. The NOX Budget Trading Program allowed EGUs greater than 25 megawatts and industrial non-electric generating units, such as boilers and turbines, with a rated heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), referred to as “large non-EGUs”, to participate in a regional NOX cap and trade program. The NOX SIP call also established NOX reduction requirements for other non-EGUs, including cement kilns and stationary internal combustion (IC) engines. EPA has implementing regulations for the NOX SIP Call at 40 CFR 51.121.

        On May 12, 2005, 70 FR 25162, EPA promulgated CAIR to address transported emissions that significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAIR required 28 states, including West Virginia, to reduce emissions of NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which are precursors to ozone and PM2.5. Under CAIR, EPA established separate cap and trade programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2 emissions. On April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA also promulgated FIPs requiring the EGUs in each affected state, but not large non-EGUs, to participate in the CAIR trading programs. States could comply with the requirements of CAIR by either remaining on the FIP, which applied only to EGUs, or by submitting a CAIR SIP revision that included as trading sources EGUs and the non-EGUs that formerly traded in the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call. EPA discontinued administration of the NOX Budget Trading Program in 2009 upon the start of the CAIR trading programs.1
           The NOX SIP Call requirements continued to apply, however, and EGUs that were formerly trading under the NOX Budget Trading Program continued to meet their NOX SIP Call requirements under the generally more stringent requirements of the CAIR ozone season trading program. Large non-EGUs that were trading under the NOX Budget Trading Program were not addressed in the CAIR FIPs. States therefore needed to assess their NOX SIP Call requirements and take other regulatory action as necessary to ensure that their obligations for the large non-EGUs continued to be met. Under CAIR, states had the option to include the non-EGUs as trading participants in the regional CAIR ozone season trading program either through a full CAIR SIP or through an abbreviated CAIR SIP. In either of these options, expansion of the applicability to include the non-EGUs and increasing the ozone season NOX budget by the amount of the non-EGU budget in 40 CFR part 97 Appendix C of Subpart E effected inclusion of the non-EGUs into the trading program. Otherwise, states needed to assess their NOX SIP Call requirements and take other regulatory action as necessary to ensure that their obligations for these units continued to be met. West Virginia chose to include the non-EGUs as CAIR trading sources, and submitted, for inclusion in the SIP Regulation 45CSR40 which consisted of provisions that implemented the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program, included the large non-EGUs as trading sources, and also included emission reduction requirements for certain non-trading non-EGUs (cement kilns and IC engines) that were subject to the NOX SIP Call. EPA approved Regulation 45CSR 40 into the West Virginia SIP on August 4, 2009 (74 FR 38536).

            1 CAIR was subsequently vacated and remanded. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008), modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (remanding CAIR). CAIR was replaced with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), which, after legal challenges, was implemented starting in January 2015. The NOX Ozone Season Trading Program under CSAPR was replaced in West Virginia and most other states by a new trading program for ozone season NOX under the CSAPR Update rule in January 2017 (81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016).

        The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,2
           but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.3

           The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the Court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the NOX annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.

            2 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008).

            3 North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).

        On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements. CSAPR was to become effective January 1, 2012; however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was delayed by litigation, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.

        Starting in January 2015, the CSAPR FIP trading programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX and annual SO2 were applicable in West Virginia. Thus, since January 1, 2015, the provisions related to implementation of the CAIR ozone season trading program in West Virginia regulation 45CSR40 have become obsolete. The CSAPR FIP trading programs applied only to EGUs and, unlike CAIR, did not provide for expansion of the ozone season trading program to include the NOX SIP Call non-EGUs. States, like West Virginia, whose non-EGUs had previously traded in the CAIR ozone season trading program, were therefore required to address the non-EGU reduction requirements of the NOX SIP Call outside of a regional trading program.4

            4 Subsequent to West Virginia's July 13, 2016 submission, EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address transport related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. It is noted that CSAPR Update included flexibility for states to submit SIPs that expand the CSAPR ozone season trading program to include the large non-EGUs.

        On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and issued FIPs that updated the ozone season NOX budgets for 22 states, including West Virginia. Starting in January 2017, the CSAPR Update budgets were implemented via establishment of a new CSAPR NOX ozone season allowance trading program that was established under the original CSAPR. The CSAPR Update Rule reinstates the option for States to allow non-EGUs to participate in a regional trading program. States wishing to do this can at any time submit a SIP revision that expands the CSAPR Ozone Season NOX budget and applicability to include large non-EGUs.
        II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

        Regulation 45CSR40 was originally adopted by WVDEP to implement the ozone season trading program under CAIR, which included as CAIR trading sources EGUs and the non-EGUs that had formerly been trading under the NOX SIP Call trading program. As noted previously, WVDEP consolidated all the NOX SIP Call and CAIR ozone season requirements into 45CSR40, including the requirements that apply to stationary IC engines and cement manufacturing kilns. The CSAPR FIPs which replaced CAIR only applied to EGUs, and, at the time West Virginia developed its SIP submittal, states did not have an option under CSAPR to bring their non-EGUs into the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. So, while EGU compliance with CSAPR satisfied their NOX SIP Call requirements, West Virginia needed to modify its ozone season NOX regulation to address the NOX SIP Call requirements for the large non-EGUs that were formerly trading in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program. 40 CFR 51.121(f) sets forth alternatives for states to address NOX SIP Call reduction obligations for non-EGUs including (1) imposing a NOX mass emissions cap on each source, (2) imposing a NOX emissions rate limit on each source and assuming maximum operating capacity for every such source for purposes of estimating NOX mass emissions, or (3) imposing other regulatory requirements that the state has demonstrated to EPA provide equivalent or greater assurance that the state will comply with its ozone season NOX budget.

        The July 13, 2016 West Virginia SIP submittal includes a modified 45CSR40 which removed the CAIR ozone season trading program provisions, retained the definitions, applicability, and other provisions responding to the NOX SIP Call, added new requirements to address its NOX SIP Call obligations for sources that were trading under CAIR but are no longer part of a trading program, and retained and recodified the limits on NOX emissions that applied to stationary IC engines and cement kilns previously in the former version of 45CSR40 (with a State effective date of May 1, 2008) which EPA had included in the West Virginia SIP.
        Removal of CAIR Ozone Season Trading Program Requirements

        Former Regulation 45CSR40 (State effective date of May 1, 2008), which was approved into the West Virginia SIP, was originally adopted by WVDEP to implement the ozone season trading program under CAIR and to address NOX SIP Call requirements. The July 13, 2016 SIP submission (with revised 45CSR40, effective in West Virginia on July 1, 2016) removed all the requirements in sections 1 through 75 that pertained to the CAIR ozone season trading program, but retained the general provisions, definitions (including references to continuous emissions monitoring under 40 CFR part 75, subpart H), and applicability provisions that applied to the West Virginia regulated sources under the NOX SIP Call. As the CAIR trading program has been replaced by the trading programs under CSAPR, as described previously, these revisions removing references to CAIR are approvable for CAA 110(l) as the provisions related to CAIR were moot as CAIR was replaced by CSAPR and thus CAIR no longer yielded reductions in pollutants nor presently applied to any sources. In addition, sources formerly subject to CAIR are now subject to the more stringent NOX and SO2 provisions of CSAPR to which the EGU sources in West Virginia are subject via a FIP. See 81 FR 74504.
        Requirements for Non-EGUs Subject to the NOX SIP Call Formerly Trading Under CAIR

        New sections 4 through 8 of 45CSR40 (effective July 1, 2016) established new ozone season NOX requirements for the large non-EGUs that were formerly trading in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program. These requirements are summarized as follows:
        Section 4—Applicability requires the owner or operator of a unit that has a maximum heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr to comply with the ozone season NOX emission limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements established in sections 5 and 6 of 45CSR40. This section also specifically excludes any unit that is already subject to the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program via a FIP.
        Section 5—Ozone Season NO
          X
          Emission Limitation requires that an owner or operator of affected units (see section 4) limit ozone season NOX emissions pursuant to specific limits established in a permit issued under West Virginia regulations 45CSR13, 45CSR14, or 45CSR19, or under a consent order issued by the State, including any limits on operating time during the ozone season.
        Section 6—Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements requires continuous emissions monitoring, reporting, and recording in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, subpart H for the non-EGUs to be used to determine compliance with the requirements in section 5.
        Section 7—Violation establishes enforcement provisions in the event a unit emits in excess of its ozone season NOX emission limitations established via section 5.
        Section 8—Ozone Season NO
          X
          Budget Demonstration establishes a NOX ozone season budget of 2,184 tons for all applicable units in the State. Subsection 8.2 requires submittal to EPA of a demonstration showing that the sum of NOX emissions from all affected units does not exceed the ozone season NOX budget, based on each unit's permitted limits or consent order limits operating at maximum capacity (or at the operational limit if required in the permit or consent order). Subsection 8.3 requires that whenever a new unit meets the applicability requirements under section 4, the demonstration is required to be revised to show continuing compliance with the statewide NOX budget.

        The July 13, 2016 SIP revision submittal did not include the demonstration required under section 8.2 of 45CSR40. On October 11, 2017, WVDEP submitted a supplemental SIP revision consisting of such demonstration showing that total ozone season emissions from large non-EGUs in the State subject to the NOX SIP Call do not exceed the West Virginia non-EGU ozone season trading budget of 2,184 tons.5

           The demonstration identifies seven sources that meet the applicability criteria for large non-EGUs subject to NOX SIP Call requirements. Table 1 in this proposed rulemaking shows that with these limits at maximum operating capacity, or at permitted operating time restrictions if applicable, the total NOX emissions from these sources subject to the NOX SIP Call are 941 tons, which is less than 50 percent of the West Virginia ozone season NOX budget of 2,184 tons.

            5 See 40 CFR part 97, Appendix C of Subpart E for non-EGU trading budgets for affected states.

          Table 1—Total Ozone Season NOX Emissions From Large Non-EGUs in West Virginia

            Source
            Units(boiler #)

            Maximumdesign heat input
              (mmBtu/hr)

            Ozoneseason
              operating
              time (hrs)

            NOX emissionrate limit

            Ozoneseason
              emissions

            Appalachian Power Company, John E Amos
            AUX1
            642
            876
            0.20 lb/mmBtu
            56

            AUX3
            600
            876
            0.20 lb/mmBtu
            53

            Appalachian Power Company, Mountaineer
            AUX1
            600
            876
            99.67 pounds per hour (lb/hr)
            44

            AUX2
            600
            876
            99.67 lb/hr
            44

            Westlake Chemical, Natrium
            5
            999
            3,672
            0.16 lb/mmBtu
            293

            Chemours Company, Belle
            10
            275
            3,672
            0.20 lb/mmBtu
            101

            Kentucky Power Company, Mitchell
            AUX1
            663
            876
            99.45 lb/hr
            44

            Union Carbide
            16
            350
            3,672
            .036 lb/mmBtu
            23

            Corporation, Institute
            17
            350
            3,672
            .036 lb/mmBtu
            23

            Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston
            26
            352
            3,672
            70.4 lb/hr
            130

            27
            353
            3,672
            70.6 lb/hr
            130

            Total Ozone Season NOX (tons)

            941

        The October 11, 2017 West Virginia supplemental SIP submission of an initial demonstration shows that total ozone season NOX emissions from non-EGUs in the State that are subject to the NOX SIP Call do not exceed the West Virginia ozone season budget of 2,184 tons for non-EGUs that the State established in its SIP in 2002 responding to the NOX SIP Call.6
           The maximum potential ozone season NOX emissions of 941 tons based on permit limits shown in Table 1 for Appalachian Power, Westlake Chemical, Kentucky Power, and Union Carbide and the Consent Order limits for Chemours is less than 50 percent of the total West Virginia NOX budget and leaves 1,245 tons in the budget available for new units which may at a later date become subject to NOX SIP Call requirements. Whenever a new unit that meets the applicability of section 4.1 (and thus is also subject to the NOX SIP Call) commences operation or an existing unit becomes newly applicable, West Virginia is required under subsection 8.3 of 45CSR40 to submit a revised demonstration to EPA that shows continuing compliance with the state-wide emissions cap of 2,184 tons. EPA finds West Virginia's revised provisions in 45CSR40 meet requirements for NOX SIP Call in CAA (including section 110) and 40 CFR 51.121 for the large non EGUs.

            6 See 67 FR 31733, 31735 (May 10, 2002). EPA notes that the non-EGU budget amount adopted by West Virginia in its NOX Budget Trading Program regulations matches the budget amount separately established for the state's non-EGUs under a different federal rule promulgated contemporaneously with the NOX SIP Call pursuant to CAA section 126. See 40 CFR part 97, subpart E, appendix C.

        Recodification of Previously SIP-Approved Provisions

        The previously SIP-approved section 90 of 45CSR40 (effective 200x) entitled Ozone Season NO
          X
          Reduction Requirements for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines has been recodified as section 9. Other than revisions to cross referencing necessitated by the recodification and removal of references to the CAIR program, the provisions in section 9 which were formerly in section 90 are unchanged and include the same ozone season NOX caps for affected sources and compliance requirements including a compliance plan, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for IC engines as was in the regulation when EPA previously approved 45CSR40 for the West Virginia SIP.
        Similarly, section 100 of 45CSR40 entitled Ozone Season NO
          X
          Reduction Requirements for Emissions of NO
          X
          from Cement Manufacturing Kilns has been recodified as section 10. Other than revisions to cross referencing necessitated by the recodification, the provisions in section 10 which were formerly in section 100 for cement kilns are unchanged and include the same requirements for specific controls (or reductions equivalent to that achieved by the control) and compliance plan requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for cement kilns as was in the regulation when EPA previously approved 45CSR40 for the West Virginia SIP.

        The changes West Virginia has made to 45CSR40 are approvable under CAA section 110 because—(1) CAIR has been replaced by CSAPR and thus removal of CAIR provisions is appropriate; (2) the applicability provisions at section 4.1 of 45CSR40 cover all existing and new NOX SIP Call non-EGUs not subject to the current CSAPR trading program for ozone season NOX emissions; (3) the enforceable cap on collective ozone season NOX emissions from covered non-EGUs in section 8.1 of the State's rule does not exceed the non-EGU emissions budget adopted by West Virginia in its SIP responding to the NOX SIP Call and identified in 40 CFR part 97, subpart E, appendix C.; (4) monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 continue to be required for the non-EGUs; (5) the cement kiln and IC engine provisions are identical to requirements previously applicable to such sources in the West Virginia SIP and are merely recodified; and (6) the revised 45CSR40 generally addresses the requirements for large non-EGUs for the NOX SIP Call pursuant to 40 CFR 51.121. The SIP revision addresses provisions in CAA section 110(l) for revisions to a state's SIP because it maintains the NOX ozone season budget originally established under the NOX SIP Call and in the West Virginia SIP, removes the obsolete CAIR provisions, and recodifies other provisions maintaining requirements already in the SIP for cement kilns and IC engines. Thus, EPA does not expect any emission increases, or interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other CAA requirements.

        On February 8, 2018, WVDEP provided a letter clarifying a provision in the July 13, 2016 SIP submittal. The letter is available in the docket for this rulemaking and is available on www.regulations.gov. Specifically, subsection 4.1 of 45CSR40, which sets forth applicability provisions, exempted any unit that is already subject to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading program under 40 CFR part 97 Subpart BBBBB. The letter explains that when West Virginia revised regulation 45CSR40, it cited to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program that was in effect at the time the rule was finalized. Subsequent to WVDEP's submission of the SIP revision in 2016, EPA finalized an update to CSAPR that removed EGUs in West Virginia from the original CSAPR trading program for ozone season NOX emissions at 40 CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB and instead made the state's EGUs subject to the new CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program at 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE. The February 8, 2018 letter clarifies that the West Virginia regulation was intended to refer to current provisions of CSAPR, and thus is intended to refer to the updated CSAPR provisions. The letter states that West Virginia will work towards revising 45CSR40 as expeditiously as possible to conform the regulation to refer to currently enforceable CSAPR provisions and will submit the revised 45CSR40 as a SIP revision to EPA for approval once the regulation correctly refers to 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE.7

           EPA finds 45CSR40 approvable for the West Virginia SIP (despite this inadvertent incorrect citation to CSAPR using subpart BBBBB in lieu of subpart EEEEE) as the revised regulation addresses CAA requirements in section 110 and 40 CFR 51.121 for the NOX SIP Call and for units subject to the NOX SIP Call as discussed specifically above and because West Virginia clarified its intent to refer specifically to provisions of CSAPR presently enforceable and its intent to address the minor citation cross reference expeditiously with a future SIP revision submittal.

            7 West Virginia has drafted the revision to 45CSR40 that corrects the reference to CSAPR, and expects to finalize the revision in its 2019 legislative session.

        III. Proposed Action

        EPA's review of this material indicates the July 13, 2016 SIP revision submittal as supplemented on October 11, 2017 and clarified on February 8, 2018 is approvable. The 2016 SIP submission as amended by the 2017 submission and clarified on February 8, 2018, requests EPA include the amended version of 45CSR40 in the West Virginia SIP. Amended regulation 45CSR40 removes the moot provisions that implemented the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, establishes new requirements to address the NOX SIP Call obligations for large non-EGUs in the State that were trading under CAIR but are no longer part of a trading program, establishes an enforceable statewide cap on ozone season NOX emissions for these non-EGUs in accordance with West Virginia's state budget under the NOX SIP Call, and recodifies previously SIP-approved provisions that apply to IC engines and cement kilns. The non-EGUs are also required to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 75, as required under 50 CFR 51.121. The October 11, 2017 supplemental submittal demonstrates that the total NOX emissions from all affected non-EGUs in West Virginia are less than the State cap previously established for West Virginia. As the amended regulation establishes a NOX emissions cap equal to the amount of the West Virginia NOX budget under the NOX SIP Call as discussed in this proposal and West Virginia has demonstrated that emissions from non-EGUs are well below the cap, there is no expected emissions impact on any pollutant and thus SIP revision is not expected to interfere with reasonable further progress, any NAAQS or any other CAA requirement, therefore meeting the requirements under section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the West Virginia SIP revision submitted on July 13, 2016, as supplemented on October 11, 2017, because the revised 45CSR40 addresses CAA requirements in section 110 and 40 CFR 51.121 for the NOX SIP Call and for units subject to the NOX SIP Call. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
        IV. Incorporation by Reference

        In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in a final EPA rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the revisions to West Virginia regulation 45CSR40—Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxides Emissions. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

        In addition, this action proposing approval of revisions to West Virginia regulation 45CSR40 does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: August 9, 2018.
          Cecil Rodrigues,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2018-18524 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092; FRL-9969-65-Region 5]
        Air Plan Approval; Michigan Minor New Source Review

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the comment period for a proposed Clean Air Act rule published August 15, 2017. Multiple commenters requested additional time to provide comments; therefore, EPA is reopening the comment period for 30 days.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before December 4, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to damico.genvieve@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rachel Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7017, Rineheart.rachel@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
        On August 15, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain changes to Michigan's minor new source review program which is contained in Part 2 of the Michigan Administrative Code. Specifically, EPA proposed to approve 336.1209, effective 07/26/1995; 336.1201a, 336.1203, 336.1204, 336.1206, 336.1212, 336.1216, effective 07/01/2003; 336.1201, 336.1202, 336.1207, 336.1219, 336.1240, 336.1241, 336.1278, 336.1299, effective 06/20/2008; and 336.1278a, 336.1280, 336.1281, 336.1282, 336.1283, 336.1284, 336.1285, 336.1286, 336.1287, 336.1288, 336.1289, 336.1290, effective 12/20/2016. Multiple commenters requested additional time to provide comments; therefore, EPA is reopening the comment period for 30 days. The comment period now closes on December 4, 2017.

          Dated: September 28, 2017.
          Robert Kaplan,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2017-23470 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 051202322-5322-01; I.D. 010506C]
        RIN 0648-AU11
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Guam Longline Fishing Prohibited Area

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would amend the geographic coordinates that define the longline fishing prohibited area in waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Guam. This action is necessary to correct an error in one of the published coordinates. The intended effect of this action is to accurately implement the Guam longline closed area.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by February 21, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by I.D. 010506C by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: GuamCorrect@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Guam longline correction.” Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10 megabyte file size.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 808-973-2941.
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Administrator,NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert Harman, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 808 944-2271.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Portions of the EEZ around Guam are closed to pelagic longline fishing to prevent conflicts with users of other types of fishing gear. In 1992, NMFS published in the Federal Register a final rule that created a 50-nm longline closed area around Guam (57 FR 45989, October 6, 1992); the regulations that were implemented by that final rule contained an error in the geographic coordinates for one of the points that define the closed area. NMFS published a technical amendment (59 FR 46933, September 13, 1994) that corrected those coordinates. NMFS subsequently published a rule that consolidated several sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 50 CFR 660 (61 FR 34570, July 2, 1996). In that rule, the geographic coordinates for the same point (Point “C”) were inadvertently published with an error in 50 CFR 660.26(d). This proposed rule corrects the coordinates.
        Classification
        NMFS prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a supplemental EIS in 2001 and 2005, respectively. The EIS and supplement discuss the potential impacts on the environment as a result of pelagic longline fishing, and incorporate sea turtle conservation measures, protected species workshops, seabird deterrent measures in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, nearshore longline area closures around the islands of American Samoa, and more comprehensive pelagic fisheries monitoring through permit and logbook requirements for troll and handline fisheries in the U.S. EEZ around Pacific remote island areas.
        This proposed rule does not contain any new, nor does it revise any existing, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate or overlap or conflict with other Federal rules.
        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 as follows.

          The objective of the proposed action is an administrative correction of an error in the published geographic coordinates for one of the points that defines the longline closed area around Guam. The legal authority for this action is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), which established authority for regulation of U.S. fisheries in the EEZ to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield from those fisheries. There are currently no vessels participating in the pelagic longline fishery around Guam, so there are no vessels that would be directly affected by this proposed rule. No small entities are placed in competitive disadvantage to larger entities. Because there are no current participants in the fishery, there will be no significant reductions in profitability for a substantial number of small entities in any user groups, and there will be no disproportionate impacts between gear types, vessels, or port of landing.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

        Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: January 13, 2006.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be correctly amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 660.26, revise the entry for Point C in the table in paragraph (d) to read as follows:

          § 660.26
          Longline fishing prohibited area management.

          (d) * * *

              Point
              N. lat.
              E. long.

              *    *    *    *    *

              C
              13°41′
              143°33′33″

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. E6-650 Filed 1-19-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S