        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 140113035-5354-01]
        RIN 0648-XD082
        Pacific Island Fisheries; 2014-15 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to specify an annual catch limit (ACL) of 346,000 lb for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2014-15 fishing year. If the ACL is projected to be reached, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed specifications and fishery closure support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by May 6, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0174, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0174, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii is managed under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (Hawaii FEP), developed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 665 (50 CFR 665.4) require NMFS to specify an ACL for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council. The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernus).

        NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 346,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the 2014-15 fishing year. The Council recommended the ACL at its 160th and 161st meetings held in June and October 2014, respectively. The proposed specification is identical to the ACL that NMFS specified for the past three consecutive fishing years (i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14). NMFS monitors Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects the fishery will reach this limit, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year, as an accountability measure (AM). In addition, if NMFS and the Council determine that the final 2014-15 Deep 7 bottomfish catch exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the Deep 7 bottomfish ACL for the 2015-16 fishing year by the amount of the overage. The fishery did not attain the specified ACL in 2011-12, 2012-13, or 2013-14, and NMFS does not anticipate the fishery will attain the limit in the current fishing year, which began on September 1, 2014, and ends on August 31, 2015.
        The Council recommended the ACL and AMs based on a 2011 NMFS bottomfish stock assessment, and in consideration of the risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, the acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation from its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and input from the public. The 2011 NMFS bottomfish stock assessment estimates the overfishing limit (OFL) for the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish stock complex to be 383,000 lb. The proposed ACL of 346,000 lb is equal to the SSC's ABC recommendation, and is associated with a 41 percent probability of overfishing. This risk level is more conservative than the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        The Council also considered the results of a NMFS draft 2014 stock assessment update that used the previous 2011 stock assessment's methods for data analysis, modeling, and stock projections, with one improvement—it included the State of Hawaii's commercial marine license (CML) data as a variable to standardize catch-per-unit of effort (CPUE) from 1994 to 2013. The State began issuing CMLs uniquely and consistently to individuals through time starting in 1994. Therefore, beginning in 1994 the CML number assigned to an individual has remained the same, allowing NMFS to improve CPUE standardization from that year onward. However, the Council did not base its ACL recommendation on the 2014 assessment update because the Council had a number of questions and concerns regarding the application of the new CPUE standardization methods. The Council also recommended the 2014 assessment be independently reviewed.
        In December 2014, PIFSC contracted the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to review a final draft of the 2014 stock assessment update. The CIE panel found that including individual CML data as a variable to standardize CPUE over time was an improvement over the method used in the 2011 stock assessment. However, the CIE panel had strong reservations regarding the quality of input catch data and CPUE index of abundance used in both the 2011 and 2014 stock assessments. Specifically, the panel raised concern about the pre-1990 data for CPUE calculation and estimates of unreported catch.

        Given the concerns with the incomplete effort information, the CIE panel concluded that the 2014 stock assessment had serious flaws that compromised its utility for management. In particular, the CIE panel noted that because the 2014 stock assessment was an update only, and required improvements in the index and the population model, the science reviewed in the 2014 stock assessment is not considered the best available. The reports of the CIE reviewers are available on NMFS Web site at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/science-quality-assurance/cie-peer-reviews/cie-review-2015.

        In March 2015, the NMFS Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) outlined the reasons why the fisheries data in the 2014 assessment produced results that the CIE panel advised were not ready for management application, and identified two ways in which the fisheries data can be improved for future application in the new CPUE standardization method, as follows:
        1. Although catch per day fished is the best available CPUE that is available continuously over the whole time series (1949-2013), it may not be the best available over the most recent time series (1994-2013). If the time series is to be split with CPUE issues addressed differently before and after the split, one could also analyze and include detailed effort data that has been collected only for the last dozen years. These data could strongly influence recent trends. Because it is a complex undertaking, PIFSC did not see this as work that could be done as a simple update in 2014.
        The use of CPUE defined as catch per day fished is subject to great criticism, and one way to address this is by using details about hours and numbers of lines and/or hooks used by fishermen over the last dozen years. Only inexplicit, undescribed differences among fishermen linked through time were applied to the recent stanza (1993-2013) in the 2014 CPUE standardization. Using the recent effort detail would still allow differences between individual fishermen to be standardized, and also allow changes in effort details through time, to be addressed. Both were factors of great concern to the reviewers. Differences among areas and seasons and other such factors that can be applied throughout the whole time series have remained part of the CPUE standardization in both 2011 and 2014.
        2. Further efforts could be made to apply the CPUE standardization to account for differences among fishermen to more data using various exploratory methods and other data sets. The 2014 assessment overlooked a compilation of confidential non-electronic records held by the State of Hawaii that may help to link fishermen identities back through an earlier stanza of time.

        Although the CIE panel noted the improvement in catch rate standardization in the 2014 stock assessment compared to 2011, it had strong reservations regarding the input catch data in both stock assessments. However, because it is a complex undertaking, PIFSC cannot improve the assessment for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in the ways described above for the current fishing year.

        PIFSC believes that a simpler update of the 2011 assessment using data from the three most recent years available (i.e., 2011-2013) provides the best scientific information available for management. However, this information was not available at the June and October 2014 SSC and Council meetings when these bodies provided their respective ABC and ACL recommendations to NMFS for the ongoing fishing year. Moreover, because the 118th SSC and the 162nd Council were scheduled to meet starting on March 10 and March 16, 2015, respectively, there was insufficient time to publish a notice in the Federal Register revising the meeting agendas to include an action item to revisit the SSC and Council's 2014-15 ABC/ACL recommendation of 346,000 lb.
        While NMFS will add this topic as an action item to be discussed at the June 2015 SSC and Council meetings, it is unlikely NMFS could implement a revised ABC/ACL recommendation for the 2014-15 fishing year, as the season will end on August 31, 2015. The National Standard 2 Guidelines, 50 CFR 600.315(a)(6)(v), recognize that data collection is a continuous process, and that new information that cannot be considered in decision-making may be reserved for use in subsequent updates. For these reasons, NMFS proposes to implement the recommended ACL of 346,000 lb for the 2014-15 fishing year. NMFS will request the SSC and Council to consider in June 2015 the new information when recommending an ABC and ACL for the 2015-16 fishing year, which begins on September 1, 2015.
        NMFS does not expect the proposed ACL and AM specifications for 2014-15 to result in a change in fishing operations or other changes to the conduct of the fishery that would result in significant environmental impacts. After considering public comments on the proposed ACL and AMs, NMFS will publish the final specifications.
        To be considered, NMFS must receive any comments on these proposed specifications by May 6, 2015, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Hawaii FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to these proposed specifications.

        NMFS proposes to specify an annual catch limit (ACL) of 346,000 lb for Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Deep 7 bottomfish for the 2014-15 fishing year, as recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). NMFS monitors MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects the fishery to reach this limit, NMFS, as an accountability measure (AM), would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed ACL and AM specifications are identical to those that NMFS implemented for the past three consecutive fishing years, (i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14). The fishery did not reach the ACL in any of those past three fishing years, and NMFS does not expect the fishery to reach the ACL in the 2014-15 fishing year, which began on September 1, 2014 and will end on August 31, 2015.
        This rule would impact vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. In the previous fishing year (2013-14), 419 fishermen reported landing 309,485 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish. On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration issued an interim final rule revising small business size standards (79 FR 33647). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing to $20.5 million. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish are small entities under the Small Business Administration's definition of a small entity. That is, they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $20.5 million, the small business size standard for finfish fishing. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there are would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        As for the revenues earned by Deep 7 bottomfish fishermen, State of Hawaii records report 343 of the 419 fishermen sold their Deep 7 bottomfish catch. These 343 individuals sold a combined total of 269,571 lb (87% of reported catch) at a value of $1,798,713. Based on these revenues, the average price for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in 2013-14 was approximately $6.67/lb. NMFS assumes that the remaining 76 commercial fishermen either sold no fish or the State of Hawaii reporting program did not capture their sales.
        Assuming the fishery attains the ACL of 346,000 in 2014-15, using the 2013-14 average price of $6.67, the potential fleet wide revenue during 2014-15 is expected to be $2,307,820 ($2,007,803 under the assumption that 87% of catch is sold). If the same number of fishermen sell MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in 2014-15 as in 2013-14, each of these 343 commercial fishermen could potentially sell an average of 1,008.8 lb (878.6 lb if 87% of potential catch is sold) of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish valued at $6,728.34 ($5,860.33 if 87% of potential catch is sold) per individual.
        In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing or household income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing and other income-generating activities by individual operations across the year has not been examined.
        In terms of scenarios immediately beyond the 2014-15 fishing year, three possible outcomes may occur. First, if fishery does not reach the ACL in 2014-15, the ACL could remain the same for the 2015-16 fishing year. Second, if the fishery exceeds the ACL for the 2014-15 fishing year, NMFS would reduce the Deep 7 bottomfish ACL for the 2015-16 fishing year by the amount of the overage. The last possible scenario is one where NMFS would prepare a new stock assessment or update that NMFS and the Council would use to set a new 2015-2016 ACL (without inclusion of any overage, even if catch exceeds ACL for the 2014-15 fishing year).

        Even though this proposed specification would apply to a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, NMFS does not expect the rule will have a significantly adverse economic impact to individual vessels. Landings information from the 2013-14 fishing year, and from the catch to date in the 2014-15 fishing year, suggest that Deep 7 bottomfish landings are not likely to exceed the ACL proposed for 2014-15.
        Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated: April 15, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-09055 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
        45 CFR Parts 1600, 1630, and 1631
        Definitions; Cost Standards and Procedures; Purchasing and Property Management

          AGENCY:
          Legal Services Corporation.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of October 28, 2016 [FR Doc. 2016-25831], concerning proposed amendments to its regulations governing definitions, cost standards and procedures, and purchasing and property management. This notice extends the comment period for 30 days to January 26, 2017.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by January 26, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

            Email: lscrulemaking@lsc.gov. Include “Parts 1630/1631 Rulemaking” in the subject line of the message.

            Fax: (202) 337-6519, ATTN: Parts 1630/1631 Rulemaking.

            Mail: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Parts 1630/1631 Rulemaking.

            Hand Delivery/Courier: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Parts 1630/1631 Rulemaking.

            Instructions: Electronic submissions are preferred via email with attachments in Acrobat PDF format. LSC may not consider written comments sent via any other method or received after the end of the comment period.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax), sdavis@lsc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        LSC is extending the public comment period stated in the Federal Register notice for this rulemaking. 81 FR 75006, Oct. 28, 2016. In that notice, LSC proposed amendments to its regulations governing definitions (45 CFR part 1600), cost standards and procedures (45 CFR part 1630), and purchasing and property management (45 CFR part 1631). LSC has received requests for an extension of the comment period to allow interested parties and stakeholders additional time to develop their comments on the proposed rulemaking, including obtaining data about the potential effects of proposed changes. LSC is therefore extending the comment period for 30 days, from December 27, 2016 to January 26, 2017.

          Dated: December 16, 2016.
          Stefanie K. Davis,
          Assistant General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2016-30717 Filed 12-20-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7050-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 100
        [Docket Number USCG-2017-0010]
        RIN 1625-AA08
        Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is amending and updating its special local regulations relating to recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility (AOR). This notice informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a special local regulation. Through this notice the current list of recurring special local regulations is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. When these special local regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas. Additionally, this one proposed rulemaking project reduces administrative costs involved in producing separate proposed rules for each individual recurring special local regulation and serves to provide notice of the known recurring special local regulations throughout the year.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 26, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0010 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Petty Officer James Robinson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5347, email James.C.Robinson@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          E.O. Executive order
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          Pub. L. Public Law
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley is proposing to establish, amend, and update its current list of recurring special local regulations.
        These special local regulations are proposed to be added, amended, and updated to the list of annually recurring special local regulations under 33 CFR 100.801 in Table no. 1 for annual special local regulations in the COTP Ohio Valley zone. The Coast Guard will address all comments accordingly, whether through response, additional revision to the regulation, or otherwise. Additionally, these recurring events are provided to the public through local avenues and planned by the local communities.
        The current list of annual and recurring special local regulations occurring in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR is published under 33 CFR part 100.801. That most recent list was created January 25, 2016 through the rulemaking 81 FR 3976.

        The Coast Guard's authority for establishing a special local regulation is contained at 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100 to include the most up to date list of recurring special local regulations for events held on or around navigable waters within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. These events include marine parades, boat races, swim events, and other marine related events. The current list under 33 CFR 100.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing special local regulations, updating to include new special local regulations expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove special local regulations that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new special local regulation, amendment, or removal of an existing special local regulation creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This single proposed rulemaking will considerably reduce administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring special local regulations.
        The Coast Guard encourages the public to participate in this proposed rulemaking through the comment process so that any necessary changes can be identified and implemented in a timely and efficient manner.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        33 CFR part 100 contains regulations to provide effective control over regattas and marine parades conducted on U.S. navigable waters in order to ensure the safety of life in the regattas or marine parade area. Section 100.801 provides the regulations applicable to events taking place in the Eighth Coast Guard District and also provides a table listing each event and special local regulation. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring special local regulations in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. This proposed rule amends and updates Section 100.801 replacing the current Table 1 for Sector Ohio Valley.

        Additionally, this proposed rule would add 12 new recurring special local regulations and removes 06 special local regulations as follows: 12 added under the new Table 1 for Sector Ohio Valley.

            Date
            Event/sponsor
            Ohio Valley location

            Regulated area

            2 days—First weekend in August
            Powerboat Nationals—Ravenswood Regatta
            Ravenswood, WV
            Ohio River, Mile 220.5-221.5 (West Virginia).

            2 days—One of the last three weekends in June
            Lawrenceburg Regatta/Whiskey City Regatta
            Lawrenceburg, IN
            Ohio River, Mile 492.0-496.0 (Indiana).

            2 days—One of the last three weekends in September
            Madison Vintage Thunder
            Madison, IN
            Ohio River, Mile 557.5-558.5 (Indiana).

            1 day—Fourth weekend in October
            Chattajack
            Chattanooga, TN
            Tennessee River, Mile 463.7-464.5 (Tennessee).

            1 day—Third weekend in March
            Vanderbilt Invite
            Nashville, TN
            Cumberland River Mile 189.0-192.0 (Tennessee).

            2 days—last weekend in September
            Music City Head Race
            Nashville, TN
            Cumberland River, Mile 190.5-195.0 (Tennessee).

            1 day—Last weekend in July
            Music City SUP Race
            Nashville, TN
            Cumberland River Mile 190.0-191.5 (Tennessee).

            3 days—Third weekend in June
            Thunder on the Cumberland
            Nashville, TN
            Cumberland River, Mile 190.5-194.0 (Tennessee).

            3 days—Second weekend in May
            ACRA Henley
            Nashville, TN
            Cumberland River, Mile 189.0-193.0 (Tennessee).

            2 days—Third weekend in August
            Kittanning Riverbration Boat Races
            Kittanning, PA
            Allegheny River, Mile 44.0-45.5(Pennsylvania).

            2 days—Third Friday and Saturday in April
            Thunder Over Louisville
            Louisville, KY
            Ohio River, Mile 598.0-603.0.

            3 days—One of the first two weekends in September
            Evansville HydroFest
            Evansville, IN
            Ohio River, Mile 791.8.0-793.0.

        This proposed rule would remove the following seven special local regulations from the existing Table 1 Part 100.801 as follows:

            Date
            Event/sponsor
            Ohio Valley location

            Regulated area

            1 day—Saturday before Memorial Day weekend
            Venture Outdoors/Venture Outdoors Festival
            Pittsburgh, PA
            Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.25 Monongahela River 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania).

            1 day—Third Saturday in July
            Pittsburgh Irish Rowing Club/St. Brendan's Cup Currach Regatta
            Pittsburgh, PA
            Miles 7-9, Ohio River back channel (Pennsylvania).

            2 days—Last weekend in September
            Fall Records Challenge Committee/Fall Records Challenge
            New Martinsville, WV
            Ohio River, Mile 128.5-129.5 (West Virginia).

            1 day—One weekend, last half of September
            Harbor House of Louisville/Ken“Ducky” Derby
            Louisville, KY
            Ohio River, Mile 602.0-604.0 (Kentucky).

            1 day—July 4th
            Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Fireworks
            Wellsburg, WV
            Ohio River, Mile 73.5-74.5 (West Virginia).

            1 day—One weekend, last half of September
            Harbor House of Louisville/Ken“Ducky” Derby
            Louisville, KY
            Ohio River, Mile 602.0-604.0 (Kentucky).

            2 days—First or second weekend in September
            State Dock/Cumberland Poker Run
            Jamestown, KY
            Lake Cumberland (Kentucky).

        The effect of this proposed rule would be to restrict general navigation during these events. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterway through the special local regulations will only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP Ohio Valley, or designated representative, has deemed it safe to do so or at the completion of the event.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O.13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it.
        As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

        The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule establishes special local regulations limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 100 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these special local regulations are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able to plan operations around the special local regulations in advance. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners will also inform the community of these special local regulations so that they may plan accordingly for these short restrictions on transit. Vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to enter the restricted area.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation areas during periods of enforcement. The special local regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

        Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h) of the Instruction because it involves establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
          Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

          PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS

        1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           33 U.S.C. 1233.

        2. Amend § 100.801 to revise table 1 to read as follows:

          § 100.801
          Annual Marine Events in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR.

              Date
              Event/sponsor
              Ohio Valley location

              Regulated area

              1. The first Saturday in April
              University of Charleston Rowing/West Virginia Governor's Cup Regatta
              Charleston, WV
              Kanawha River, Mile 59.9-61.4 (West Virginia).

              2. 1 day—During the last week of April or first week of May
              Kentucky Derby Festival/Belle of Louisville Operating Board/Great Steamboat Race
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 596.0-604.3 (Kentucky).

              3. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in May
              REV3/REV3 Triathlon
              Knoxville, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 646.0-649.0 (Tennessee).

              4. 1 day—Third weekend in May
              World Triathlon Corporation/IRONMAN 70.3
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-466.0 (Tennessee).

              5. 1 day—second weekend in June
              Chattanooga Parks and Rec/Chattanooga River Rats Open Water Swim
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-469.0 (Tennessee).

              6. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in June
              Greater Morgantown Convention and Visitors Bureau/Mountaineer Triathlon
              Morgantown, WV
              Monongahela River, Mile 101.0-102.0 (West Virginia).

              7. 2 days—First weekend of June
              Kentucky Drag Boat Association
              Pisgah Bay, KY
              Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky).

              8. 1 day—One of the first two weekends in August
              Green Umbrella/Ohio River Paddlefest
              Cincinnati, OH
              Ohio River, Mile 459.5-470.2 (Ohio and Kentucky).

              9. 1 day—Fourth or fifth Sunday in September
              Green Umbrella/Great Ohio River Swim
              Cincinnati, OH
              Ohio River, Mile 469.8-470.2 (Ohio and Kentucky).

              10. 1 day—One of the last two weekends in September
              Ohio River Open Water Swim
              Prospect, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 588.0-590.0 9 (Kentucky).

              11. 2 days—Second or third weekend in September
              Louisville Dragon Boat Festival
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 603.0-603.5 (Kentucky).

              12. 1 day—Third or fourth Sunday of July
              Tucson Racing/Cincinnati Triathlon
              Cincinnati, OH
              Ohio River, Mile 469.3-470.2 (Ohio).

              13. 2 days—First weekend of July
              Kentucky Drag Boat Association
              Pisgah Bay, KY
              Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky).

              14. 1 day—Second weekend in July
              Bradley Dean/Renaissance Man Triathlon
              Florence, AL
              Tennessee River, Mile 255.0-257.0 (Alabama).

              15. 3 days—One of the first two weekends in July
              Madison Regatta, Inc./Madison Regatta
              Madison, IN
              Ohio River, Mile 555.0-560.0 (Indiana).

              16. 1 day—One of the last three weekends in June
              Louisville Race the Bridge Triathlon
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 601.5-603.0 (Kentucky).

              17. 1 day—Fourth weekend in June
              Team Magic/Chattanooga Waterfront Triathlon
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-465.0 (Tennessee).

              18. 1 day—Fourth weekend in July
              Team Magic/Music City Triathlon
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee).

              19. 2 days—Last two weeks in July or first three weeks of August
              Friends of the Riverfront Inc./Pittsburgh Triathlon and Adventure Races
              Pittsburgh, PA
              Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-1.5 (Pennsylvania).

              20. 3 days—First week of August
              EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta
              Pittsburgh, PA
              Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.6, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5 (Pennsylvania).

              21. 2 days—First weekend of August
              Kentucky Drag Boat Association
              Pisgah Bay, KY
              Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky).

              22. 2 days—One of the last two weekends in September
              Captain Quarters Regatta
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 595.0-597.0 (Kentucky).

              23. 2 days—Second or third weekend in October
              Norton Healthcare/Ironman Triathlon
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 601.5-604.5 (Kentucky).

              24. 2 days—Third full weekend (Saturday and Sunday) in August
              Ohio County Tourism/Rising Sun Boat Races
              Rising Sun, IN
              Ohio River, Mile 504.0-508.0 (Indiana and Kentucky).

              25. 1 day—Last weekend in August
              Tennessee Clean Water Network/Downtown Dragon Boat Races
              Knoxville, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-649.0 (Tennessee).

              26. 3 days—Third weekend in August
              Governors' Cup/UWP-IJSBA National Championships
              Charleston, WV
              Kanawha River, Mile 56.7-57.6 (West Virginia).

              27. 2 days—Fourth weekend in July
              Herd Racing LLC/Huntington Classic
              Huntington, WV
              Ohio River, Mile 307.3-309.3 (West Virginia).

              28. 2 days—Labor Day weekend
              Wheeling Vintage Race Boat Association Ohio/Wheeling Vintage Regatta
              Wheeling, WV
              Ohio River, Mile 090.4-091.5 (West Virginia).

              29. 2 days—weekend before Labor Day
              SUP3Rivers The Southside Outside
              Pittsburgh, PA
              Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-3.09 Allegheny River Mile 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania).

              30. 1 day—Saturday before Labor Day
              Wheeling Dragon Boat Race
              Wheeling, WV
              Ohio River, Mile 90.4-91.5 (West Virginia).

              31. 1 day—First or second weekend in September
              Cumberland River Compact/Cumberland River Dragon Boat Festival
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee).

              32. 2 days—First or second weekend in September
              State Dock/Cumberland Poker Run
              Jamestown, KY
              Lake Cumberland (Kentucky).

              33. 3 days—First or second weekend in September
              Sailing for a Cure Foundation/SFAC Fleur de Lis Regatta
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 601.0-604.0 (Kentucky).

              34. 1 day—Last weekend in September
              World Triathlon Corporation/IRONMAN Chattanooga
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-467.0 (Tennessee).

              35. 1 day—Second weekend in September
              City of Clarksville/Clarksville Riverfest Cardboard Boat Regatta
              Clarksville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 125.0-126.0 (Tennessee).

              36. 2 days—First weekend of October
              Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta
              Pittsburgh, PA
              Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-4.0 (Pennsylvania).

              37. 1 day—First or second weekend in October
              Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga Head Race
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-467.0 (Tennessee).

              38. 1 day—Third weekend in November
              TREC-RACE/Pangorge
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 444.0-455.0 (Tennessee).

              39. 3 days—First weekend in November
              Atlanta Rowing Club/Head of the Hooch Rowing Regatta
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-467.0 (Tennessee).

              40. One Saturday in June or July
              Paducah Summer Festival/Cross River Swim
              Paducah, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 934-936 (Kentucky).

              41. 1 day—During the last weekend in May
              Louisville Metro Government/Mayor's Healthy Hometown Subway Fresh Fit, Hike, Bike and Paddle
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Kentucky).

              42. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in June
              Hadi Shrine/Evansville Shriners Festival
              Evansville, IN
              Ohio River, Mile 791.0-795.0 (Indiana).

              43. 1 day—Second or third Saturday in July
              Allegheny Mountain LMSC/Search for Monongy
              Pittsburgh, PA
              Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.6 (Pennsylvania).

              44. 1 day—During the first week of July
              Evansville Freedom Celebration/4th of July Freedom Celebration
              Evansville, IN
              Ohio River, Mile 791.0-796.0 (Indiana).

              45. 1 day—First weekend in September
              Louisville Metro Government/Mayor's Healthy Hometown Subway Fresh Fit, Hike, Bike and Paddle
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Kentucky).

              46. 2 days—One of the last three weekends in July
              Dare to Care/KFC Mayor's Cup Paddle Sports Races/Voyageur Canoe World Championships
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 601.0-604.0 (Kentucky).

              47. 3 days—Fourth weekend in August
              Kentucky Drag Boat Association/Thunder on the Green
              Livermore, KY
              Green River, Mile 70.0-71.5 (Kentucky).

              48. 1 day—Fourth weekend in August
              Team Rocket Tri-Club/Rocketman Triathlon
              Huntsville, AL
              Tennessee River, Mile 333.0-334.5 (Alabama).

              49. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in September or first weekend in October
              Hadi Shrine/Owensboro Air Show
              Owensboro, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 755.0-759.0 (Kentucky).

              50. 1 day—First Sunday in August
              HealthyHuntington.org/St. Marys Tri-state Triathlon
              Huntington, WV
              Ohio River, Mile 307.3-308.3 (West Virginia).

              51. 2 days—First Weekend in August
              Buckeye Outboard Association/Portsmouth Challenge
              Portsmouth, OH
              Ohio River, Mile 355.3-356.7 (Ohio).

              52. 1 day—Sunday before Labor Day
              Cincinnati Bell, WEBN, and Proctor and Gamble/Riverfest
              Cincinnati, OH
              Ohio River, Mile 464.0-476.0 (Kentucky and Ohio) and Licking River Mile 0.0-3.0 (Kentucky).

              53. Second Sunday in September
              Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Committee Sternwheel race reenactment
              Marietta, OH
              Ohio River, Mile 170.5-172.5 (Ohio).

              54. Second Saturday in September
              Parkersburg Paddle Fest
              Parkersburg, WV
              Ohio River, Mile 184.3-188 (West Virginia).

              55. Three days during the fourth weekend in September
              New Martinsville Records and Regatta Challenge Committee
              New Martinsville, WV
              Ohio River, Mile 128-129 (West Virginia).

              56. First weekend in July
              Eddyville Creek Marina/Thunder Over Eddy Bay
              Eddyville, KY
              Cumberland River, Mile 46.0-47.0 (Kentucky).

              57. First or second weekend of July
              Prizer Point Marina/4th of July Celebration
              Cadiz, KY
              Cumberland River, Mile 54.0-55.09 (Kentucky).

              58. 2 days, last weekend in May or first weekend in June
              Visit Knoxville/Racing on the Tennessee
              Knoxville, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-648.0 (Tennessee).

              59. 1 day—First or second weekend in August
              Riverbluff Triathlon
              Ashland City, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 157.0-159.0 (Tennessee).

              60. 2 days—First weekend in August
              POWERBOAT NATIONALS—Ravenswood Regatta
              Ravenswood, WV
              Ohio River, Mile220.5-221.5 (West Virginia).

              61. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in June
              Lawrenceburg Regatta/Whiskey City Regatta
              Lawrenceburg, IN
              Ohio River, Mile492.0-496.0 (Indiana).

              62. 2 days—One of the last three weekends in September
              Madison Vintage Thunder
              Madison, IN
              Ohio River, Mile557.5-558.5 (Indiana).

              63. 1 day—Fourth weekend in October
              Chattajack
              Chattanooga, TN
              Tennessee River, Mile 463.7-464.5 (Tennessee).

              64. 1 day—Third weekend in March
              Vanderbilt Invite
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 189.0-192.0 (Tennessee).

              65. 2 days—last weekend in September
              Music City Head Race
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 190.5-195.0 (Tennessee).

              66. 1 day—Last weekend in July
              Music City SUP Race
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-191.5 (Tennessee).

              67. 3 days—Third weekend in June
              Thunder on the Cumberland
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 190.5-194.0 (Tennessee).

              68. 3 days—Second weekend in May
              ACRA Henley
              Nashville, TN
              Cumberland River, Mile 189.0-193.0 (Tennessee).

              69. 2 days—Third weekend in August
              Kittanning Riverbration Boat Races
              Kittanning, PA
              Allegheny River, Mile 44.0-45.5 (Pennsylvania).

              70. 2 days—Third Friday and Saturday in April
              Thunder Over Louisville
              Louisville, KY
              Ohio River, Mile 598.0-603.0 (Kentucky).

              71. 3 days—One of the first two weekends in September
              Evansville HydroFest
              Evansville, IN
              Ohio River, Mile 791.8.0-793.0.

          Dated: March 21, 2017.
          M.B. Zamperini,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.

      [FR Doc. 2017-05989 Filed 3-24-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 032803B]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP)

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP.  Therefore, NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator proposes to issue an EFP that would allow three vessels to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  The EFP would exempt three vessels from the minimum mesh size requirements for the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Regulated Mesh Area (RMA); regulations pertaining to the GOM Rolling Closure Areas III and V; days-at-sea (DAS) restrictions; and minimum fish size requirements.  The experiment proposes to conduct a study to target cod and other groundfish species using modified bottom trawl gear to assess the effectiveness of square and hexagonal mesh escape windows, both with and without visual stimuli, in reducing the bycatch of non-target and undersized fish in the GOM groundfish fishery.  The EFP would allow these exemptions for three commercial fishing vessels, for not more than 24 days of sea trials.  All experimental work would be monitored at sea by observers trained to NMFS standards as part of this Cooperative Research Partners Initiative-funded project.  Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          DATES:
          Comments on this document must be received on or before  April 24, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on the Cooperative Research Partners Initiative Escape Window and Visual Stimuli Selectivity Study.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas W. Christel, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-281-9141.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A completed application for an EFP was submitted by Dr. Christopher Glass as part of a Cooperative Research Partners Initiative-funded project on January 28, 2003.  The EFP would exempt three federally permitted commercial fishing vessels from the following NE multispecies provisions:   The minimum mesh size requirements for the GOM RMA at 50 CFR 648.80(a)(3)(i); regulations pertaining to the GOM Rolling Closure Areas III and V at 50 CFR 648.81(g)(1)(iii) and (v), respectively; NE multispecies DAS restrictions at 50 CFR 648.82(a); and minimum fish size requirements specified at 50 CFR 648.83(a)(1).
        The EFP would allow the commercial vessels to conduct the proposed study using modified bottom trawl gear.  A total of four experimental codend configurations would be developed, including:   (1) A codend made of 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond mesh preceded by a 7-inch (17.78-cm) square mesh escape window in the extension; (2) a codend made of 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond mesh preceded by a 7-inch (17.78-cm) hexagonal mesh escape window in the extension; (3) a codend made of 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond mesh preceded by a 7-inch (17.78-cm) square mesh escape window in the extension, with additional visual stimulus by a black panel wrapped around the codend between the escape window and the codend; (4) a codend made of 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond mesh preceded by a 7-inch (17.78-cm) hexagonal mesh escape window in the extension, with additional visual stimulus by a black panel wrapped around the codend between the escape window and the codend.  Two conventional nets of 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) diamond mesh and 6.5-inch (16.51-cm) square mesh codends would be used to compare the effectiveness of the experimental extension configurations.  For each of the four experimental codend configurations, a total of 30 valid tows would be conducted, while a total of 18 valid tows would be conducted for each of the two control codends, for a project total of approximately 156 tows of 20 minutes each in duration.  Each of the three participating vessels would test all six of the codend configurations, concurrently, in different portions of the intended sampling area.  Sampling would occur during two seasons (spring and fall), with operations taking place in May and October 2003, respectively.
        A total of 24 DAS would be used during the course of this research.  Each vessel would conduct 4-day fishing trips during each of the two seasons to carry out the sea trials.  Vessels would target the following species:   Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, summer flounder, and American plaice.  The incidental catch is expected to be comprised mainly of skate, smooth and spiny dogfish, sculpin, sea raven, and sea robin.

        The applicant requested that the research be conducted in the GOM in an area including 30-minute statistical squares 124, 125, 132, and 133; i.e., between 42°00' and 43°00' N. lat. and between 70°00' and 71°00' W. long.  All fish retained by the experimental nets would be weighed and measured as quickly as possible.  Undersized fish would be returned to the sea as quickly as possible after measurement, while legal-sized fish would be landed and sold to offset vessel costs.

        The catches of each codend configuration would be compared and analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the escape windows, visual stimuli, and codend mesh shapes (diamond versus square mesh).  Length frequency distributions and catch rates would be compared for each species by vessel, area, and experimental net configuration.  Selectivity parameters would be developed for each species, including a determination of the 50-percent retention length, the selection factor, and the selection range for each species targeted in this study.
        The participating vessels would be required to report all landings in their Vessel Trip Reports.  The data collection activities aboard the participating vessel would be observers trained to NMFS standards to ensure compliance with the experimental fishery objectives.  The EFP would also contain a provision that the Regional Administrator has the authority to reconsider the continuation of the experimental fishery on a month-to-month basis, based upon a monthly status report outlining total catch and bycatch submitted by the applicant, and would authorize the Regional Administrator to terminate the experimental fishery at any time, at her discretion.
        Based on the results of the EFPs, this action may lead to future rulemaking.

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

          Dated:  April 3, 2003.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-8685 Filed 4-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 194
        [FRL-7214-1]
        RIN 2060-AG85
        Waste Characterization Program Documents Applicable to Transuranic Radioactive Waste From the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site for Disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 30 days on, Department of Energy (DOE) documents applicable to characterization of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The documents (Item II-A2-39, Docket A-98-49) are available for review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. EPA will conduct an inspection of waste streams, characterization systems and processes at RFETS to verify that the site can characterize transuranic waste in accordance with EPA's WIPP compliance criteria. EPA will perform this inspection the week of June 3, 2002.

          DATES:
          EPA is requesting public comment on the documents. Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or before June 19, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be submitted to: Docket No. A-98-49, Air Docket, Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460. The DOE documents are available for review in the official EPA Air Docket in Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, Category II-A2, and at the following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico: in Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday 1 a.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the Government Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the New Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
          As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. Air Docket A-98-49 in Washington, DC, accepts comments sent electronically or by fax (fax: 202-260-4400; e-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ed Feltcorn, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 564-9422. You can also call EPA's toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our website at http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials containing elements having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges.
        On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C.
        The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with §§ 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) (with the exception of specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of § 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in § 194.8. As part of EPA's decision-making process, DOE is required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality assurance and waste characterization programs at each DOE waste generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU radioactive waste to WIPP. In accordance with § 194.8, EPA will place such documentation in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, and informational dockets in the State of New Mexico for public review and comment.
        EPA will perform an inspection of the waste characterization systems and processes for TRU waste at RFETS in accordance with Conditions 2 and 3 of the WIPP certification. Specifically, we will be inspecting new equipment—a mobile real-time radiography unit and the Multi Purpose Crate Counter for gamma and neutron analysis. We will also evaluate acceptable knowledge (AK) and batch data reports for newly generated waste. The inspection is scheduled to take place the week of June 3, 2002.

        EPA has placed a number of documents pertinent to the inspection in the public docket described in ADDRESSES. The documents are listed as Item II-A2-39 in Docket A-98-49. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, as amended by the final certification decision, EPA is providing the public 30 days to comment on these documents.
        If EPA determines as a result of the inspection that the proposed waste streams, processes, systems, and equipment at RFETS adequately control the characterization of transuranic waste, we will notify DOE by letter and place the letter in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, as well as in the informational docket locations in New Mexico. A letter of approval will allow DOE to ship TRU waste to WIPP using the approved characterization processes. The EPA will not make a determination of compliance prior to the inspection or before the 30-day comment period has closed.

        Information on the certification decision is filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.

          Dated: May 14, 2002.
          Robert Brenner,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

      [FR Doc. 02-12684 Filed 5-17-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 525 and 552
        [GSAR Case 2006-G520; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 15]
        RIN 3090-AI66
        General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2006-G520; Rewrite of GSAR Part 525, Foreign Acquisition

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update the text addressing foreign acquisition. This rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) Rewrite initiative undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM to maintain consistency with the FAR, and to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) as well as internal agency acquisition policy. GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each part is rewritten, will publish it in the Federal Register.
          This part is a continuance in a series of revisions. It covers the rewrite of GSAR Part 525, Foreign Acquisition.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before September 29, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2006-G520 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.
          Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2006-G520” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2006-G520. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2006-G520” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2006-G520 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
          For clarification of content, contact Ms. Meredith Murphy at (202) 208-6925. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2006-G520.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background

          The GSAR Rewrite Project

        GSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register at 71 FR 7910, February 15, 2006, with request for comments because GSA was beginning the review and update of the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR).
        This GSAR rewrite has—
        • Considered comments received from the ANPR, published February 15, 2006.
        • Changed “you” to “contracting officer.''
        • Maintained consistency with the FAR, but eliminated duplication.
        • Revised GSAR sections that are out of date, or which imposed inappropriate burdens on the Government or contractors, especially small businesses.
        • Streamlined and simplified wherever possible.
        In addition, GSA has recently reorganized into two (2), rather than three (3), services. Therefore, the reorganization of the Federal Supply Service (FSS) and the Federal Technology Service (FTS) into the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) was considered in the rewrite initiative.

          The Rewrite of Part 525

        Subpart 525.3, Balance of Payment Programs, is proposed for deletion because FAR Case 99-616, dated November 20, 2006, removed the corresponding FAR coverage. Subpart 525.5, Evaluating Foreign Offers—Supply Contracts, and the related clause at 552.225-70, are proposed for deletion because they were replaced on January 25, 2007, by GSA Acquisition Letter V-07-02 with more current Berry Amendment coverage at Subpart 525.10, Additional Foreign Acquisition Regulations. Subpart 525.6, Trade Sanctions, is proposed for deletion because Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-09, dated April 2006, removed the corresponding FAR coverage. Subpart 552.3, Provision and Clause Matrices, is being revised to delete reference to the clause at 552.225-70 from the Matrix.

          Discussion of Comments

        As a result of the ANPR, GSA received three comments pertaining to GSAR Part 525.

          Comment 1: One commenter suggested revising the GSAR to provide an exception to the Trade Agreements Act (and certain other domestic source requirements) for commercial off-the-shelf items.

          Response: The language of the statute does not authorize such exceptions to be made at the agency level.

          Comment 2: The second commenter stressed that, in the medical world, there are numerous products that either are already manufactured off-shore in non-designated countries or soon will be according to industry via market research. When these types of medical items begin to be produced off-shore, historically all competitors end up moving production shortly thereafter because of pricing pressures, and none of them or any future competitors initiate production in an acceptable country under the T.A.A. With this in mind, it is felt that exemptions to the T.A.A. via a non-availability determination should be allowed. The contracting officer making the non-availability determination (with approval from the appropriate individual) can continually monitor the availability of FedBizOpps sources sought announcements, SBA Pro-Net searches and possible other methods.

          Response: The statute authorizes a head of the contracting activity to make a non-availability determination on an individual item basis, and this authority is specifically addressed at 525.103(d). The procedure for requesting that an item be added to the List of Nonavailable Articles is at FAR 25.104.

          Comment 3: The third commenter suggests that GSA consider revising the GSAR to implement supplemental guidance to clarify the application of the Buy American Act (“BAA”), 41 U.S.C. 10a-10d and Executive order 10582, December 17, 1954, and the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq., to FSS and GWAC Contracts. Contractors seek consistency in treatment under the law and applicable regulations. Knowing when the BAA and TAA apply and how their respective tests will be applied to products and services is of great importance to contractors. Contractors selling commercial items to the Federal Government generally do not manufacture their products based on the origin of supplies or manufacturing locations. The Government, however, requires such contractors to consider these things when they contract to sell commercial products to the Federal Government. Making it easier for contractors to know and understand how the rules will be applied can only improve the procurement system. This is particularly important because an inaccurate certification can result in loss of monies, contracts, serious civil and criminal penalties, or both. Currently there is uncertainty as to whether the BAA or TAA applies to a procurement. The TAA dollar value applicability threshold, which is set out in FAR 25.402, can vary according to whether the country of origin is a Free Trade Agreement (“FTA”) country and whether the contract is for supplies, services or construction.
        The commenter also stated that applicability of the Berry Amendment to orders placed under Schedule contracts was not clear.

          Response: The statute specifically makes the law (TAA or BAA) applicable to the total value of the acquisition, which the GSA Office of General Counsel has interpreted as meaning the total contract value, not the value of the individual task order. Therefore, the TAA applies to each order issued under the Schedule contract.
        GSA issues Schedules for use by many Government agencies. By regulation, restrictions (such as the Berry Amendment) that are not applicable to all agencies are required to be placed in individual task orders to which they do apply, not in the basic Schedule contract.
        The commenter correctly states that GSA is not subject to the Berry Amendment. However, the statute is applicable to purchases “made with DOD appropriated funds,” without regard to which agency places the order. GSA Acquisition Letter V-07-02, Implementation of Berry Amendment Contracting Requirements for Assisted Acquisitions Using DOD Funds, dated January 25, 2007, requires the contracting officer for individual task orders to review the requirement and source of funds for Berry Amendment applicability and include the appropriate DFARS clause in the resulting procurement. In other words, any task order issued using DoD appropriated funds must include the Berry Amendment.
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because there are no substantive changes. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Parts 525 and 552 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR case 2006-G520), in correspondence.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the GSAM do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 525 and 552
          Government procurement.

          Dated: July 24, 2008.
          Al Matera,
          Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

        Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 525 and 552 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 525 and 552 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          PART 525—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

          Subpart 525.3 [Removed]

        2. Subpart 525.3 is removed.

          Subpart 525.5 [Removed]

        3. Subpart 525.5 is removed.

          Subpart 525.11 [Removed]

        4. Subpart 525.11 is removed.

          PART 552-SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

          552.225-70
           [Removed]

        5. Section 552.225-70 is removed.

      [FR Doc. E8-17373 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9969-02—Region 9]

        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve California's Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonable Further Progress demonstrations for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) in the Los Angeles-South Coast nonattainment area and to determine that the State has corrected the deficiency that formed the basis for the prior partial disapproval of the Moderate Area Plan submitted for these NAAQS. The proposed determination is based on the EPA's final approval of revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program and 2016 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration. If today's action is finalized as proposed, the sanctions clocks triggered by the partial disapproval will be terminated.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by November 9, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. Proposed Action
          III. Request for Public Comment
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background

        On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less or “fine particles,” to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3 (40 CFR 50.13). Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children (78 FR 3086 at 3088, January 15, 2013). Fine particles can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia.

        Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”) as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3 (74 FR 58688). This designation became effective on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305). The South Coast nonattainment area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's proposed action addresses only requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area.

        On February 13, 2013 and March 4, 2015, California submitted SIP revisions to address planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. We refer to these submissions collectively as the “2012 PM2.5 Plan” or “Plan.” On April 14, 2016, we finalized a partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025). Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan was based on deficiencies in the Plan with respect to the Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements. Specifically, we found that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan failed to satisfy the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) because it did not provide a demonstration that the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or “District”) nitrogen oxides (NOX) RECLAIM program ensures that the level of NOX emissions reductions resulting from the RECLAIM program is equivalent, in the aggregate, to those NOX emissions reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all covered sources within the South Coast nonattainment area. We also found that the Plan failed to meet the requirement for RFP in CAA section 172(c)(2) because the deficiency with respect to RACM/RACT also meant that the State was not implementing all RACM/RACT as expeditiously as practicable. We noted in our final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that the State could remedy these deficiencies by submitting revisions to the NOX RECLAIM program together with documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the revised program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emission reductions equivalent to RACT-level controls for all covered facilities (81 FR at 22028, 22029).
        Our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan became effective on May 16, 2016, and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after May 16, 2016, and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Accordingly, offset sanctions will apply on November 16, 2017, and highway sanctions will apply on May 16, 2018, unless the EPA determines that the State has corrected the deficiency forming the basis of the disapproval.

        On March 17, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a series of amendments to the SCAQMD's NOX RECLAIM program. The submittal was intended to strengthen the program and correct the deficiencies identified in both the EPA's partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025, April 14, 2016) and in the EPA's separate proposal to partially disapprove the SCAQMD's “2016 AQMP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration” (“2016 AQMP RACT SIP”) (81 FR 76547, November 3, 2016). Additionally, on May 22, 2017, CARB submitted the District's public draft version of the “Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards” (“2017 RACT Supplement”) to address these same deficiencies. On June 6, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted NOX RECLAIM program amendments as satisfying general CAA requirements for SIP revisions (82 FR 25996). The EPA finalized this action on September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43176). On June 15, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and the 2017 RACT Supplement as satisfying the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (82 FR 27451). The EPA finalized this action on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43850).1

            1 CARB submitted the final “Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards” (“2017 RACT Supplement”) on July 27, 2017. See letter dated July 27, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

        II. Proposed Action

        We are proposing to determine that the RECLAIM program amendments submitted by CARB on March 17, 2017, and the 2017 RACT Supplement submitted by CARB on May 22, 2017, together correct the deficiency in the RACM/RACT element of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that had provided the basis for the EPA's prior partial disapproval of the Plan. As explained in our June 6, 2017 proposed action on the RECLAIM program amendments, the revised program lowers the NOX emission cap in the RECLAIM program and establishes requirements for removing RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from the trading market to prevent NOX RTCs associated with facilities that have shut down from entering the RECLAIM market and potentially delaying the installation of pollution controls at other facilities (82 FR 25996, 25998, June 6, 2017). These revisions to the RECLAIM program strengthen the SIP by requiring major NOX emission sources covered by the program to collectively achieve additional emission reductions,2

           and were fully approved into the California SIP on September 14, 2017 (see 82 FR 43176). Additionally, as explained in our June 15, 2017 proposed action on the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, the 2017 RACT Supplement contains the District's demonstration of how the SIP-approved RECLAIM program has achieved and continues to achieve, in the aggregate, RACT level of control for major NOX sources in the South Coast (82 FR at 27454-27455, June 15, 2017).3

           As part of our September 20, 2017 final approval of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, we concluded that major NOX sources covered by the RECLAIM program are now subject to RACT level control requirements (82 FR 43850, 43856). Implementation of RACT-level control requirements at major NOX sources covered by the RECLAIM program satisfies the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) for these sources. We propose to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RACM/RACT deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan, as revised.

            2 The revisions to the RECLAIM program are projected to reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per day by 2023. See SCAQMD, Summary Minutes of the Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 4, 2015, at 15; see also U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, “Technical Support Document for EPA's Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Clean Air Incentives Market Program Rules,” May 2017, at 9, 10.

            3 For more information on our evaluation of the RECLAIM program in accordance with CAA RACT requirements, see the Technical Support Document accompanying our June 15, 2017 proposed rule (82 FR 27451) and our responses to comments on that proposal (82 FR 43856, September 20, 2017).

        In addition, we are proposing to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the Plan. Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for failure to satisfy the RFP requirement in CAA section 172(c)(2) was predicated on our disapproval of the Plan with respect to the RACM/RACT requirement (81 FR at 22028, April 14, 2016). The Plan, as revised, demonstrates that the State is now implementing RACM/RACT for NOX from covered sources in the South Coast nonattainment area. Therefore, based on our proposal to determine that the State has corrected the RACM/RACT deficiency, we also propose to determine that the State has corrected the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RFP demonstration in the Plan, as revised.

        If finalized as proposed, these determinations will permanently stop the sanctions clocks triggered by our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.
        III. Request for Public Comment

        We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this preamble.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

          Dated: September 26, 2017.
          Alexis Strauss,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2017-21610 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P