        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 140507412-4914-01]
        RIN 0648-BE22
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 52

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Framework Adjustment 52 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan proposes two modifications to the windowpane flounder accountability measures. First, the size of the accountability measure gear restricted areas could be reduced if NMFS determines that improvements in windowpane flounder stock health occurred despite the catch limits being exceeded. Second, the duration of the accountability measure could be shortened if NMFS determines that an overage of the catch limit did not occur the previous fishing year. The proposed measures would allow NMFS to implement accountability measures based on more current survey and catch data. This proposed action is intended to increase fishing opportunities for the groundfish fishery while still preventing overfishing.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by December 2, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0079, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0079, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Groundfish Framework Adjustment 52.”

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

          Copies of Framework 52, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), a draft of the environmental assessment (EA) prepared for this action, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The IRFA assesses the impacts of the proposed measures on small entities, and describes steps taken to minimize any significant economic impact on these entities. A summary of the IRFA is included in the Classification section of this proposed rule. The Framework 52 EA, RIR, and IRFA are also accessible via the Internet at www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html or www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9182.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Current Windowpane Flounder Accountability Measures
        Framework 47 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) modified the accountability measures (AMs) for non-allocated stocks to ensure that sector vessels, as well as common pool vessels, were held accountable for catch overages (77 FR 26104; May 2, 2012). The current AMs for windowpane flounder are small and/or large year-round gear-restricted areas (Figure 1). The AMs are triggered when the total catch of windowpane flounder, in either the Northern or Southern stock area, exceeds the allowable limit. When these AMs are in effect, bottom-trawl vessels fishing in these areas are required to use selective trawl gear that reduces flatfish catch. Approved selective trawl gears include the haddock separator trawl, the Ruhle trawl, the rope trawl, and any other gears authorized by the Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator at the request of the New England Fishery Management Council. There are no restrictions on longline or gillnet gear because these gear types rarely catch flatfish.

        As currently used, the size of the AM gear-restricted area implemented following an overage depends on the degree to which the catch limit is exceeded (Figure 1). The size of the AM area is adjusted in correlation with the magnitude of the overage or its effects. For larger overages, a larger area is used. The larger area is intended to reduce catch of windowpane flounder to help correct for the overage and thereby also mitigate the effects of the overage on the stock. A smaller correction is required for smaller overages; therefore, a smaller AM area is applied. In specific application, the overage first has to be greater than the management uncertainty buffer (which is currently 5 percent) for a windowpane flounder AM to be triggered. If the overage is greater than 5 and up to 20 percent of the overall annual catch limit, the small AM gear restricted area is triggered. If the overage is more than 20 percent of the overall annual catch limit, the large AM gear restricted area is triggered. The AMs for the groundfish fishery or any other fisheries are triggered only if the total catch limit for the stock is exceeded and the fishery specific catch limit is also exceeded. Because scallop vessels have a separate allocation of southern windowpane flounder, the groundfish southern New England AM gear restricted area is only triggered when both the groundfish-specific and total-stock catch limits are exceeded (Figure 2). Because the AMs are meant to restrict catch by common pool and sector vessels, sectors cannot request an exemption from an AM. More detailed information on Framework 47, including how windowpane flounder AMs are implemented, is available at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/12/12MulFW47FR.pdf.

        The final rule implementing Framework 48 (78 FR 26118, May 3, 2013, see page 26124) included an allocation of southern windowpane flounder to the scallop fishery and some other non-groundfish fisheries starting in fishing year 2013. Allocating this stock to other fisheries will help ensure that other fisheries are held accountable for their catch in the future and that an overage by one of these fisheries would not negatively impact another.

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP17NO14.001

          EP17NO14.002

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
        Windowpane Flounder Catch Limits Were Exceeded in Fishing Years 2012 and 2013

        Table 1 details final catch information for fishing year 2012. The northern windowpane flounder catch limit was exceeded by 28 percent, while the southern windowpane flounder catch limit was exceeded by 36 percent. The fishing year 2012 final catch report can be found online at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Groundfish_Catch_Accounting.htm. Although catch from non-groundfish fisheries contributed to the northern windowpane flounder overage, the AM applies solely to the groundfish fishery because none of these other fisheries received a northern windowpane flounder allocation in fishing year 2012. Because the fishing year 2012 overages (in this case, year 1) were not identified until fishing year 2013 (year 2), the large AM gear restricted areas in both Southern New England and on Georges Bank were implemented on May 1, 2014, the beginning of the 2014 fishing year (year 3).
        Table 2 presents preliminary 2013 catch estimates from March 19, 2014. Despite not having catch estimates for the sub-components from other non-groundfish fisheries, the commercial northern windowpane flounder catch estimate (227 mt), which we consider to be reliable data, exceeded the allowable biological catch (151 mt) by 50 percent. Thus, in addition to the 2014 triggered AM due to overages that occurred in fishing year 2012, the fishing year 2013 overage also triggered the same 2014 AM. Table 3 presents final fishing year 2013 catch data for windowpane flounder.
        In order for the southern groundfish fishery AM gear restricted area to be triggered, the overall catch limit has to be exceeded, as well as groundfish fishery sub-annual catch limit (see Figure 2). Currently, catch data indicate that the groundfish fishery slightly exceeded its southern windowpane flounder catch limit, but it remains unclear if the overall southern windowpane flounder catch limit was exceeded.
        AMs From Framework 47 Result in Severe Economic Impacts

        Although we approved the windowpane flounder AMs in Framework 47, the accompanying environmental assessment estimated the economic costs from these AMs to be as much as $15 million. The environmental assessment did not foresee the full scope of the costs combined with other developments. Following substantial reductions in the 2013 catch limits for many key groundfish stocks, groundfish vessels have become increasingly more reliant on some flatfish species, particularly winter flounder. When the windowpane flounder AMs were developed, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder was a non-allocated stock, and, therefore, revenue from winter flounder landings was not included in the estimated costs. As a result, the windowpane flounder AMs we implemented for fishing year 2014 are likely having an even greater economic impact on the fleet than anticipated in Framework 47 due to the loss of the opportunity to fish for winter flounder. At the request of some industry members, the Council agreed to review the windowpane flounder AMs in Framework 52 to see if they could be modified in a way that still corrects the overage and mitigates the effects of the overage but also reduces the economic costs to industry.
        Framework 52
        Framework 52 would modify the current AMs for southern and northern windowpane flounder by allowing NMFS to update survey and catch information to better determine the most appropriate AM in correlation to the conditions of the stock or whether the applicable catch limits were exceeded. This action proposes two alternatives that would reduce the scope of the northern or southern windowpane flounder AM in size or duration if: (1) The stock is rebuilt and it can be determined that there were improvements in windowpane flounder stock health; or (2) the fishery remains within its catch limits the year following an overage. These alternatives are not mutually exclusive and could be used within the same fishing year. The proposed measures are intended to help prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks while reducing economic impacts, using the best scientific information available.
        Reducing the Size of the AM After Analyzing Recent Survey and Catch Data

        The first alternative proposes to reduce the scope of the AM gear restricted area from large to small if the stock is rebuilt and we can determine that the windowpane flounder “biomass criterion” is greater than the catch from the most recent fishing year. In this case, the biomass criterion is defined as the 3-year average of the three most recent fall scientific surveys multiplied by 75 percent of the Fmsy from the most recent stock assessment. Meeting or exceeding the biomass criterion indicates that overfishing was likely not occurring and that large AM areas could be reduced (i.e., the small AM is sufficient to correct and mitigate the effects of the overage because the consequences of the overage on the stock are likely less than previously assumed). Additional information on the biomass criterion can be found in Appendix 1 to the Framework 52 environmental assessment.
        This change would incorporate a review of recent survey catch data and a comparison of the trends in survey catch to the actual commercial catch to ensure that the correct AM gear restricted area is implemented. Reviewing additional survey data would allow managers to better account for uncertainties in the index-based stock assessment model that is used because it relates any potential overage in catch back to the biomass and catch trends used in the stock assessment. This action does not change the actual gear restricted area AMs developed under Framework 47.
        Reducing the Duration of an AM In-Season If a Subsequent Overage Does Not Occur
        As explained above, AMs must be implemented as soon as possible after an overage is identified to correct the operational issue causing, or mitigate any biological consequences from, the overage. Because stock allocations are divided among several different fisheries, as well as other fishery sub-components that do not actually receive an allocation (e.g., state-waters fisheries), we need to include catch by all groups prior to verifying where the catch limit was exceeded. We do not receive year-end data from the other sub-component fisheries until late summer.
        Once we receive complete catch information in late August/early September, an AM implemented in year 3 (following an overage in year 1 and an underage in year 2) could be shortened by removing it in season, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. This alternative would provide an incentive for industry to modify its fishing behavior in an effort to reduce the duration of an AM in year 3, and remove the need for continuing an AM. Furthermore, because this option does not require a pound for pound payback, and because the underage could be due to a reduction in stock size, the reduced catch expected to result from the delay in removing an implemented AM in year 3 would provide an additional buffer against any such remaining management uncertainty.
        This alternative is not applicable if, utilizing reliable catch data (such as observed discards), we determine that the current season's windowpane flounder catch limit has been exceeded because it would be inconsistent for us to remove an AM in-season while planning for an AM the following year.
        Changes to Fishing Year 2014 AMs
        For northern windowpane flounder, neither of the alternatives would apply to the fishing year 2014 Georges Bank gear restricted area AM. This is because the northern windowpane flounder stock is considered overfished, subject to overfishing, and because catch limits for this stock were exceeded in fishing years 2012 and 2013 (Tables 1 and 3). However, the southern windowpane flounder stock is not overfished or subject to overfishing, is rebuilt, and an initial review shows that the biomass criterion is greater than the fishing year 2013 catch. This information indicates that we would be able to reduce the size of the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic gear restricted area AM from large to small. The southern windowpane flounder catch limit was exceeded in fishing year 2013, so the second alternative criterion is not met and we would be unable to remove the small AM restricted gear area mid-season (Table 3).

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP17NO14.003

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

        Regulatory Correction Under Regional Administrator Authority

        To clarify the intent of Framework 47, this rule would change the regulatory text at 50 CFR 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D)(1), 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D)(2), and 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D)(3) to explain that a large AM area is implemented if the overage is greater than 20 percent of the overall annual catch limit. While reviewing the regulations for windowpane flounder AMs, we discovered that the regulations detailing the large and small AMs for windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic halibut, and Atlantic wolffish were different than approved in Framework 47. The current regulations incorrectly state that a small AM is implemented if an overage is between 5 and 20 percent of the overall annual catch limit and a large AM is implemented if the overage is 21 percent or more. This mistakenly leaves a void between 20 and 21 percent. The Council also stipulated in Framework 48 that any overage greater than 20 percent would require a review of the AM for Atlantic halibut and Atlantic wolffish. This provision was not part of Framework 47 when AMs were established for windowpane flounder and ocean pout and is being removed from § 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D)(1). Lastly, the regulations currently state that a large AM area is implemented for both Atlantic halibut and Atlantic wolffish if the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent. This is incorrect; there are no large or small AM areas for Atlantic halibut and Atlantic wolffish, only specific trawl and fixed gear AMs that are applied when there is an overage greater than the management uncertainty buffer.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with Framework 52, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. In making the final determination, NMFS will consider the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA includes this section of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in Framework 52 and its accompanying EA/RIR/IRFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in Framework 52, the beginning of this section (SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) in the preamble, and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
        A detailed description of the small entities that may be affected by this action can be found in the Framework 52 Environmental Assessment in section 8.11.2.4. Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.” The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including commercial finfish harvesters, commercial shellfish harvesters, other commercial marine harvesters, for-hire businesses, marinas, seafood dealers/wholesalers, and seafood processors.
        A small business is defined by the SBA as one that is:
        • Independently owned and operated;
        • not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates);
        • has combined annual receipts not in excess of
        ○ $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide for commercial finfish harvesting;
        ○ $5.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide for commercial shellfish harvesting; or
        ○ $7.5 million for other marine harvesters, for-hire businesses, and other related entities; and
        • has fewer than
        ○ 500 employees in the case of seafood processors; or
        ○ 100 employees in the case of seafood dealers.

        A small organization is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small governmental jurisdictions are governments of cities, boroughs, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with population of fewer than 50,000.
        This proposed action impacts commercial fish harvesting entities engaged in the Northeast multispecies limited access fishery. A description of the specific permits that are likely to be impacted is included below for informational purposes, followed by a discussion of the impacted businesses (ownership entities), which can include multiple vessels and/or permit types. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (not the individual vessels) are considered to be the regulated entities.
        Limited Access Groundfish Fishery
        The limited access groundfish fisheries are further sub-classified as those enrolled in the sector allocation program and those in the common pool. Sector vessels are subject to sector-level stock-specific allocations that limit catch of allocated groundfish stocks. AMs include a prohibition on fishing inside designated areas once 100 percent of available sector allocation has been caught, as well as area-based gear and effort restrictions that are triggered when catch of non-allocated groundfish stocks exceeds the catch limits. Common pool vessels are subject to various days-at-sea and trip limits designed to keep catches below the limits set for vessels enrolled in this program. In general, sector-enrolled businesses rely more heavily on sales of groundfish species than common pool-enrolled vessels. All limited access multispecies permit holders are eligible to participate in the sector allocation program; however, many permit holders select to remain in the common pool fishery.
        As of May 1, 2014 (beginning of fishing year 2014) there were 1,046 individual limited access multispecies permits. A total of 613 of these permits were enrolled in the sector program and 433 were enrolled in the common pool. Of these 1,046 limited access multispecies permits, 767 had landings of any species and 414 had groundfish landings in fishing year 2013.
        Ownership Entities

        Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships or economic dependency. For the purposes of this analysis, ownership entities are defined as those entities with common ownership personnel as listed on permit application documentation. Only permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven personnel listed as co-owners on their application paperwork, those seven personnel form one ownership entity, covering those five permits. If one or several of the seven owners also own additional vessels, with sub-sets of the original seven personnel or with new co-owners, those ownership arrangements are deemed to be separate ownership entities for the purpose of this analysis.
        Ownership entities are identified on June 1st of each year based on the list of all permit numbers, for the most recent complete calendar year, that have applied for any type of Northeast Federal fishing permit. The current ownership data set is based on calendar year 2013 permits and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2011 through 2013.
        Matching the potentially impacted permits described above (fishing year 2014) to the calendar year 2013 ownership data results in 868 distinct ownership entities. Of these, 855 are categorized as small and 13 are categorized as large entities per the SBA guidelines.
        These totals may mask some diversity among the entities. Many, if not most, of these ownership entities maintain diversified harvest portfolios, obtaining gross sales from many fisheries and not dependent on any one. However, not all are equally diversified. Those that depend most heavily on sales from harvesting species impacted directly by the proposed action are most likely to be affected. By defining dependence as deriving greater than 50 percent of gross sales from sales of regulated species associated with a specific fishery, we are able to identify those ownership groups most likely to be impacted by the proposed regulations. Using this threshold, we find that 114 entities are groundfish-dependent, all of which are small and all of which are finfish commercial harvesting businesses. Of the 114 groundfish-dependent entities, 102 have some level of participation in the sector program and 12 operate exclusively in the common pool.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Measures and Alternatives
        The proposed action is expected to have generally positive economic impacts, and we do not expect the action to put small entities at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities. Impacts on profitability from the proposed action are likely to positively affect both small and large entities in a broadly similar manner.
        This IRFA analysis is intended to analyze the impacts of the alternatives described in section 4.1 of Framework 52 on small entities. The proposed action alters the criteria for triggering AMs for windowpane flounder, and may result in either smaller AM gear restricted areas (i.e., duration or size) in the Southern New England or Georges Bank gear restricted areas or an increased likelihood that a triggered AM in either/both areas could be removed in-season once catch information from the previous year is made available. These provisions are expected to positively impact profitability of small entities regulated by this action.
        The proposed action is expected to result in either a lower probability of an AM remaining in place for a given year or a smaller gear restricted area (i.e., duration or time). In all cases, the proposed action is expected to have positive economic impacts to small groundfish-dependent entities relative to the no action alternative. A more detailed discussion of the expected economic and social impacts can be found in sections 7.4 and 7.5 of the Framework 52 environmental assessment.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
        The Framework 52 proposed rule is not expected to create any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.

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

          Dated: November 6, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        a. In § 648.90, revise paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(D)(1), (a)(5)(i)(D)(2) and (a)(5)(i)(D)(3), add paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(D)(1)(i) and (a)(5)(i)(D)(1)(ii), to read as follows:

          § 648.90
          NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system.

          (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (D) * * *
          (1) Windowpane flounder and ocean pout—Unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(D)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, if NMFS determines the total catch exceeds the overall ACL for either stock of windowpane flounder or ocean pout, as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D)(1), by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer up to 20 percent greater than the overall ACL, the applicable small AM area for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, the applicable large AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The AM areas defined below are bounded by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted. Vessels fishing with trawl gear in these areas may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). If an overage of the overall ACL for southern windowpane flounder is as a result of an overage of the sub-ACL allocated to exempted fisheries pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(F) of this section, the applicable AM area(s) shall be in effect for any trawl vessel fishing with a codend mesh size of greater than or equal to 5 inches (12.7 cm) in other, non-specified sub-components of the fishery, including, but not limited to, exempted fisheries that occur in Federal waters and fisheries harvesting exempted species specified in § 648.80(b)(3). If an overage of the overall ACL for southern windowpane flounder is as a result of an overage of the sub-ACL allocated to the groundfish fishery pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H)(2) of this section, the applicable AM area(s) shall be in effect for any limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel fishing on a NE multispecies DAS or sector trip. If an overage of the overall ACL for southern windowpane flounder is as a result of overages of both the groundfish fishery and exempted fishery sub-ACLs, the applicable AM area(s) shall be in effect for both the groundfish fishery and exempted fisheries. If a sub-ACL for either stock of windowpane flounder or ocean pout is allocated to another fishery, consistent with the process specified at § 648.90(a)(4), and there are AMs for that fishery, the groundfish fishery AM shall only be implemented if the sub-ACL allocated to the groundfish fishery is exceeded (i.e., the sector and common pool catch for a particular stock, including the common pool's share of any overage of the overall ACL caused by excessive catch by other sub-components of the fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(5) exceeds the common pool sub-ACL) and the overall ACL is also exceeded.

            Northern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Small AM Area

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              41°10′
              67°40′

              2
              41°10′
              67°20′

              3
              41°00′
              67°20′

              4
              41°00′
              67°00′

              5
              40°50′
              67°00′

              6
              40°50′
              67°40′

              1
              41°10′
              67°40′

            Northern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Large AM Area

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              42°10′
              67°40′

              2
              42°10′
              67°20′

              3
              41°00′
              67°20′

              4
              41°00′
              67°00′

              5
              40°50′
              67°00′

              6
              40°50′
              67°40′

              1
              42°10′
              67°40′

            Southern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Small AM Area

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              41°10′
              71°30′

              2
              41°10′
              71°20′

              3
              40°50′
              71°20′

              4
              40°50′
              71°30′

              1
              41°10′
              71°30′

            Southern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Small AM Area 1

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              41°10′
              71°50′

              2
              41°10′
              71°10′

              3
              41°00′
              71°10′

              4
              41°00′
              71°20′

              5
              40°50′
              71°20′

              6
              40°50′
              71°50′

              1
              41°10′
              71°50′

            Southern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Large AM Area 2

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              (1)
              73°30′

              2
              40°30′
              73°30′

              3
              40°30′
              73°50′

              4
              40°20′
              73°50′

              5
              40°20′
              (2)

              6
              (3)
              73°58.5′

              7
              (4)
              73°58.5′

              8
              40°32.6′ 5

              73°56.4′ 5

              1
              (1)
              73°30′

              1 The southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY, at 73°30′ W. longitude.

              2 The easternmost coastline of NJ at 40°20′ N. latitude, then northward along the NJ coastline to Point 6.

              3 The northernmost coastline of NJ at 73°58.5′ W. longitude.

              4 The southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY at 73°58.5′ W. longitude.

              5 The approximate location of the southwest corner of the Rockaway Peninsula, Queens, NY, then eastward along the southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY (excluding South Oyster Bay), back to Point 1.

          (i) Reducing the size of an AM. If the overall northern or southern windowpane flounder ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent and NMFS determines that: The stock is rebuilt, and the biomass criterion, as defined by the Council, is greater than the most recent fishing year's catch, then only the respective small AM may be implemented as described in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D)(1) of this section consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
          (ii) Reducing the duration of an AM. If the northern or southern windowpane flounder AM is implemented in the third fishing year following the year of an overage, as described in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section, and NMFS subsequently determines that the applicable windowpane flounder ACL was not exceeded by any amount the year immediately after which the overage occurred (i.e., the second year), on or after September 1, the AM can be removed once year-end data are complete. This reduced duration does not apply if NMFS determines during year 3 that a year 3 overage of the applicable windowpane flounder ACL has occurred.
          (2) Atlantic halibut. If NMFS determines the overall ACL for Atlantic halibut is exceeded, as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D)(2), by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, the applicable AM areas shall be implemented and any vessel issued a NE multispecies permit or a limited access monkfish permit and fishing under the monkfish Category C or D permit provisions, may not fish for, possess, or land Atlantic halibut for the fishing year in which the AM is implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section. If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, the applicable AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section, and the Council shall revisit the AM in a future action. The AM areas defined below are bounded by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted. Any vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing with trawl gear in the Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). When in effect, a limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel with gillnet or longline gear may not fish or be in the Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Areas, unless transiting with its gear stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b), or such gear was approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). If a sub-ACL for Atlantic halibut is allocated to another fishery, consistent with the process specified at § 648.90(a)(4), and there are AMs for that fishery, the groundfish fishery AM shall only be implemented if the sub-ACL allocated to the groundfish fishery is exceeded (i.e., the sector and common pool catch for a particular stock, including the common pool's share of any overage of the overall ACL caused by excessive catch by other sub-components of the fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(5) exceeds the common pool sub-ACL) and the overall ACL is also exceeded.

            Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              42°00′
              69°20′

              2
              42°00′
              68°20′

              3
              41°30′
              68°20′

              4
              41°30′
              69°20′

            Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Area 1

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              42°30′
              70°20′

              2
              42°30′
              70°15′

              3
              42°20′
              70°15′

              4
              42°20′
              70°20′

            Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Area 2

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              43°10′
              69°40′

              2
              43°10′
              69°30′

              3
              43°00′
              69°30′

              4
              43°00′
              69°40′

          (3) Atlantic wolffish. If NMFS determines the overall ACL for Atlantic wolffish is exceeded, as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D)(3), by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, the applicable AM areas shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section. If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, the applicable AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section, and the Council shall revisit the AM in a future action. The AM areas defined below are bounded by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted. Any vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing with trawl gear in the Atlantic Wolffish Trawl Gear AM Area may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). When in effect, a limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel with gillnet or longline gear may not fish or be in the Atlantic Wolffish Fixed Gear AM Areas, unless transiting with its gear stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b), or such gear was approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). If a sub-ACL for Atlantic wolffish is allocated to another fishery, consistent with the process specified at § 648.90(a)(4), and AMs are developed for that fishery, the groundfish fishery AM shall only be implemented if the sub-ACL allocated to the groundfish fishery is exceeded (i.e., the sector and common pool catch for a particular stock, including the common pool's share of any overage of the overall ACL caused by excessive catch by other sub-components of the fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(5) exceeds the common pool sub-ACL) and the overall ACL is also exceeded.

            Atlantic Wolffish Trawl Gear AM Area

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              42°30′
              70°30′

              2
              42°30′
              70°15′

              3
              42°15′
              70°15′

              4
              42°15′
              70°10′

              5
              42°10′
              70°10′

              6
              42°10′
              70°20′

              7
              42°20′
              70°20′

              8
              42°20′
              70°30′

            Atlantic Wolffish Fixed Gear AM Area 1

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              41°40′
              69°40′

              2
              41°40′
              69°30′

              3
              41°30′
              69°30′

              4
              41°30′
              69°40′

            Atlantic Wolffish Fixed Gear AM Area 2

              Point
              N. Latitude
              W. Longitude

              1
              42°30′
              70°20′

              2
              42°30′
              70°15′

              3
              42°20′
              70°15′

              4
              42°20′
              70°20′

      [FR Doc. 2014-27084 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 030513122-3122-01; ID 050103C]
        RIN 0648-AR01
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Control Date for Loligo and Illex Squid

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

          ACTION:

          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of a control date for the purposes of controlling capacity in the commercial fishery for Loligo squid and discouraging speculative entry into the Illex commercial fishery.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that it is considering and is seeking public comment on proposed rulemaking to control future access to the Illex (Illex illecebrosus) and Loligo (Loligo pealei) squid fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  This announcement is intended, in part, to discourage speculative entry and increases in effort or capacity in these fisheries while the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS consider alternative allocation schemes and whether and how to further control capacity in the Illex and Loligo fisheries.  The date of publication of this document, May 20, 2003, shall be known as the “control date” and may be used for establishing eligibility criteria for determining levels of future access to the Illex and Loligo fisheries subject to Federal authority.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, June 19, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be directed to Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Squid Control Date.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (302) 674-5399.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9273, email: Paul.H.Jones@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the 1990s, the simultaneous growth of the domestic squid fisheries and reduction in the estimate of sustainable yield resulted in the Illex and Loligo fisheries moving toward full capitalization and exploitation.  As a result, limited entry programs became necessary and were implemented separately for each fishery in Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Loligo squid at 61 FR 14465, April 2, 1996 and Illex squid at 62 FR 28638, May 27, 1997).
        In the case of the Illex fishery, a 5-year sunset provision was placed on the Illex moratorium when it was implemented through Amendment 5 to the FMP, due to concerns that capacity might prove to be insufficient to fully exploit the annual quota for the fishery.  The sunset provision for the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, implemented in 1997, was set to expire in July 1, 2002.  It was extended through July 1, 2003, under Framework 2 to the FMP (67 FR 44392, July 2, 2002) and is currently being considered for an additional extension through July 1, 2004, under Framework 3 to the FMP (68 FR 14571, March 26, 2003).   The Council is addressing this issue through development of Amendment 9 to the FMP.  However, the Council is concerned that a hiatus in the Illex limited access program could occur should the moratorium for this fishery expire before Amendment 9 is implemented.  At its March 20, 2003, meeting, the Council requested that NMFS publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking issuing this control date to discourage speculative entry into the Illex fishery, should such a hiatus occur.
        In the case of the Loligo fishery,  the primary issue the Council is concerned with is excess and/or latent capacity.  Quota management in this fishery, in conjunction with restrictions in other fisheries, has created a derby fishery in certain quota periods of the Loligo fishery.  Therefore, the Council has expressed a need to examine excess capacity and/or latent capacity in the limited entry section of this fishery.  Accordingly, at its March 20, 2003, meeting, the Council  requested that NMFS also publish this control date to discourage speculative activation of previously unused effort or capacity in the Loligo fishery while alternative allocation schemes and potential management regimes to control capacity or latent effort are discussed and possibly developed and implemented.  The control date communicates to fishermen that performance or fishing effort after the date of publication may not be treated the same as performance or effort that was expanded before the control date.  The Council could choose different and variably weighted methods to qualify fishermen based on the type and length of participation in the Loligo fishery or on the quantity of landings.  The Council may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the Loligo fishery.
        This notification establishes May 20, 2003, as the control date for potential use in determining historical or traditional participation in the Loligo and Illex fisheries.  Consideration of a control date does not commit the Council to develop any particular management regime or criteria for participation in these fisheries.  The Council may choose a different control date; or may choose a management program that does not make use of such a date.  Any action by the Council will be taken pursuant to the requirements for FMP development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the Loligo and Illex fisheries in Federal waters.

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

          Dated:  May 15, 2003.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-12648 Filed 5-19-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 021113274-2274-01; I.D. 031501A]
        RIN 0648-AO79
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Activities:  Reopening of Comment Period

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is reopening the deadline for filing comments on the proposed rule  published December 6, 2002, which would modify existing exempted fishing regulations for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS).  Comments are currently due to be filed by 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on January 6, 2003.  The comment period is being reopened to comply with requests submitted by a number of constituents who potentially could be affected by the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          The effective data for reopening the comment period is January 10, 2003 through March 17, 2003.  Comments must be received by 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on March 17, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to Christopher Rogers, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917.  Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirement contained in this proposed rule should be sent to the Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:   NOAA Desk Officer).  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sari Kiraly or Heather Stirratt at 301-713-2347, fax 301-713-1917, e-mail Sari.Kiraly@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The proposed rule was published on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72629).  Subsequently, a public hearing was held on December 17, 2002, in Orlando, Florida.  At the public hearing and in written correspondence a number of constituents who potentially could be affected by the proposed rule requested that the comment period be extended.  This is to allow more time for preparing comments in response to the proposed rule.  To that effect, the comment period is reopened until March 17, 2003.

          Dated: January 6, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-520 Filed 1-9-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 150817720-5720-01]
        RIN 0648-BF21
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Greater Amberjack Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this action would revise the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs), the commercial trip limit, and the recreational minimum size limit for greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone. Additionally, this rule would correct an error in the Gulf gray triggerfish recreational accountability measures (AMs). The purpose of this rule is to modify Gulf greater amberjack management measures to end overfishing and achieve optimal yield for the greater amberjack resource.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 19, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0094” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0094, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Richard Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2015/greater_amberjack_framework/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Richard Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: rich.malinowski@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Gulf reef fish fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to achieve on a continuing basis the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. This mandate is intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, while also protecting marine ecosystems.
        The greater amberjack resource in the Gulf was declared overfished by NMFS on February 9, 2001. Secretarial Amendment 2 established a greater amberjack rebuilding plan that started in 2003 and was scheduled to rebuild the stock in 2012 (68 FR 39898, July 3, 2003). In 2006, a Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment (SEDAR 9) occurred and was subsequently updated in 2010 (SEDAR 9 Update). In response to new scientific information from SEDAR 9 and the SEDAR 9 Update, the rebuilding plan was revised in both Amendments 30A and 35 to the FMP (73 FR 38139, July 3, 2008, and 77 FR 67574, December 13, 2012). However, the rebuilding time period ended in 2012, without the stock being rebuilt.
        A 2014 stock assessment indicates the Gulf greater amberjack stock remains overfished and is undergoing overfishing. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed this assessment at their June 2014 meeting and used the acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule to recommend an ABC equivalent to 75 percent of the maximum fishing mortality threshold to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The ABCs recommended by the Council's SSC in this framework action are: 1,720,000 lb (780,179 kg) for 2015; 2,230,000 lb (1,011,511 kg) for 2016; 2,490,000 lb (1,129,445 kg) for 2017; and 2,620,000 lb (1,188412 kg) for 2018.
        In August 2014, pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS notified the Council of the 2014 stock assessment results that indicated that the greater amberjack stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing. Following that notification, the Council was required under section 304(e)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prepare a plan amendment or regulations within 2 years to end overfishing immediately and rebuild the greater amberjack stock.
        For this framework action, the Council chose to reduce the current stock ACL of 1,780,000 lb (807,394 kg) to the SSC's ABC recommendation for 2015 of 1,720,000 lb (780,179 kg). Furthermore, the Council decided to maintain the 2015 catch levels through 2018, which results in an ABC and stock ACL that will be 49 percent of the 2018 overfishing limit (OFL), and is expected to rebuild the stock by 2019. The Council also considered an alternative in the framework action that would have set the stock ACL at zero. However, this alternative, which is projected to rebuild the stock by 2017, would have the greatest negative socio-economic impacts on fishing communities for relatively little biological benefit.
        Although the Council did not explicitly discuss its obligations under section 304(e)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the framework action and this proposed rule fulfill the Council's responsibility to “prepare and implement a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations for the fishery” under that provision. Consistent with the requirements of sections 304(e)(3) and (4), the framework action and proposed rule are projected to end overfishing immediately and rebuild the stock in as short as time possible, taking into account the needs of fishing communities. The specified time for rebuilding is 4 years, well below the maximum time of 10 years specified in section 304(4)(A)(ii) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the harvest restrictions are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors by virtue of the established ACL allocation, the increased recreational size limit, and the decreased commercial trip limit.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This rule would revise the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs (which are expressed as quotas in the regulatory text), the commercial trip limit, and the recreational minimum size limit for greater amberjack in the Gulf.
        Commercial and Recreational ACLs and ACTs
        This rule would revise the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs for Gulf greater amberjack. All ACL and ACT weights are described in round weight. The final rule for Amendment 35 to the FMP set the current commercial ACL at 481,000 lb (218,178 kg) and the current commercial ACT at 409,000 lb (185,519 kg). That final rule also set the current recreational ACL at 1,299,000 lb (589,216 kg) and the current recreational ACT at 1,130,000 lb (512,559 kg).
        This proposed rule would reduce the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs. The current sector allocation of 27 percent for the commercial sector and 73 percent for the recreational sector would not change through this framework action. The commercial ACL would be set at 464,400 lb (210,648 kg) and the commercial ACT would be set at 394,740 lb (179,051 kg). The recreational ACL would be set at 1,255,600 lb (569,531 kg) and the recreational ACT would be set at 1,092,372 lb (495,492 kg).
        Commercial Trip Limit

        The current greater amberjack commercial trip limit was established in Amendment 35 to the FMP at 2,000 lb (907 kg), round weight, in an effort to reduce harvest rates, prevent commercial ACL overages, and provide a longer fishing season for the commercial sector (77 FR 67574, November 13, 2012). However, in 2013, the commercial ACL and ACT were still exceeded by approximately 12 percent, triggering the commercial AMs and closing the commercial sector in season. This rule would reduce the commercial trip limit to 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight; 1,560 lb (708 kg), round weight. The Council determined that the proposed trip limit would further reduce the likelihood of exceeding the commercial ACL and ACT and could extend the length of the commercial fishing season.
        Recreational Size Limit
        This rule would revise the greater amberjack recreational minimum size limit. In 2008, Amendment 30A to the FMP set the greater amberjack recreational minimum size limit at 30 inches (76 cm), fork length (FL), (73 FR 38139, July 3, 2008).
        A greater amberjack with a 30-inch (76-cm), FL, is approximately 2 years old and the majority of the fish at that size have likely not yet reached sexual maturity. At the proposed recreational minimum size limit of 34 inches (86.4 cm), FL, it is estimated that 85 percent of females are reproductively mature. Additionally, based upon a review of greater amberjack recreational landings from 2012 through 2013, 34 inches (86.4 cm), FL, was the most frequently landed size of greater amberjack. The Council determined that increasing the recreational minimum size limit from 30 inches (76 cm), FL, to 34 inches (86.4 cm), FL, would provide an opportunity for a greater number of sexually mature greater amberjack to spawn, which could assist in Council efforts to end overfishing and rebuild the stock.
        Other Actions Contained in the Framework Action
        In addition to the measures being proposed in this rule, the framework action would revise the greater amberjack ABC and OFL based upon the results of SEDAR 33 and the Council's SSC recommendation. All ABC and OFL weights are described in round weight. The current greater amberjack ABC is 1,780,000 lb (807,394 kg) and the current OFL is 2,380,000 lb (1,079,550 kg), which were established in Amendment 35 to the FMP (77 FR 67574, November 13, 2012). This framework action would revise the ABC and OFL for 4 years, beginning in 2015. The ABC, which is equal to the stock ACL would be set at 1,720,000 lb (780,179 kg). The OFL would be set at 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) for 2015; 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032) kg) for 2016; 3,420,000 lb (1,551,286 kg) for 2017; and 3,510,000 lb (1,592,109 kg) for 2018, and subsequent years.
        The framework action also contained an action to modify the greater amberjack recreational closed season. However, the Council decided not to revise the recreational season at this time. Therefore, the current recreational closed season of June 1 through July 31 remains in effect.
        Additional Proposed Changes to Codified Text
        Amendment 30A to the FMP implemented ACLs and AMs for Gulf gray triggerfish (73 FR 38139, July 3, 2008). The recreational AM was a post-season AM that reduced the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings did not exceed the recreational ACT the following fishing year. To determine a reduced season, recreational landings were evaluated relative to the recreational ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings. In Amendment 37 to the FMP, this post-season AM was replaced with an in-season AM (which is based on a single season of landings data), so the recreational sector closes when the recreational ACT is reached or projected to be reached (78 FR 27084, May 9, 2013). However, during the implementation of Amendment 37, the last sentence in § 622.41(b)(2)(iii), which states that “Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP,” was not removed. NMFS has only recently noticed this error. This rule corrects this error by removing this sentence. The recreational ACL and ACT for gray triggerfish implemented in Amendment 37 to the FMP remain unchanged.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA for this rule, as required by section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect all commercial vessels that harvest Gulf greater amberjack under the FMP. Changes to recreational ACLs, ACTs, and/or minimum size limits in this proposed rule would not directly apply to or regulate charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses would be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and would therefore be indirect in nature. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who would be directly affected by this proposed rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed.
        As of March 25, 2015, there were 863 vessels with valid or renewable Gulf reef fish commercial vessel permits. On average (2009 through 2013), 211 vessels commercially landed greater amberjack each year from Gulf Federal waters. Their average annual vessel-level revenue for 2009 through 2013 was approximately $130,000 (2013 dollars), of which $2,400 was from greater amberjack.
        No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the vessels directly regulated by this rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria.
        Because all entities expected to be affected by this proposed rule are small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.

        This proposed rule would reduce the current greater amberjack commercial ACT by 14,260 lb (6,468 kg), round weight, from 409,000 lb (185,519 kg) to 394,740 lb (179,051 kg), round weight, or 3.5 percent. Additionally, this proposed rule would reduce the greater amberjack commercial trip limit from 2,000 lb (907 kg), round weight, to 1,560 lb (708 kg), round weight; 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight. On its own, the reduction in the commercial ACT would be expected to result in a shorter fishing season and fewer commercial trips that harvest greater amberjack. Conversely, the reduced commercial trip limit would be expected to increase the commercial fishing season length and the overall number of trips necessary to harvest the full commercial ACT. When the actions to reduce the commercial ACT and the trip limit are analyzed together, the expected recurring annual reduction in total ex-vessel revenue from this proposed rule is estimated to be $20,703 (2013 dollars), assuming there is no substitution of other species and no change in effort, harvest rates, or prices. In addition, the season is predicted to be 5 days longer under the preferred commercial ACT and trip limit alternatives than under the no action alternatives for these actions. Assuming the reduction in greater amberjack revenues is distributed evenly across the average number of vessels that commercially harvest greater amberjack per year (211 vessels), the annual per-vessel loss would be $98 (2013 dollars), or less than 1 percent of the average annual revenue earned by these vessels for all species harvested. Because this estimate is based on average performance, some vessels may be affected more or less than others, depending on their overall catch composition, landing capacity, and fishing behavior.
        Thirty vessels, on average per year (2009 through 2013), were identified that commercially landed greater amberjack in excess of 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight, on a single trip (14 percent of the average number of vessels that harvested greater amberjack each year). In 2013, the total weight of greater amberjack harvested in excess of 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight, per trip accounted for approximately 10 percent of total greater amberjack landings. Thus, for the 211 vessels that commercially harvest greater amberjack, the proposed reduction in the commercial trip limit, assuming effort remains constant, would be expected to reduce total commercial greater amberjack harvests by approximately 39,000 lb (17,690 kg), round weight, and $46,800 (2013 dollars) in total ex-vessel revenue annually. Averaged across the 30 vessels per year with trip harvests above 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight, this reduction would equal approximately $1,560 (2013 dollars) per vessel, or approximately 1 percent of their average annual revenue. These losses would be reduced if increased landings of other species can be substituted for greater amberjack landings or if new trips harvesting greater amberjack were to occur. It is assumed that the full commercial ACT would be harvested under the preferred trip limit alternative. Therefore, if the trip limit change implemented by this proposed rule results in a decrease in greater amberjack landings and revenues for some vessels, it would result in an increase in greater amberjack landings and revenues for other vessels.
        The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Only the actions which contain alternatives that would have direct economic effects on small entities merit inclusion in the following discussion.
        Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs for Gulf greater amberjack. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not be expected to have any direct economic effects. This alternative was not selected because the stock ACL would exceed the ABC calculated by the most recent greater amberjack assessment and recommended by the SSC and would, therefore, be inconsistent with the NS 1 guidelines. The second alternative would set the stock ACL from 2015 through 2018 equal to the ABC values recommended by the SSC. This alternative included two sub-options. The first sub-option would use the Council's ACL/ACT control rule as established in the Generic ACL/AM Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011), which would set the commercial ACT at a level reduced by 15 percent from the commercial ACL for greater amberjack and set the recreational ACT at a level reduced by 13 percent from the recreational ACL. The second sub-option would not use the ACL/ACT control rule and instead would apply a 20-percent buffer that would reduce both the recreational and commercial ACLs by 20 percent to establish the recreational and commercial ACTs. This alternative would increase the stock ACL each year from 2015 through 2018, which would be expected to result in greater economic benefits than the preferred alternative in the framework action. However, this alternative was not selected as preferred by the Council as a result of the following factors: the stock remains overfished and is undergoing overfishing, the 10-year rebuilding plan time period ended and the stock has not been rebuilt, and the stock biomass has been relatively stable (at overfished levels) since 2000, while experiencing harvest levels below what is currently projected to rebuild the stock in upcoming years. The third alternative is the preferred alternative, which would set a constant stock ACL equal to the 2015 ABC value recommended by the SSC. The same two sub-options for setting the ACT that were considered for the second alternative were also considered for the third alternative. The first sub-option, selected as preferred by the Council, would apply a 15-percent buffer to the commercial ACL to set the commercial ACT and apply a 13-percent buffer to the recreational ACL to set the recreational ACT. The second sub-option would not use the ACL/ACT control rule and instead would apply a 20-percent buffer that would reduce both the recreational and commercial ACLs by 20 percent to establish the recreational and commercial ACTs. The fourth alternative would set the stock ACL and stock ACT at zero. The fourth alternative would stop all directed harvest of greater amberjack and would be expected to result in greater economic losses than the preferred ACL/ACT alternative.
        Five alternatives were considered for the action to modify the greater amberjack commercial trip limit. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current 2,000 lb (907 kg), round weight, trip limit and would not be expected to have any direct economic effects. The second alternative is the preferred alternative, which would establish a 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight, trip limit for greater amberjack. The third, fourth, and fifth alternatives would have established 1,000 lb (454 kg), 750 lb (340 kg), and 500 lb (227 lb), gutted weight trip limits, respectively. Although these three alternatives would be expected to extend the season, they would increase the likelihood that trips are no longer profitable and decrease the likelihood that the full commercial ACT would be harvested during the fishing year. As such, these three alternatives would be expected to result in greater economic losses to affected small entities than the preferred trip limit alternative.

        An item contained in this proposed rule that is not part of the framework action is the removal of the last sentence in § 622.41(b)(2)(iii), “Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.” This sentence, which pertains to the evaluation of recreational landings of gray triggerfish relative to the ACL, was inadvertently not removed in the final rule implementing Amendment 37 to the FMP (78 FR 27084, May 9, 2013). The removal of this sentence will clarify the criteria used to trigger recreational AMs as written in the Federal regulations; however, it is not expected to have any effect on current management practices. This is because NMFS has managed gray triggerfish in accordance with the preferred alternatives specified in Amendment 37 since its implementation. Therefore, this is an administrative change only and is not expected to have any direct economic effects on small entities. As such, this component of the proposed rule is outside the scope of the RFA.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Greater amberjack, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.

          Dated: September 11, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.37, revise paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:

          § 622.37
          Size Limits.

          (c) * * *
          (4) Greater amberjack—34 inches (86.4 cm), fork length, for a fish taken by a person subject to the bag limit specified in § 622.38(b)(1) and 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, for a fish taken by a person not subject to the bag limit.

        3. In § 622.39, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

          § 622.39
          Quotas.

          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (v) Greater amberjack—394,740 lb (179,051 kg), round weight.

          (2) * * *
          (ii) Recreational quota for greater amberjack. The recreational quota for greater amberjack is 1,092,372 lb (495,492 kg), round weight.

        4. In § 622.41, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

          § 622.41
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).
          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) The commercial ACL for greater amberjack is 464,400 lb (210,648 kg), round weight.
          (2) * * *
          (iii) The recreational ACL for greater amberjack is 1,255,600 lb (569,531 kg), round weight.
          (b) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (iii) The recreational ACL for gray triggerfish is 241,200 lb (109,406 kg), round weight. The recreational ACT for gray triggerfish is 217,100 lb (98,475 kg), round weight.

        5. In § 622.43, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 622.43
          Commercial trip limits.

          (a) Gulf greater amberjack. Until the quota specified in § 622.39(a)(1)(v) is reached, 1,500 lb (680 kg), gutted weight; 1,560 lb (708 kg), round weight. See § 622.39(b) for the limitations regarding greater amberjack after the quota is reached.

      [FR Doc. 2015-23347 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 053001D]
        Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to revise the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces its intent to revise the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries draft Programmatic SEIS.  After reviewing more than 21,000 comment letters received on the draft Programmatic SEIS, NMFS has determined that revisions to the draft Programmatic SEIS are appropriate and necessary.  NMFS has also determined that these revisions will require the release of a revised draft Programmatic SEIS.  Based on these decisions, NMFS announces a new date for the completion of the Programmatic SEIS and issuance of the Record of Decision based thereon.

          DATES:

            See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the dates concerning completion of the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic SEIS.  The December 2001 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting will be held December 5 through 10, 2001.  Additional information concerning the agenda for the Council’s December 2001 meeting can be found at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc.

          ADDRESSES:
          The December 2001 North Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel, Anchorage, AK.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steven K. Davis, Programmatic SEIS Coordinator, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271-3523.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On January 26, 2001, NMFS released a draft of the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic SEIS for a 90-day public review and comment period.  As a result of NMFS granting requests by the interested public for two extensions of the public comment period, the comment period for the draft Programmatic SEIS ran for a total of 180 days and ended on July 25, 2001.  As a result of this extended public comment period and the voluminous public comments received therein, NMFS determined that it would issue a final Programmatic SEIS for the Alaska groundfish fisheries during the summer of 2002 and a Record of Decision shortly thereafter.
        NMFS received 21,361 letters commenting on the draft Programmatic SEIS during the comment period.  Comments on the draft Programmatic SEIS were received from all 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  Citizens from 28 foreign countries also provided comments.  Within these 21,361 letters, NMFS identified 4,044 substantive comments.
        Based on its review and preliminary analysis of the comments received on the draft Programmatic SEIS, NMFS has made several decisions concerning the draft Programmatic SEIS.  First, NMFS has determined that the draft Programmatic SEIS should be revised to include additional analyses concerning environmental, economic and cumulative impacts.  Second, NMFS has determined that the alternatives contained in the draft Programmatic SEIS should be restructured, shifting from single-focus alternatives to more comprehensive, multiple-component alternatives.  Third, NMFS has determined that the draft Programmatic SEIS should be edited to evaluate more concisely the proposed action.  The revisions to the Programmatic SEIS will build from the information and analyses contained in the January 26, 2001, draft Programmatic SEIS.  Given its decisions, NMFS has determined that it will release a revised draft Programmatic SEIS for public review and comment before issuing the final Programmatic SEIS.
        General Process and Dates for Completion of the Programmatic SEIS
        Given the determinations described above, NMFS has decided that a modification to the current schedule for completion of the Programmatic SEIS is appropriate and necessary.  The following dates reflect the amount of time that NMFS has determined will be needed to complete the additional analyses and editing of the draft Programmatic SEIS, and to allow for adequate public review and comment on the revised draft Programmatic SEIS, including the restructured alternatives.  NMFS will seek assistance and input from the Council and the public in developing the restructured alternatives.  It will consider, among other things, several restructured alternatives in the revised draft Programmatic SEIS, including alternatives that were suggested or proposed in comments received on the January 2001 draft Programmatic SEIS and that are developed in conjunction and cooperation with the Council and/or the public.
        December 2001 North Pacific Fishery Management Council Meeting
        NMFS will present the Council and the public with a preliminary template that describes the framework within which restructured alternatives will be developed.
        January Through August 2002
        From January through August 2002, NMFS will prepare the revised draft Programmatic SEIS.  NMFS will prepare additional analyses concerning environmental, economic and cumulative impacts, restructure the alternatives and prepare an analysis of the effects of those alternatives on the human environment, and edit the Programmatic SEIS to evaluate more concisely the proposed action.  As noted above, NMFS will seek assistance and input from the Council and the public in developing the restructured alternatives.
        September Through December 2002
        From September through December 2002, NMFS will issue a revised draft Programmatic SEIS for a public review and comment period.
        January Through August 2003
        From January through August 2003, NMFS will prepare the final Programmatic SEIS.  NMFS will review and consider public comments received on the revised draft Programmatic SEIS and will present a summary of those comments to the Council and the public.
        September 2003
        NMFS will issue a final Programmatic SEIS and allow a 30-day public comment period on the final Programmatic SEIS.
        No later than December 31, 2003
        NMFS will issue a Record of Decision on the Programmatic SEIS.

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

          Dated: November 20, 2001.
          Jon Kurland,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-29497 Filed 11-26-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 268
        [RCRA-2004-0009; FRL-7839-2]
        Land Disposal Restrictions: Site-Specific Treatment Variance for Selenium Waste for Chemical Waste Management, Chemical Services LLC

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed Rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is today proposing to grant a site-specific treatment standard variance from the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for a selenium-bearing hazardous waste generated by the glass manufacturing industry. EPA is proposing to grant this variance because the chemical properties of the waste differ significantly from those of the waste used to establish the current LDR treatment standard for selenium (5.7 mg/L, as measured by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)), and the petition has adequately demonstrated that the waste cannot be treated to meet this treatment standard. In addition, EPA is also proposing to modify an existing treatment variance for this same waste that has been previously granted to another treatment facility.
          In the “Rules and Regulations” section of the Federal Register, we are publishing a parallel direct final rule that would grant this site-specific treatment variance without prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and we anticipate no significant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approach in the preamble to the direct final rule. If, however, based on today's proposed rule, we receive significant adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final action and it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on the proposed variance must do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by December 20, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA-2004-0009. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Comments may be mailed to the EPA Docket Center—OSWER Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305 T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2004-0009. Follow the detailed instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general information, contact the RCRA Call Center at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Juan Parra at (703) 308-0478 or parra.juan@epa.gov, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information

        In this document, EPA is proposing to grant a site-specific treatment variance from the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for a selenium-bearing hazardous waste from the glass manufacturing industry. This selenium waste will be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Chemical Services LLC (CWM). In addition, EPA is proposing to modify an existing treatment variance for the same waste granted to Heritage Environmental Services LLC. We have explained our reasons for these actions in the preamble to the direct final rule. For further information, please see the direct final action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.
        EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA-2004-0009. Documents in the official public docket are listed in the index list in EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EDOCKET. Documents may be available either electronically or in hard copy. Electronic documents may be viewed through EDOCKET. Hard copy documents may be viewed at the EPA Docket Center—OSWER Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Docket Center Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0272.
        You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You can also go to the federal-wide eRulemaking site at http://www.regulations.gov to submit comments.

        An electronic version of the public docket is available through EDOCKET. You may use EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
        Certain types of information will not be placed in EDOCKET. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EDOCKET but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket.
        For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
        Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EDOCKET. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EDOCKET. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EDOCKET along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

        You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
        II. Description of Proposed Amendments
        EPA is proposing to grant a variance to Chemical Waste Management, Chemical Services LLC (CWM) to stabilize a selenium-bearing waste from Guardian Industries Corp. (Guardian) at their RCRA permitted facility in Model City, New York. If this proposal is finalized, CWM may treat the specific waste to an alternate selenium treatment standard of 28 mg/L, as measured by the TCLP, for the Guardian waste. CWM may dispose of the treated waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill, provided they meet the applicable LDR treatment standards for any hazardous constituents in the waste.
        EPA is also modifying the existing alternative treatment standard for the Guardian selenium waste that EPA had previously granted to Heritage Environmental Services LLC to be consistent with the levels that CWM has demonstrated as BDAT for this selenium waste (69 FR 6567, February 11, 2004).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
          Environmental protection, hazardous waste, selenium, variance.

          Dated: November 10, 2004.
          Thomas P. Dunne,
          Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

      [FR Doc. 04-25717 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P