        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 39
        [Docket No. FAA-2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD]
        RIN 2120-AA64
        Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also would provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from several reports of cracking of the main fuselage frame. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking of the main fuselage frame, which could result in extensive damage to adjacent structure, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

          DATES:
          We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 20, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
          • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
          • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Comments Invited
        We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Include the docket number “FAA-2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
        We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

        Examining the Docket
        You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.
        Discussion
        In April 1988, a high-cycle transport category airplane (specifically, a Boeing Model 737) was involved in an accident in which the airplane suffered major structural damage during flight. Investigation of this accident revealed that the airplane had numerous fatigue cracks and a great deal of corrosion. Subsequent inspections conducted by the operator on other high-cycle transport category airplanes in its fleet revealed that other airplanes had extensive fatigue cracking and corrosion.
        Prompted by the data gained from this accident, the FAA sponsored a conference on aging airplanes in June 1988, which was attended by representatives from the aviation industry and airworthiness authorities from around the world. It became obvious that, because of the tremendous increase in air travel, the relatively slow pace of new airplane production, and the apparent economic feasibility of operating older technology airplanes rather than retiring them, increased attention needed to be focused on the aging airplane fleet and maintaining its continued operational safety.
        The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America and the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) of America agreed to undertake the task of identifying and implementing procedures to ensure the continued structural airworthiness of aging transport category airplanes. An Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG) was established in August 1988, with members representing aircraft manufacturers, operators, regulatory authorities, and other aviation industry representatives worldwide. The objective of the AAWG was to sponsor “Task Groups” to:
        1. Select service bulletins, applicable to each airplane model in the transport fleet, to be recommended for mandatory modification of aging airplanes;
        2. Develop corrosion-directed inspections and prevention programs;
        3. Review the adequacy of each operator's structural maintenance program;
        4. Review and update the Supplemental Inspection Documents (SID); and
        5. Assess repair quality.
        In addition, we have received several reports of cracking of the main fuselage frame on McDonnell Douglas Model DC 9-10 series airplanes at station Y=642.000. The cracking has been attributed to stress corrosion. The AAWG task group for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes has determined that we should mandate inspections for cracks of the main fuselage frame, and repair if necessary, in accordance with the service bulletin described below. Stress corrosion cracking, if not detected and corrected, could propagate and result in extensive damage to adjacent structure, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
        The subject area on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes is identical to that on the affected Model DC 9-10 series airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
        Relevant Service Information
        We have reviewed McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168, dated November 17, 1983; including McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, dated August 23, 1983 (attached to the service bulletin). The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive inspections for stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame at Station Y=642.000 (for Model DC-9-10 and DC-9-20 series airplanes), Station Y=756.000 (for Model DC-9-30 series airplanes), Station Y=794.000 (for Model DC-9-40 series airplanes), and Station Y=851.000 (for Model DC-9-50 series airplanes). The service bulletin specifies that operators should use one of four inspection methods during each repetitive inspection cycle: optical-aided visual, dye-penetrant, eddy current, or ultrasonic. The service bulletin specifies that operators should record all inspection results, and send a report to the manufacturer. If no crack is found, the service bulletin provides procedures for repeating the inspection until the frame is replaced. If any crack is found in a pocket area and the crack is within the trim-out limits specified in Service Sketch 3529, the service bulletin provides procedures for repeating the inspection until the frame is replaced. If any crack is found in a pocket area and the crack exceeds the trim-out limits specified in Service Sketch 3529, the service bulletin specifies that the corrective action is replacing the frame. In addition, if any crack is found in the web, the service bulletin specifies that the corrective action is replacing the frame. The service bulletin specifies that replacing the frame with a new or serviceable frame made of 7075-T73 aluminum material terminates the repetitive inspection requirements for that frame only. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
        FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD
        We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
        Operators should note that, while it is not the FAA's usual policy to allow flight with known cracks, this AD permits further flight with cracking within certain limits. The manufacturer has advised us that they have data showing that the fuselage frame with the trim-out area, specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, meets the certification basis of the airplane. The cracked frame supports limit load without detrimental permanent deformation, and ultimate load without failure. The repetitive inspection interval of 3,400 flight hours for this area (specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed AD) is intended to detect crack growth caused by stress corrosion until the terminating action is accomplished. In consideration of these findings and the FAA's criteria for flight with known cracking, further flight with cracking within certain limits is permissible.
        Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information
        Although the service bulletin referenced in this proposed AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this proposed AD does not include that requirement.

        Although the service bulletin does not give a compliance time for replacing the frame if a crack is found in a pocket area and the crack exceeds the limits specified in Service Sketch 3529; or if a crack is found in the web; this proposed AD would require doing that replacement before further flight.
        Although the service bulletin does not give a compliance time for doing the inspection for crack growth if a crack in the pocket area is within the trim-out limits specified in Service Sketch 3529, this proposed AD would require doing that inspection before further flight.
        Clarification of Inspection Terminology
        In this proposed AD, the “optical-aided visual inspection” specified in the service bulletin is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD.
        Costs of Compliance
        There are about 1,017 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

          Estimated Costs

            Action
            Work hours
            Average labor rate per hour
            Parts
            Cost per airplane
            Number of U.S.-
              registered
              airplanes

            Fleet cost

            Inspection, per inspection cycle
            2
            $65
            $0
            $130, per inspection cycle
            376
            $48,880, per inspection cycle.

            Optional terminating acton (replacing the frame)

              1 96
            65
            7,305
            $13,545
            376
            Up to $5,092,920.

            1 Per airplane.

        Authority for This Rulemaking
        Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
        We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
        Regulatory Findings
        We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
        1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
        2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
        3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

        We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
          Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

        The Proposed Amendment
        Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

          PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
          1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

            § 39.13
            [Amended]
            2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

                McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2005-23197; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-109-AD.
              Comments Due Date
              (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 20, 2006.
              Affected ADs
              (b) None.
              Applicability
              (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-41, and DC-9-51 airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168, dated November 17, 1983.
              Unsafe Condition
              (d) This AD results from several reports of cracking of the main fuselage frame. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking of the main fuselage frame, which could result in extensive damage to adjacent structure, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
              Compliance
              (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
              Service Bulletin Reference
              (f) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-168, dated November 17, 1983, including McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, dated August 23, 1983.
              Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions
              (g) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 3,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection, dye-penetrant inspection, eddy current inspection, or ultrasonic inspection for stress corrosion cracks of the main fuselage frame in accordance with the service bulletin. Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight hours until the replacement in paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.

                Note 1:

                For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”

              Corrective Actions
              (h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, do the applicable action in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
              (1) If the crack is in the pocket area and the crack is within the trim-out limits specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, dated August 23, 1983: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 3,400 flight hours until the action in paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.
              (2) If the crack is in the pocket area and the crack exceeds the trim-out limits specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Sketch 3529, dated August 23, 1983, before further flight: Do the action in paragraph (i) of this AD.
              (3) If the crack is in the web, before further flight: Do the action in paragraph (i) of this AD.
              Optional Terminating Action
              (i) Replacing the frame with a new or serviceable frame made of 7075-T73 aluminum material in accordance with the service bulletin terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for that frame only.
              No Reporting Required
              (j) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
              Parts Installation
              (k) After the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a frame made of 7075-T6 aluminum material.
              Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
              (l) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

            Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 25, 2005.
            Ali Bahrami,
            Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-23655 Filed 12-5-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [CA 241-0310b; FRL-7224-3]
        Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, California State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) portion of the California SIP. These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent cleaning operations. We are proposing action on local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by July 5, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
          You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:

            Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 3033 North Central Avenue (T5109), Phoenix, Arizona, 85012.
            Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air Quality Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
            California Air Resources Board (CARB), Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
            Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California 94109.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Charnjit Bhullar, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1153.

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

          Table of Contents
          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
          B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
          C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
          B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
          C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
          D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules.
          E. Proposed Action and Public Comment.
          III. Background Information
          Why Were These Rules Submitted?
          IV. Administrative Requirements

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
        Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          Table 1.—Submitted Rules

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            MCESD
            331
            Solvent Cleaning
            04/07/99
            08/04/99

            BAAQMD
            8-16
            Solvent Cleaning Operations
            09/16/98
            03/28/00

        On October 18, 1999 and May 19, 2000, these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
        MCESD and BAAQMD adopted earlier versions of these rules on June 19, 1996 and June 15, 1994, and ADEQ and CARB submitted them to us on February 26, 1997 and September 28, 1994. We approved these versions into the SIP on February 9, 1998 and December 9, 1994.
        C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?
        Rule 331 applies to all operations using solvents containing VOCs including batch-loaded and in-line, non-vapor and vapor degreasers. Rule 331 does not apply to degreasing operations using solvents containing hazardous air pollutants which are regulated by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for halogenated solvent cleaning (40 CFR part 63, subpart T).
        Rule 8-16 implements control measure A-18 of the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plans. It was adopted by the BAAQMD as part of its June 16, 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan in response to EPA's July 10, 1998 redesignation of the Bay Area as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (63 FR 37258). Rule 8-16 applies to cold and vapor cleaners using solvents containing VOCs.
        Both rules establish work practice standards and other requirements designed to control VOC emissions. The TSDs have more information about these rules.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
        Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(1) and 193). The MCESD and BAAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 331 and Rule 8-16 must fulfill RACT.
        Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
        1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

        2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Document,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
        3. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning, (EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977).
        4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Control Technology for Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations (CARB, July 18, 1991).
        B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
        These rules improve the SIP by establishing more stringent emission limits and by clarifying monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping provisions. These rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.
        C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
        These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revisions.
        Rule 331 Deficiencies:
        1. The provisions of this rule exempt sources that are not necessarily covered by another federally approved rule.

        2. Subsections of this rule provide methods of determining capture efficiency, but do not refer to EPA's January 9, 1995 guidance document, “Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency” describing calculation procedures.
        3. Sections II and III of the appendix to this rule do not clarify which and how standards are adjusted for boiling point.

        4. Section II-6 of the appendix to this rule raise the threshold limit for additional control (from 10.75 ft 2 to 13 ft 2) without adequately justifying this relaxation.
        Rule 8-16 Deficiencies:
        1. Section 8-16-501.2 allows facility-wide make-up solvent recording on an annual basis, which is not sufficient to ensure that the rule is enforceable pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
        2. Rule 8-16 contains a number of incorrect section references that may result in enforcement ambiguity.
        D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
        The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
        E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
        As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing a limited approval of the submitted rules to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rules under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the MCESD and BAAQMD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing them.
        We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.
        III. Background Information
        Why Were These Rules Submitted?
        VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VOC rules.

          Table 2.—Ozone Nonattainment Milestones

            Date
            Event

            March 3, 1978
            EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.

            May 26, 1998
            EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA's SIP- Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act.

            November 15, 1990
            Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

            May 15, 1991
            Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this date.

        IV. Administrative Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866
        The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
        B. Executive Order 13211
        This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        C. Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
        D. Executive Order 13132

        Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, “Federalism” and 12875, “Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership”. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
        E. Executive Order 13175
        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
        F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
        G. Unfunded Mandates
        Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
        EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
        EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.

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

          Dated: May 20, 2002.
          Keith Takata,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 02-14038 Filed 6-4-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 110303179-1178-02]
        RIN 0648-XA163
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2011 Specifications for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery for the 2011 fishing year (FY) (May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012). The implementing regulations for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish specifications for up to a period of 5 years, and to provide an opportunity for public comment on those specifications. The intent of this rulemaking is to specify the commercial quota and other management measures for FY 2011 only. Specifically, for FY 2011, NMFS proposes that the annual quota be set at 20 million lb (9,071.85 mt), and that the possession limit for dogfish remain 3,000 lb (1.36 mt). These proposed specifications and management measures are consistent with the FMP and promote the utilization and conservation of the spiny dogfish resource.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on April 18, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XA163, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: 978-281-9135, Attn: Lindsey Feldman.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on 2011 Dogfish Specifications.”

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

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State St., Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: 978-675-2179, fax: 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Spiny dogfish were declared overfished by NMFS on April 3, 1998, and added to the list of overfished stocks in the Report on the Status of the Fisheries of the United States, prepared pursuant to section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Consequently, the Magnuson-Stevens Act required NMFS to prepare measures to end overfishing and rebuild the spiny dogfish stock. During 1998 and 1999, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) developed a joint FMP, with the MAFMC designated as the administrative lead.

        The regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L, outline the process for specifying the commercial quota and other management measures (e.g., minimum or maximum fish sizes, seasons, mesh size restrictions, possession limits, and other gear restrictions) necessary to ensure that the target fishing mortality rate (target F) specified in the FMP will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1-April 30), for a period of 1-5 FYs. The annual quota is allocated to two semi-annual quota periods, as follows: Period 1, May 1 through October 31 (57.9 percent); and Period 2, November 1 through April 30 (42.1 percent).
        The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee (MC), which is comprised of representatives from states; MAFMC staff; NEFMC staff; NMFS staff; academia; and two non-voting, ex-officio industry representatives (one each from the MAFMC and NEFMC regions), is required to review the best available information and to recommend a commercial quota and other management measures necessary to achieve the target F for 1-5 FYs. The Council's Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee) considers the MC's recommendations and any public comment in making its recommendation to the two Councils. The MAFMC and the NEFMC then review the recommendations of the MC and Joint Committee and make their recommendations to NMFS. NMFS reviews those recommendations, and may modify them if necessary to assure that the target F will not be exceeded. NMFS then publishes proposed measures for public comment.
        Spiny Dogfish Stock Status Update

        NMFS declared the spiny dogfish stock rebuilt on June 22, 2010, based on an analysis of biological reference points presented at the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) meeting in January 2010. A group of peer reviewers, using information from the TRAC analysis, accepted a newly defined spiny dogfish biomass target (159,288 mt), Ftarget (0.207), and Fthreshold (0.325). The 2009 stochastic estimate of spawning stock biomass (SSB) (163,256 mt) was shown to exceed the newly defined biomass target, which was consistent with a rebuilt stock. Based on the recommendation of the MC and TRAC analysis showing the spiny dogfish stock was rebuilt, NMFS set the FY 2010 spiny dogfish specifications at 15 million lb (5,443.11 mt) (75 FR 36012, June 24, 2010).

        In the fall of 2010, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) updated the spiny dogfish stock status using the population modeling approach from the 43rd Stock Assessment Workshop (43rd SAW, 2006), 2009 catch data, and results from the 2010 spring bottom trawl survey. The update specified that the female spawning stock biomass (SSB) for 2010 is 164,066 mt (362 million lb), about 3 percent above the maximum spawning stock biomass, SSBmax (159,288 mt), the maximum sustainable yield biomass (Bmsy) proxy.

        The NEFSC stock status update confirmed that overfishing of spiny dogfish is not occurring, the stock is not overfished, and the stock is rebuilt. The NEFSC stock status update also revised fishing mortality reference points, as the fishery is no longer held to the rebuilding Ftarget of 0.11. The updated target and threshold Fs are 0.207 and 0.325, respectively.
        The updated stock assessment noted that there are still a number of concerns about the condition of the stock. Although recruitment to the fishery increased in 2010, a decline in SSB is expected when small 1997-2003 year-classes recruit to the SSB (in approximately 2015), due to estimated low pup production from 1997-2003 implicated by survey catches of pups and low survey catches of the sizes categories for these year classes. In addition, rates of pup production may be lower than historic levels due to a skewed male-to-female sex ratio of approximately 3:1.
        Technical Recommendations

        The MAFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met September 21-22, 2010, to develop an acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation for spiny dogfish for FY 2011, based on the NEFSC stock status update. The development of the proposed 2011 spiny dogfish specifications was consistent with the Mid-Atlantic Omnibus Amendment (also Amendment 2 to the FMP), which will implement annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for the spiny dogfish fishery. Consistent with the SSC's risk policy for an ‘typical’ stock, in which the species' life history makes it vulnerable to overfishing, the SSC categorized the updated spiny dogfish assessment as a Level 3 assessment, due to uncertainty in calculating the overfishing limit (OFL). The designation of the spiny dogfish fishery as a Level 3 assessment dictates that the SSC recommend the OFL for spiny dogfish equal 75 percent of Ftarget (20,267 mt), and that the ABC be set as a reduction from OFL based on a probability of overfishing of 35 percent. The ABC that corresponds to a probability of overfishing of 35 percent was calculated to be 75 percent of the OFL, and is equal to 15,200 mt.
        Subsequently, on September 24, 2010, the MC met to recommend the appropriate quota and possession limits for spiny dogfish in FY 2011, based on the SSC's ABC recommendation. To set the appropriate commercial quota, the MC deducted all other sources of fishing mortality for the spiny dogfish stock (U.S. commercial dead discards, recreational landings and discards, and Canadian commercial landings). Due to a dramatic decrease in Canadian spiny dogfish landings and potential changes in trawl effort in 2009, the MC decided to reduce the ABC by actual 2009 removals. Excluding U.S. commercial landings, removals (U.S. commercial dead discards, recreational landings and discards, and Canadian commercial landings) in 2009 were approximately 6,043.66 mt (13.324 M lb). The commercial quota that is available after deducting the removals from the SSC's ABC recommendation is 20.186 million lb (15,200 mt minus 6,043.66 mt; 9,156.34 mt). The MC recommended a commercial quota of 20.0 million lb (9,071.85 mt), in order to build in an additional buffer for other assorted sources of uncertainty. The MC also recommended maintaining possession limits at 3,000 lb (1.36 mt), unchanged from 2010.
        Council Recommendations
        At an October 13-14, 2010 meeting, the MAFMC and the Spiny Dogfish Joint Committee approved the FY 2011 commercial quota for spiny dogfish of 20 million lb (9,071.85 mt), and the possession limit of 3,000 lb (1.36 mt), as recommended by the MC. The NEFMC met on November 18, 2010, and concurred with recommendations of the Joint Committee. While management measures may subsequently be established for up to 5 years, the Councils are currently recommending specifications and management measures for FY 2011 only, to account for new information on the stock that may become available, as well as for the implementation of ACLs and AMs that will be enacted for spiny dogfish as a part of the Mid-Atlantic Omnibus Amendment (also Amendment 2 to the FMP).
        Proposed Measures
        NMFS reviewed both Councils' recommendation and concluded that the quota recommendations would adequately allow utilization and conservation of the spiny dogfish resource. Therefore, NMFS proposes the measures recommended by both Councils for FY 2011: Setting the commercial spiny dogfish quota at 20.0 million lb (9,071.85 mt); and maintaining the current possession limit of 3,000 lb (1.36 mt). As specified in the FMP, quota Period 1 (May 1 through October 31) would be allocated 57.9 percent of the quota (11,580,000 lb (5,252.6 mt)), and quota Period 2 (November 1 through April 30) would be allocated 42.1 percent of the quota (8,420,000 lb (3,819.25 mt)).
        The proposed 2011 spiny dogfish commercial quota is consistent with the commercial quota adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). On November 12, 2010, the Commission approved a FY 2011 quota for spiny dogfish of 20 million lb (9,071.85 mt), and a maximum possession limit of 3,000 lb (1.36 mt). The Commission allocates the commercial quota by region: The Northern region is allocated 58 percent of the quota, the Southern region is allocated 26 percent of the quota, and North Carolina is allocated 16 percent of the quota. While the Federal fishery is closed when the commercial quota is projected to be harvested, it is the responsibility of the individual states to close their fishery at the recommendation of the Commission when the regional allocation is projected to be harvested. Implementing a commercial quota of 20 million lb (9,071.85 mt) ensures consistency with the Commission. However, there are still inconsistencies in the quota allocation scenario between the state and Federal FMPs, which is sometimes confusing for fishermen and creates administrative burden. The issue of quota allocation will be reconsidered by the Councils in upcoming Amendment 3 to the FMP, and is not the subject of this rulemaking.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Spiny Dogfish FMP, other provisions of 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.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see
          ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows:

        Statement of Objective and Need
        A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and is not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
        According to NMFS permit file data, 3,020 vessels were issued Federal spiny dogfish permits in FY 2009, while 398 of these vessels contributed to overall landings. All of the potentially affected businesses are considered small entities under the standards described in NMFS guidelines because they have gross receipts that do not exceed $4 million annually. Information from FY 2009 was used to evaluate impacts of this action, as that is the most recent year for which data are complete.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities

        The IRFA considered three distinct alternatives. The proposed action (Alternative 2) specifies a commercial quota for spiny dogfish of 20.0 million lb (9,071.85 mt), and maintains the current possession limit of 3,000 lb (1.36 mt) for FY 2011. The proposed commercial quota is higher than the Status Quo (Alternative 1) option, which would maintain the FY 2011 commercial quota for spiny dogfish at 15 million lb (5,443.11 mt). Alternative 3 would specify a commercial quota of 31.4 million lb (14,242.8 mt), a level set to achieve the existing Ftarget of 0.207. None of the alternatives propose to modify the current 3,000-lb (1.36-mt) possession limit.
        If implemented, and assuming that the quota is fully attained, the proposed action would be expected to increase revenue levels for affected businesses, thereby having a positive economic impact on small entities. By contrast, Alternative 1 (status quo) would maintain the current revenue levels, and Alternative 3 would be expected to increase revenue from dogfish landings. Total spiny dogfish revenue from the last complete FY (2009) was reported as $2.360 million. Using the average FY 2009 price/lb ($0.22), landing the full FY 2010 quota of 15 million lb (5,443.11 mt), (and also the FY 2011 quota under Alternative 1) would yield $3.300 million in fleet revenue. Using the same approach, revenue would be expected to increase to $4.400 million under the proposed action (Alternative 2) and $6.898 million under Alternative 3. The quota level of the proposed action allows the highest level of harvest of spiny dogfish while taking into account scientific uncertainty about the stock's population. Additionally, although the level of increased revenue for small entities is expected to be less than under Alternative 3, the proposed action is more likely to prevent overfishing of the spiny dogfish resource and promote a more stable stream of commercial landings and revenues over the long term.

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

          Dated: March 11, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-6264 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH10
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Prudency Determinations for Eight Plant Species From the Hawaiian Islands, and Proposed Critical Habitat Designations for Eighteen Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, Hawaii; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The proposed rule to determine prudency for eight plant species from the Hawaiian Islands and to propose critical habitat designations for eighteen plant species from the island of Lanai was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 82086). This document contains corrections to the proposed designations of critical habitat for eighteen plant species from Lanai. These corrections are necessary to provide the correct map of general locations of units for eighteen plant species from Lanai and to provide the correct maps and UTM coordinates for critical habitat units Lanai B, I, and J. As noted in the proposed rule, the GIS maps are provided to assist the public in identifying areas that may fall within the proposed designations. The corrected critical habitat units are described below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850-0001 (telephone 808/541-3441; facsimile 808/541-3470).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On December 27, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposal to designate critical habitat for 18 plant species from the island of Lanai, Hawaii. In that proposal, a total of approximately 1,953 hectares (ha) (4,826 acres (ac)) on the island of Lanai were proposed as critical habitat.

        As published, the proposal contained errors in Table 5 (“Approximate Proposed Critical Habitat Area by Unit, Lanai, Maui County, Hawaii”) and in the “Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units” for units Lanai B and I. The corrected total area for Lanai B is 137 ha (339 ac) and for Lanai I 176 ha (436 ac). As a result, the corrected total area proposed as critical habitat is now 2,034 ha (5,027 ac) on Lanai. In addition, the proposal contained errors in the legal descriptions and maps depicting critical habitat for units Lanai B, I, and J. We are providing corrected legal descriptions and GIS maps of critical habitat units Lanai B, I, and J. The legal descriptions of the critical habitat designations required by regulation (50 CFR 424.12(c)) are the UTM coordinates that provide specific limits using reference points as found on standard topographic maps of the areas.
        Accordingly, make the following corrections to FR Doc. 00-31080 published at 65 FR 82086 on December 27, 2000:

          PART 17—[CORRECTED]

            § 17.96
            [Corrected]
            1. On page 82111, in § 17.96(a)(1)(i)(E), correct the map for “General Locations of Units for 18 Species of Plants, Island of Lanai” to read as follows:

            § 17.96
            Critical habitat—plants.
            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (E) * * *
            BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

              EP06AP01.025

            2. On page 82112, in column 2, in § 17.96(a)(1)(i)(E), correct the coordinates and legal description, and map for Lanai B to read as follows:

            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (E) * * *
            Critical Habitat Unit Lanai B: Area consists of the following seven boundary points: 723152, 2299428; 723686, 2299254; 723871, 2298540; 723158, 2298040; 722708, 2298220; 722422, 2298574; 722551, 2299102.

              NOTE:
              Map follows:

              EP06AP01.026

            3. On page 82114, in column 3, in § 17.96(a)(1)(i)(E), correct the coordinates and legal description, and map for Lanai I to read as follows:

            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (E) * * *
            Critical Habitat Unit Lanai I: Area consists of the following seven boundary points: 723999, 2305825; 723340, 2305440; 722686, 2305597; 722499, 2306432; 723217, 2306957; 723807, 2306835; 724116, 2306461.

              Note:
              Map follows:

              EP06AP01.027

            4. On page 82115, in columns 1 and 2, in § 17.96(a)(1)(i)(E), correct the coordinates and legal description, and map for Lanai J to read as follows:

            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (E) * * *
            Critical Habitat Unit Lanai J: Area consists of the following eight points and the intermediate coastline: 702559, 2313776; 702658, 2313650; 702688, 2313348; 702566, 2313030; 702299, 2312864; 702063, 2312826; 701890, 2312877; 701888, 2312878.

              Note:
              Map follows:

              EP06AP01.028

            Dated: March 28, 2001.
            Rowan W. Gould,
            Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-8473 Filed 4-5-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-C


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BB58
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 18B

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) has submitted Amendment 18B to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic (Amendment 18B) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Management actions in Amendment 18B would: establish a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery; establish initial eligibility requirements for a golden tilefish longline endorsement; establish an appeals process; allocate commercial golden tilefish quota among gear groups; establish a procedure for the transfer of golden tilefish endorsements; modify the golden tilefish trip limits; and establish a trip limit for commercial fishermen who do not receive a golden tilefish longline endorsement.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Time, on December 26, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0177”, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0177” in the search field and click on “search”. After you have located the notice of availability, click on “Submit a Comment” link in that row. This will display the comment web form. You can enter your submitter information (unless you prefer to remain anonymous), and type your comment on the web form. You can also attach additional files (up to 10 MB) in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this notice will not be accepted.

          For further assistance with submitting a comment, see the “Commenting” section at http://www.regulations.gov/#!faqs or the Help section at http://www.regulations.gov.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 18B may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/SASnapperGrouperHomepage.htm. Amendment 18B includes a draft environmental assessment, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        Background
        Recent amendments to the FMP have imposed more restrictive harvest limitations on snapper-grouper fishermen. In an effort to identify other species to harvest, more fishermen may target golden tilefish. Increased effort for golden tilefish would intensify the “race to fish” that already exists, which has resulted in a shortened fishing season for the last 6 years. The longline endorsement program would limit participation and reduce overcapacity in the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery; thereby easing derby conditions, which have occurred in recent years.
        The South Atlantic Council has submitted Amendment 18B to NMFS for agency review under procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The South Atlantic Council approved the amendment during its June 2012 meeting.
        Management Measures Contained in This Amendment
        Longline Endorsement Program for Golden Tilefish
        This amendment would establish a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. The endorsement program is expected to limit participation to achieve optimum yield and reduce excess capacity in the fishery. Amendment 18B would establish eligibility criteria for the endorsement program based on golden tilefish landings using longline gear averaging at least 5,000 lb (2,268 kg), gutted weight, for an individual's best 3 fishing years within the period 2006 through 2011. This would reduce the number of potential participants who would qualify for an endorsement to 23.
        Establish an Appeals Process
        The amendment would establish an appeals process for fishermen who might have been incorrectly excluded from receiving a golden tilefish longline endorsement. The appeals process would set aside a period of 90 days to accept appeals to the golden tilefish endorsement program starting on the effective date of the final rule. The National Appeals Office would review, evaluate, and render recommendations on appeals to the Regional Administrator (RA). The RA would review, evaluate, and render a decision on each appeal. Hardship arguments would not be considered. The outcome of appeals would be based on NMFS' logbooks. If NMFS' logbooks are not available, state landings records would be used. Appellants would have to submit NMFS' logbooks or state landings records to support their appeal.
        Allocate Commercial Golden Tilefish Quota Among Gear Groups
        The amendment would allocate the golden tilefish commercial annual catch limit (ACL) between the longline and hook-and-line components. Seventy-five percent of the ACL, or 405,971 lb (184,145 kg), gutted weight, would be allocated to the longline component and 25 percent of the ACL, or 135,324 lb (61,382 kg), gutted weight, would be allocated to the hook-and-line component.
        Allow for Transferability of Golden Tilefish Endorsements
        The amendment would establish a procedure to transfer golden tilefish endorsements. A valid (not expired) golden tilefish endorsement or a renewable (expired but renewable) golden tilefish endorsement would be able to be transferred between any two individuals or entities that hold, or simultaneously obtain, a South Atlantic Unlimited Snapper-Grouper Permit.
        Modify the Golden Tilefish Trip Limits
        Currently, the trip limit is 4,000 lb (1,814 kg), gutted weight, for the commercial sector. If 75 percent of the ACL is reached before September 1 of the fishing year, the trip limit is reduced to 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight. The step-down trip limit was originally intended to allow hook-and-line fishermen access to golden tilefish in the fall. In recent years, a derby fishery has developed for golden tilefish and the ACL has been met so rapidly that the 300-lb (136-kg), gutted weight, trip limit has not been triggered. Therefore, the 300-lb (136-kg), gutted weight, trip limit is not having the expected effect of extending the fishing season. Moreover, having separate allocations and ACLs for longline and hook-and-line gear makes the 300-lb (136-kg), gutted weight, trip limit unnecessary. The amendment would eliminate the step-down trip limit and the commercial trip limit of 4,000 lb (1,814 kg), gutted weight, would remain. Hook-and-line fishermen would still be able to harvest golden tilefish under the hook-and-line ACL.
        Establish Trip Limits for Fishermen who do not Receive a Golden Tilefish Longline Endorsement

        The amendment would establish a trip limit of 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, for the golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery for commercial fishermen who do not receive a longline endorsement. Vessels with golden tilefish longline endorsements would not be eligible to fish under this trip limit with other gear (i.e., hook-and-line). Proposed Rule for Amendment 18B

        NMFS proposes a rule that would implement management measures outlined in the Amendment 18B. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        Comments received by December 26, 2012, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: October 23, 2012.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-26418 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 12-53; RM-11658; DA 12-328]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Dermott, AR, and Cleveland, MS

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document sets forth a proposal to amend the FM Table of Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 73.202(b). The Commission requests comment on a petition filed by Delta Radio Network, LLC, proposing to amend the Table of Allotments by substituting Channel 224A for vacant Channel 289A, at Dermott, Arkansas, and by substituting Channel 226C2 for Channel 225C2 at Cleveland, Mississippi. The proposal is part of a contingently filed “hybrid” application and rule making petition. Channel 224A can be allotted at Dermott, Arkansas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 3.5 km (2.2 miles) southeast of Dermott, at 33-30-23 North Latitude and 91-24-19 West Longitude. Channel 226C2 can be allotted at Cleveland, Mississippi, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 25.4 km (15.8 miles) northwest of Cleveland, at 33-55-25 North Latitude and 90-53-40 West Longitude. See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
            infra.

          DATES:
          The deadline for filing comments is April 23, 2012. Reply comments must be filed on or before May 8, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve petitioner as follows: Larry J. Fuss, President, Delta Radio Network, LLC, 9408 Grand Gate Street, Las Vegas, NV 89143-1397.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 418-7072.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 12-53, adopted February 29, 2012, and released March 2, 2012. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site, www.bcpiweb.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4).

        The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Nazifa Sawez,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments, is amended as follows:
            a. Under Arkansas, by removing 289A and adding 224A at Dermott.
            b. Under Mississippi, by removing 225C2 and adding 226C2 at Cleveland.

      [FR Doc. 2012-6960 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P