        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 09-1755; MB Docket No. 08-110; RM-11453]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Flagstaff, AZ

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Multimedia Holdings Corporation (“MHC”), the permittee of station KNAZ-TV, channel 2, Flagstaff, Arizona. MHC is currently operating on its allotted pre-transition DTV channel 22 pursuant to Special Temporary Authority (“STA”). MHC requests the substitution of channel 22 for channel 2 at Flagstaff.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before August 28, 2009, and reply comments on or before September 8, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Marnie Sarver, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joyce L. Bernstein, joyce.bernstein@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-110, adopted August 4, 2009, and released August 5, 2009. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via e-mail www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). 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).

        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
          Television, Television broadcasting.

        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.

            § 73.622(i)
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Arizona, is amended by adding DTV channel 22 and removing DTV channel 2 at Flagstaff.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Clay C. Pendarvis,
            Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E9-19330 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [SIP NO. MT-001-0048; FRL-7580-1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to disapprove a State Implementation Plan revision submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2003. This revision provides existing aluminum plants an exemption to meeting emission limits during scheduled maintenance. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 28, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments may be submitted by mail to Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Comments may also be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions described in (Part (I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii)) of the Supplementary Information section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Laurie Ostrand, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312-6437, ostrand.laurie@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. General Information
          II. Background
          III. Why EPA is Proposing to Disapprove the State of Montana's January 16, 2003 Submittal
          IV. Proposed Action
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Definitions
        For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
        (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
        (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
        (iii) The MACT standard refers to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.
        (iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
        (v) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless the context indicates otherwise.
        I. General Information
        A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

        1. The Regional Office has established an official public rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA has established an official public rulemaking file for this action under MT-001-0048. The official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the For Further Information Contact section to schedule your inspection. You may view the public rulemaking file at the Regional Office Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal Holidays.
        2. Copies of the State submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Air and Waste Management Bureau, 1520 E. 6th Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620.
        3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the Regulations.gov Web site located at http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit comments on, Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
        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 at the EPA Regional Office, 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 the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.
        B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
        You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking MT-001-0048” 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.

          1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

          i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail). Please send any comments simultaneously to long.richard@epa.gov and ostrand.laurie@epa.gov and include the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking MT-001-0048” in the subject line. EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly without going through “Regulations.gov” (see below), EPA's e-mail system will automatically capture your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket.
        ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then click on the button “TO SEARCH FOR REGULATIONS CLICK HERE” and select Environmental Protection Agency as the Agency name to search on. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
        iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in section 2, directly below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
        2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Please include the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking MT-001-0048” in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
        3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal Holidays.
        C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
        Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

        In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section.
        D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
        1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
        2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
        3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
        4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
        5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        6. Offer alternatives.
        7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

        8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.
        II. Background
        On January 16, 2003, the State of Montana submitted a new rule for incorporation into the SIP. The rule is titled Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants. On April 1, 2003, we sent a letter to the State indicating that the submittal was complete pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
        The rule was adopted as part of the SIP. The rule covers maintenance of air pollution control equipment for existing aluminum plants. There is currently one source that is subject to this rule, the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC) in Columbia Falls, Montana. CFAC operates a primary aluminum reduction plant. The plant is equipped with air pollution control equipment, including ducts conveying exhaust to dry scrubbers. The State and CFAC have indicated they believe that air pollution control equipment requires periodic maintenance to keep it in good operating order. The State and CFAC have also indicated that the failure to maintain the air pollution control equipment eventually results in the failure of the equipment. Finally, the State and CFAC have indicated that the failure of the equipment would result in air pollution emissions from the plant that exceed those allowed and may create an unacceptable risk to public heath.
        Further, the State and CFAC contend that the maintenance of the air pollution control equipment requires the plant to shut down the dry scrubbers and to bypass some of the dry scrubbers during the maintenance event. If the plant continues to operate during the shutdown of the dry scrubbers, the air pollution emissions from the plant may exceed those allowed by rules governing emission of air pollutants.
        In the past the plant has applied to the State for a variance from rules governing emission of air pollutants so that the plant could conduct maintenance on the air pollution control equipment while continuing to operate the plant. CFAC contends that the process for obtaining a variance is time consuming. The State has adopted a rule that allows the plant to maintain air pollution control equipment while the plant is operating, without requiring the plant to obtain a variance.

        Our review of ARM 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants, indicates that it is not approvable and we are proposing to disapprove Montana's SIP revision submitted on January 16, 2003 for the reasons indicated below.

        III. Why EPA Is Proposing To Disapprove the State of Montana's January 16, 2003 Submittal
        ARM 17.8.335 Is Not Consistent With the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA Policy
        First, ARM 17.8.335 provides an exemption to meeting emission limits for a specified source category during scheduled maintenance. Generally, since SIPs must provide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the achievement of the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) increments, all periods of excess emissions must be considered violations.1
           Accordingly, any provision that allows for an automatic exemption for excess emissions is prohibited. The appropriate mechanism for excusing excess emissions in this situation is through the exercise of enforcement discretion. We understand that the source conducted modeling to demonstrate that excess emissions during the maintenance procedures would not cause or contribute to violations of the Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) or NAAQS. Our concerns with the modeling are discussed below.

            1 See EPA's September 20, 1999 memorandum from Steven A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe to Regional Administrators entitled “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.”

        The State contends that the new rule only indicates that the Department may not initiate an enforcement action for excess emissions during maintenance of air pollution control equipment that results in a violation of emission standards and that the rule does not contain an exemption from enforcement for maintenance activities that violate a federal or state ambient air quality standard or PSD increments.

        We do not agree with the State. The 1970 Act established the air quality management process as a basic philosophy for air pollution control in this country. Under this system, we establish air quality goals (NAAQS) for common pollutants. States develop control programs (termed SIPs) and also issue permits under the PSD or nonattainment new source review programs, to assure that the NAAQS are attained and maintained. The NAAQS themselves are not an emission standard or limitation. Coalition Against Columbus Center v. New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769 (2d Cir. 1992). States establish enforceable emission limits in SIPs or permits at sources to assure that the NAAQS are met.
        Second, in guidance documents issued by EPA and other final rulemakings, we have indicated that scheduled maintenance is a predictable event which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and which can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently, excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that such emissions could not have been avoided through better scheduling for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance practices.2

            2 See EPA's September 28, 1982 policy memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett to Regional Administrators, entitled “Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunction,” page 3 of the Attachment. See also, 65 FR 51412, 51426 (August 23, 2000).

        The State contends that the aluminum process is unique in that the process does not include periodic shutdowns; the startup and shutdown process is expensive and lengthy; maintenance of the control equipment requires the plant to bypass some of the dry scrubbers. We are not convinced that the CFAC aluminum process is so unique, or that redundant control technology could not be added, to address scheduled maintenance. We are not aware of other aluminum facilities that have asked for an exemption to emission limits for scheduled maintenance. Some other aluminum facilities are designed so that maintenance can be completed on portions of the control equipment without having to shut down all of the control equipment.

        We are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.335 because we believe it is inconsistent with the Act (e.g., sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(i)), prior rulemakings and our guidance.
        Concerns With Impacts in the Columbia Falls PM-10 Nonattainment Area
        The impact of the “maintenance” emissions (i.e., the additional 700 lbs of PM per 24-hour period expected during maintenance) on the Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area were not analyzed. The State believes CFAC is in a different airshed from the nonattainment area and that emissions from CFAC do not have a significant impact on the Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area. We believe that further analyses need to be completed before it can be determined that CFAC does not impact the Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area. CFAC is only about one mile from the City of Columbia Falls. The State has not demonstrated that this plan revision will not interfere with the attainment plan for the Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area. Because of the potential impact in the Columbia Falls nonattainment area, we believe ARM 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants, may not be consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA. That is, EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if it interferes with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
        Concerns With the Modeling
        DEQ's testimony in the matter of the amendment of air quality rules pertaining to maintenance of air pollution control equipment for existing aluminum plants indicates that CFAC modeled its normal operations plus 700 lbs of PM-10 per 24-hour period.3
           Therefore, the normal operating emissions were considered along with the maximum allowable increase (700 lbs of PM-10 per 24-hour period) from the proposed maintenance procedure. Additionally, only emissions from the CFAC facility were considered in the analysis because the State determined that adding background concentration of PM-10 emissions measured at the onsite PM-10 monitor adequately represented the emissions from other sources in the area. We believe this modeling approach is inconsistent with the modeling rules and will not assure protection of the NAAQS for several reasons.

            3 The testimony is contained the documents submitted with the January 16, 2003 SIP. See Tab 10 of the submittal.

        Allowable emissions, rather than normal operating emissions, should be used in modeling. This requirement is contained in EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Table 9-1. Montana adopted these rules by reference and we have approved them into the State's SIP (see ARM 17.8.802(1)(g)). Additionally, “normal operating emissions” is not defined in the State's new rule and the rule does not explain how “normal operating emissions” are calculated. Finally, EPA's “Guideline on Air Quality Models” requires that any nearby point sources that cause a significant concentration gradient should also be included in the modeling. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 9.2.3. Other sources in the airshed including those at CFAC should also be included in the modeling.
        The State only required that the source model one month (i.e., September) for three years. We believe this is problematic because it is extremely unlikely that one would capture worst case conditions that may occur in future September periods. Three months of data is not enough to find even slightly adverse conditions. The State believes that since maintenance is only allowed in September using three years of onsite meteorological data for September should adequately represent the types of meteorological conditions that would be encountered during the maintenance procedures. We do not agree. EPA's Modeling Guidelines requires five years of National Weather Service meteorology data be used in modeling to assure that the most adverse meteorological conditions are considered in the analysis. See Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 9.3.1. Three months of data is clearly insufficient.
        Lastly, the modeling assumed a background concentration of 17 μg/m3. This value was taken from the monitor near the plant and not the monitor in Columbia Falls. We are not convinced that the 17 μg/m3 value is an appropriate value to be used for background concentration. Maximum ambient concentrations measured in Columbia Falls over the past several years in the August to October time frame have been on the order 16 to 48 μg/m3.
        Concerns With the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Requirements
        EPA has two concerns regarding the interaction of this rule with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (the MACT standard). First, we are concerned that by adopting this rule, the State of Montana may impact its automatic delegation of the MACT standard (40 CFR subpart LL, at ARM 17.8.103(1)(j) and 17.8.342) because the new rule could be interpreted to alter the requirements of the delegated MACT standard. Although the MACT standard adopted by Montana is not being revised, the new rule has a direct impact on the requirements of the MACT standard. EPA's MACT standard does not have any provision for exempting excess emissions during a maintenance event. Any excess emissions have to be reported and enforcement discretion used in determining what, if any, penalty is appropriate for the event. The MACT standard was automatically delegated to the State under the condition that the State's rule is identical to the EPA rule (40 CFR 63.91(a)(1)). If changes are made, the automatic delegation could be withdrawn and the State would have to undergo a formal delegation process in order to receive delegation for this MACT standard (40 CFR 63.91(a)(2)). This process would include a demonstration that the changed rule is at least as stringent as the EPA rule. Second, we are concerned that by adopting ARM 17.8.335, the State has rules with conflicting requirements—one set in the MACT standard adoption and one set in this SIP rule, leading to confusion for the source and public as to which one applies. We intend to engage the State in discussion to clarify this matter.
        IV. Proposed Action

        For the reasons identified above, EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP revision submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2003. The submittal requests that ARM 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment For Existing Aluminum Plants, be added to the SIP. We are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the new rule on the delegation of the MACT standard, 40 CFR subpart LL, at ARM 17.8.103(1)(j) and 17.8.342, to the State. We are soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the Addresses section of this document.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all “collections of information” by EPA. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for “answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *” 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because EPA's proposed disapproval action only affects one industrial source of air pollution; Columbia Falls Aluminum Corporation. Only one source is impacted by this action. Furthermore, as explained in this action, the submission does not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA cannot approve the submission. The proposed disapproval will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to the entity. Federal disapproval of a State submittal does not affect its State enforceability. Therefore, because the Federal SIP disapproval does not create any new requirements nor impact a substantial number of small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

        EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

          Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
        H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
        The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

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

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

          Dated: October 17, 2003.
          Robert E. Roberts,
          Regional Administrator, Region 8.

      [FR Doc. 03-27269 Filed 10-28-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 200806-0207]
        RIN 0648-BJ18
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 21 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted to NMFS Amendment 21 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 21 proposes revisions to the summer flounder commercial state quota allocation percentages and the fishery management plan goals and objectives. Amendment 21 is intended to increase equity in state allocations when annual coastwide commercial quotas are at or above historical averages, while recognizing the economic reliance coastal communities have on the state allocation percentages currently in place.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by September 11, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0107, by the following method:

            Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          • Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0107,

          • Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          • Enter or attach your comments.

            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).

          Copies of Amendment 21, including the Environmental Impact Statement, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EIS/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet at: http://www.mafmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9116.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission cooperatively manage summer flounder under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The joint FMP became effective in 1988, establishing measures to manage summer flounder fisheries. Summer flounder is an important commercial and recreational species. Currently, 60 percent of the total allowable landings limit (TAL) is allocated to the commercial fishery (coastwide annual commercial quota), with the remaining 40 percent allocated to the recreational fishery. Available quotas are fully utilized by both sectors in most if not all fishing years.
        The coastwide annual commercial quota is allocated to each of the states in the management unit (Maine-North Carolina) on a percentage basis. The existing commercial state-by-state allocations were last modified in 1993. The original allocations, adopted in 1992 as part of Amendment 2 to the FMP (December 4, 1992; 57 FR 57358), were based on available landings data from 1980-1989. Shortly thereafter, in 1993, the State of Connecticut argued that during the early and mid-1980s, the state did not have the authority to collect landings data from offshore fishermen, nor did the NMFS provide a port agent to the state that would have collected or validated landings information. Connecticut contended that their commercial landings during the allocation base years were underreported and therefore its quota share was too small. Amendment 4 (September 24, 1993; 58 FR 49937) increased Connecticut's quota share from 0.95 percent to 2.26 percent based on additional landings information provided by the state. The state-by-state allocations have not been modified since Amendment 4.

          Table 1—Current State-by-State Allocations

            State
            Current stateallocation
              percentage

            ME
            0.04756

            NH
            0.00046

            MA
            6.82046

            RI
            15.68298

            CT
            2.25708

            NY
            7.64699

            NJ
            16.72499

            DE
            0.01779

            MD
            2.03910

            VA
            21.31676

            NC
            27.44584

            Total
            100

        The current commercial allocation is perceived by many stakeholders as outdated, given that it was last modified in 1993 and is based on 1980-1989 landings data. Some other states and parties assert that the initial allocations were based on incomplete or otherwise flawed data.

        Summer flounder distribution, center of biomass, and location of fishing effort has changed over time, likely due to a combination of stock rebuilding and difficult to quantify but widely accepted climate-related changes in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and southern New England waters. As changing environmental conditions have resulted in an apparent shift in the average distribution of summer flounder, there have been requests to incorporate this information in setting state commercial quota allocations.
        On September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55432), the Council published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 21 to consider, in coordination with the Commission: (1) Performing a comprehensive review of all aspects of the FMP related to summer flounder; (2) updating the FMP goals and objectives for summer flounder management; and (3) modifying management strategies and measures as necessary to achieve those goals and objectives. The Council and Commission held scoping meetings during September and October of 2014 to solicit comments from the public regarding the range of commercial and recreational summer flounder management issues that should be considered in the amendment.
        On March 29, 2018 (83 FR 13478), the Council published a supplemental NOI announcing that the scope of the amendment would be narrowed to include only commercial summer flounder management considerations. Due to ongoing revisions to the recreational data by the Marine Recreational Information Program, the Council and Commission chose to delay development of an amendment addressing recreational issues. This included quota allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors, as well as recreational management measures and strategies. The supplemental NOI identified that the commercial fishery-focused amendment would specifically consider revisions to the current qualification criteria for Federal moratorium permit holders, the current allocation of commercial quota, and the current list of frameworkable items in the FMP, and would consider revising the FMP goals and objectives for summer flounder.
        On August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41072), the Environmental Protection Agency announced the public comment period for the Amendment 21 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The public comment period extended until October 12, 2018. During that time, the Council and Commission held public hearings on the DEIS in Old Lyme, Connecticut; Washington, North Carolina; Dover, Delaware; Newport News, Virginia; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Narragansett, Rhode Island; Toms River, New Jersey; Berlin, Maryland; Stony Brook, New York; and via webinar.
        In March 2019, the Council and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board approved Amendment 21 to the FMP to change the commercial quota allocation for summer flounder, as well as revise the FMP objectives for summer flounder. The Council and Commission also considered, but did not approve, changes to Federal permit qualifying criteria, and adding landings flexibility as a frameworkable subject in the FMP.

        A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 21 was published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2020 (85 FR 16446). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) allows us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures recommended by the Council in an amendment based on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. As such, we are seeking comments in response to the NOA on whether measures in Amendment 21 are consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. The comment period on the NOA ends on September 28, 2020. Comments submitted on the NOA and/or this proposed rule by that date, will be considered in our decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 21. We will consider comments received before the end of the comment period for this proposed rule (See DATES) in our decision to implement measures proposed by the Council.
        Proposed State-by-State Allocation Changes
        Amendment 21 would change the state-by-state commercial quota allocations when the coastwide quota exceeds 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt). When the coastwide quota is 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) or less, the quota would be distributed according to the current allocations. In years when the coastwide quota exceeds 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt), any additional quota, beyond this threshold, would be distributed in equal shares to all states except Maine, Delaware, and New Hampshire, which would split 1 percent of the additional quota. The Council and Board stated that this allocation alternative was selected over other alternatives to balance preservation of historical state access and infrastructure at recent quota levels, with an intent of providing equitability among states when the stock and quota are at high levels.

          Table 2—Proposed State-by-State Allocations

            State
            Allocation of baselinequota ≤9.55 mil lb
              (4,332 metric tons)
              (percent)

            Allocation of additional quota beyond9.55 mil lb
              (4,332 metric tons)
              (percent)

            ME
            0.04756
            0.333

            NH
            0.00046
            0.333

            MA
            6.82046
            12.375

            RI
            15.68298
            12.375

            CT
            2.25708
            12.375

            NY
            7.64699
            12.375

            NJ
            16.72499
            12.375

            DE
            0.01779
            0.333

            MD
            2.03910
            12.375

            VA
            21.31676
            12.375

            NC
            27.44584
            12.375

            Total
            100
            100

          Table 3—Status Quo State-by-State Allocations (in Percentages) and Resulting Quota (in lb) Compared to the Proposed Revised Allocation (in Percentages) and Resulting Quota (in lb) at the Current, 2020 Quota Level (11.53 Million lb)

            State
            Status quo stateallocation
              percentages

            Status quodistribution of
              11.53 million
              lb quota

            Revisedallocation
              percentages
              (11.53 million
              lb quota)

            Revisedallocation
              distribution of
              11.53 million
              lb quota

            Percentchange

            ME
            0.04756
            5,484
            0.09663
            11,142
            103.17

            NH
            0.00046
            53
            0.05762
            6,644
            12435.85

            MA
            6.82046
            786,399
            7.77432
            896,379
            13.99

            RI
            15.68298
            1,808,248
            15.11491
            1,742,750
            −3.62

            CT
            2.25708
            260,241
            3.99459
            460,576
            76.98

            NY
            7.64699
            881,698
            8.45891
            975,313
            10.62

            NJ
            16.72499
            1,928,391
            15.97798
            1,842,262
            −4.47

            DE
            0.01779
            2,051
            0.07198
            8,299
            304.63

            MD
            2.03910
            235,108
            3.81404
            439,759
            87.05

            VA
            21.31676
            2,457,822
            19.78123
            2,280,776
            −7.20

            NC
            27.44584
            3,164,505
            24.85779
            2,866,103
            −9.43

            Total
            100
            11,530,000
            100
            11,530,000
            0.00

          Table 4—Status Quo State-by-State Allocations (in Percentages) and Resulting Quota (in mt) Compared to the Proposed Revised Allocation (in Percentages) and Resulting Quota (in mt) at the Current, 2020 Quota Level (5,230 mt)

            State
            Status quostate
              allocation
              percentages

            Status quodistribution of
              5,230 mt quota

            Revisedallocation
              percentages
              (5,230 mt quota)

            Revisedallocation
              distribution of
              5,230 mt quota

            Percentchange

            ME
            0.04756
            2.49
            0.09663
            5.05
            103.17

            NH
            0.00046
            0.02
            0.05762
            3.01
            12435.85

            MA
            6.82046
            356.70
            7.77432
            406.59
            13.99

            RI
            15.68298
            820.21
            15.11491
            790.50
            −3.62

            CT
            2.25708
            118.04
            3.99459
            208.91
            76.98

            NY
            7.64699
            399.93
            8.45891
            442.39
            10.62

            NJ
            16.72499
            874.70
            15.97798
            835.64
            −4.47

            DE
            0.01779
            0.93
            0.07198
            3.76
            304.63

            MD
            2.03910
            106.64
            3.81404
            199.47
            87.05

            VA
            21.31676
            1,114.85
            19.78123
            1,034.54
            −7.20

            NC
            27.44584
            1,435.39
            24.85779
            1,300.04
            −9.43

            Total
            100
            5,229.92
            100
            5,229.92
            0.00

        Revised Summer Flounder FMP Goals and Objectives
        The original FMP objectives were adopted via Amendment 2 to the Summer Flounder FMP in 1993 and have remained unchanged since that time. Amendment 21 revises the FMP goals and objectives. While the current FMP contains only management objectives, the proposed revisions contain three overarching goals linked to more specific objectives. The proposed goals include: (1) Ensuring sustainability, of both the summer flounder stock and fishery; (2) increasing the effectiveness of management measures, through partnerships, enforcement, and data collection; and, (3) optimization of the social and economic benefits from the summer flounder stock. Additional information on these changes can be found in the EIS.
        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 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 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.
        This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under 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, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The IRFA incorporates sections of the preamble to this rule and analyses contained in Amendment 21 and its accompanying EIS/RIR/IRFA. A copy of the complete analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule

        This action proposes management measures for the commercial summer flounder fishery. This action is taken under the authority of the MSA and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The entities (i.e., the small and large businesses) that may be affected by this action include fishing operations with summer flounder moratorium (commercial) permits. The recreational fishery is not impacted by this action, and therefore entities with recreational party/charter permits are not considered here; nor are private recreational anglers which are not considered “entities” under the RFA. For RFA purposes only, NMFS established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing 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 $11 million, for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        Vessel ownership data were used to identify all individuals who own commercial fishing vessels. Vessels were then grouped according to common owners. The resulting groupings were then treated as entities, or affiliates, for purposes of identifying small and large businesses which may be affected by this action. Based on this grouping, a total of 607 affiliates reported revenues from commercial summer flounder landings during the 2016-2018 period, with 601 of those business affiliates categorized as small business and 6 categorized as large business.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        There are no proposed reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The proposed action (i.e., the suite of preferred alternatives) includes implementation of revised commercial quota allocation system for the summer flounder fishery. Specifically, this action would create state allocations that vary with overall stock abundance and resulting commercial quotas. For all years when the annual commercial quota is at or below 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt), the state allocations would remain status quo. In years when the annual coastwide quota exceeded this trigger, the first 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) would be distributed according to status quo allocations, and the additional quota beyond 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) would be distributed by equal shares (with the exception of Maine, New Hampshire, and Delaware, which would split 1 percent of the additional quota).
        Additional non-preferred alternatives were also considered. For the purposes of the RFA, only the preferred alternatives and those non-preferred alternatives which would minimize negative impacts to small businesses are required to be considered. Economic impacts would vary by state and community under all alternatives, but alternatives 2A (status quo) and alternatives 2C (the preferred alternative) are likely to have fewer negative impacts overall compared to other alternatives. Therefore, the preferred alternative (2C) is compared to the status quo (alternative 2A) in the quantitative analysis. Although not required, we also provide a brief summary of the relative impacts of the two additional non-preferred options (2B and 2D).
        The analysis was conducted assuming full utilization of the 2020 commercial quota of 11.53 million lb (5,230 mt). Results indicate that the proposed action of a quota reallocation threshold of 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) increases fleetwide revenue by $0.4 million relative to No Action and ex-vessel price by $0.04 per pound relative to No Action. The proposed action is estimated to yield a decrease in fishery-wide revenue of $0.15 million as compared to the quota reallocation threshold of 8.4 million lb (3,810 mt) (Alternative 2C-1). This slight decrease in revenue under the proposed action, relative to the highest revenue-generating alternative, is not expected to disproportionately impact small entities.
        Additional alternatives, 2B and 2D, were considered but not recommended by the Council. Alternatives 2B and 2D had more negative impacts on small businesses than the selected alternative. Alternative 2B considered revisions to the quota allocation based on recent summer flounder biomass distribution, alternative 2D, the “scup model”, considered a significant change in summer flounder management by creating a winter season that was open to any vessel with a summer flounder permit.
        Compared to the other allocation alternatives, the impacts of alternative 2D are the most difficult to determine, as this alternative is associated with the highest uncertainty regarding impacts on vessel participation, fishing effort, landings patterns, and market responses. Relative to alternative 2A, alternative 2D is expected to have a higher magnitude of positive or negative impacts to states and businesses, due to the substantial change in the management system that will benefit some and negatively impact others. Shoreside communities would also be impacted by alternative 2D. Many states have invested heavily in shoreside infrastructure to support their fleets. Under alternative 2D, the distribution of landings in the winter would be driven more by vessel preference and market factors, which would positively impact some shoreside businesses and negatively impact others.
        Alternative 2B would shift quota allocation from the Southern region of the management unit (North Carolina through New Jersey) to the Northern region (New York through Maine). Compared to alternative 2C, alternative 2B is more likely to have a higher magnitude of positive or negative impacts (depending on the state), as allocation changes would be permanently revised from status quo, while under 2C there is the potential for status quo allocation. Additionally, option 2C has a higher likelihood of costs and benefits being shared more equally over time as the quota fluctuates above and below the trigger point.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 6, 2020.
          Donna S. Wieting,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out 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.

        2. In § 648.102, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.102
          Summer flounder specifications.

          (c) * * *
          (1) Distribution of annual commercial quota. (i) For years when the annual commercial quota is at or below 9,550,000 lb (4,332 mt), the quota will be distributed to the states, based upon the following percentages (state followed by percent share in parenthesis): Maine (0.04756); New Hampshire (0.00046); Massachusetts (6.82046); Rhode Island (15.68298); Connecticut (2.25708); New York (7.64699); New Jersey (16.72499); Delaware (0.01779); Maryland (2.03910); Virginia (21.31676); and North Carolina (27.44584).
          (ii) For years when the annual commercial quota is greater than 9,550,000 lb (4,332 mt), the quota up to 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) will be distributed as outlined in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and the additional quota above 9.55 million lb will be distributed based upon the following percentages (state followed by percent share in parenthesis): Maine (0.333); New Hampshire (0.333); Massachusetts (12.375); Rhode Island (12.375); Connecticut (12.375); New York (12.375); New Jersey (12.375); Delaware (0.333); Maryland (12.375); Virginia (12.375); and North Carolina (12.375).

      [FR Doc. 2020-17609 Filed 8-11-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 00-25; MM Docket No. 93-28; RM-8172, RM-8299]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Colonial Heights, TN

          AGENCY:
           Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule, denial.

          SUMMARY:

           The Commission denied a petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on reconsideration, 62 FR 664, published January 6, 1997, filed by Newport Publishing Co., licensee of Station WMXK(FM), Channel 240A (95.9 MHz), Morristown, Tennessee. The Commission rejected Newport's claim that the uncertainty as to when it should change the frequency of WMXK(FM) to accommodate the upgrade of Station WRZK(FM), Channel 290A (105.9 MHz), Colonial Heights, Tennessee, was unduly burdensome and, therefore, contrary to Commission policy.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           J. Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
         This is a summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket 93-28, adopted January 6, 2000, and released January 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center (room CY-A257) at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may be also purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 00-2095 Filed 1-31-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-U


        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
        Mine Safety and Health Administration
        30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90
        RIN 1219-AB64
        Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors

          AGENCY:
          Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of public hearings; corrections.

          SUMMARY:

          The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will hold six public hearings on the proposed rule addressing Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. The proposed rule was published on October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64412) and is available on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/PROPOSED/2010Prop/2010-25249.pdf. This document also corrects a few errors in the preamble of the proposed rule.
          The proposed rule would lower miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust by revising the Agency's existing standards on miners' occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust. The major provisions of the proposal would lower the existing exposure limits for respirable coal mine dust; implement full-shift sampling to address extended work shifts; redefine the term “normal production shift;” and provide for the use of a single full-shift sample to determine compliance under the mine operator and MSHA's inspector sampling programs. The proposed rule would also require the use of the Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM) for exposure monitoring, and expand requirements for medical surveillance.
          The proposed rule would significantly improve health protections for underground and surface coal miners by reducing their occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust and lowering the risk that they will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity over their working lives.

          DATES:

          Hearings will be held on the following dates: December 7, 2010, December 9, 2010, January 11, 2011, January 13, 2011, January 25, 2011 and January 27, 2011. The locations are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
          Post-hearing comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on February 28, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be identified with “RIN 1219-AB64” and may be sent by any of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Electronic mail: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. Include “RIN 1219-AB64” in the subject line of the message.
          • Facsimile: 202-693-9441. Include “RIN 1219-AB64” in the subject line of the message.
          • Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.

          MSHA will post all comments on the Internet without change, including any personal information provided. Comments can be accessed electronically at http://www.msha.gov under the “Rules & Regs” link. Comments may also be reviewed in person at the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.

          MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register. To subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at Silvey.Patricia@dol.gov (E-mail), (202) 693-9440 (Voice), or (202) 693-9441 (Fax).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Public Hearings
        MSHA will hold six public hearings on the proposed rule to provide the public with an opportunity to present oral statements, written comments, and other information on this rulemaking. The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last presenter speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:

            Date
            Location
            Contact No.

            December 7, 2010
            National Mine Health and Safety Academy, 1301 Airport Road, Beaver, WV 25813
            304-256-3201

            December 9, 2010
            The George Washington Hotel, 60 South Main Street, Washington, PA 15301
            724-225-3200

            January 11, 2011
            Marriott Evansville Airport, 7101 Highway 41, North  Evansville, IN 47725
            812-867-7999

            January 13, 2011
            Sheraton Birmingham, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd., North Birmingham, AL 35203
            205-324-5000

            January 25, 2011
            Marriott Salt Lake City, 75 S West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
            801-531-0800

            January 27, 2011
            Mine Safety and Health Administration, 25th Floor Conference Room, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209
            202-693-9440

        The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. You do not have to make a written request to speak; however, persons and organizations wishing to speak are encouraged to notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes.
        Speakers and other attendees may present information to MSHA for inclusion in the rulemaking record. The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply.

        A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. The transcript will be available to the public on MSHA's website at http://www.msha.gov under the “Rules & Regs” link.
        MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and other appropriate information for the record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral statements. Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on February 28, 2011.

        MSHA solicits comments from the mining community on all aspects of the proposed rule and is particularly interested in comments that address alternatives to key provisions in the proposal. For example, MSHA invites comment on other situations where it may be appropriate to require the use of CPDMs, such as sampling of other designated occupations on the mechanized mining unit to account for all mining techniques, potential overexposures, and ineffective engineering controls. Commenters are requested to be specific in their comments and submit detailed rationale and supporting documentation for any comment or suggested alternative that is submitted.
        II. Corrections
        The following errors in the preamble to the proposed rule are corrected to read as follows:
        1. On page 64413, second column, top of the page, first line, “from 1-105 fewer cases of pneumoconiosis per thousand exposed truck drivers, and” should read “that improvements would range from 7 fewer cases of pneumoconiosis per thousand loading machine operators up to 105 fewer cases of pneumoconiosis,”.
        2. On page 64421, second column, top of the page, eighth line, “(100 ug mg/m3)” should read “(100 ug/m3)”.
        3. On page 64476, Table VII-6-Annualized Costs of Proposed Rule 7% Discount Rate, in the fourth column, under the heading “501 +”, first line, “$35.6” should read “$4.4,” and in the fifth column, under the heading, “Totals,” first line, insert “$35.6”.
        4. On page 64483, first column, second full paragraph, the equation:

        “ó
          i = ì
          i × CV
          total.”

        should read:

        “σ
          i = μ
          i × CV
          total”

        5. On page 64483, the equation in the center of the page:

          EP15NO10.001

        should read:

          EP15NO10.002

        6. On page 64483, second column, below the equation being corrected in 5. above, the equation:

          EP15NO10.003

        should read:

          EP15NO10.004

          Dated: November 9, 2010.
          Joseph A. Main,
          Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

      [FR Doc. 2010-28676 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4510-43-P