        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 040907255-4255-01; I.D. 082704E]
        RIN 0648-AS41
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revision of Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for the Pollock and Pacific Cod Fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS publishes a proposed rule that would adjust Steller sea lion protection measures for the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The revisions would adjust Pacific cod and pollock fishing closure areas near four Steller sea lion haulouts and modify the seasonal management of pollock harvest in the GOA. The intent of the revisions is to maintain protection for Steller sea lions and their critical habitat while easing the economic burden on GOA fishing communities. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by October 21, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
          • FAX to 907-586-7557;
          • E-mail to SSL2004-0648-AS41@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comments the following document identifier: GOA SSL Proposed Rule. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) prepared for the proposed rule and copies of the 1998 and 2001 Biological Opinions, and the June 19, 2003, supplement to the 2001 Biological Opinion, on the effects of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions may be obtained from the same mailing address above or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the GOA are managed under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
        Background
        The western distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions has been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and critical habitat has been designated for this DPS (50 CFR 226.202). Temporal and spatial harvest restrictions were established for the groundfish fisheries of Alaska (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003) to protect Steller sea lions from jeopardy of extinction and their critical habitat from adverse modification or destruction from the effects of these fisheries. Pollock and Pacific cod are important prey species for Steller sea lions, and these protection measures apply to the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA.

        In June 2004, the Council unanimously recommended revisions to the Steller sea lion protection measures in the GOA to alleviate some of the economic burden on coastal communities while maintaining protection for Steller sea lions and their critical habitat. These revisions would adjust pollock and Pacific cod fishing closures near four Steller sea lion haulouts and would revise seasonal management of pollock harvest. NMFS concluded in an ESA Section 7 informal consultation dated August 26, 2004, that fishing under the proposed revisions is not likely to adversely affect Steller sea lions beyond those effects already considered in the 2001 Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the Steller sea lion protection measures and its June 19, 2003 supplement (see ADDRESSES). Based on results of the informal consultation and the EA/RIR (see ADDRESSES), NMFS has determined that this action could provide some economic relief to participants in the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries without adversely affecting Steller sea lions and their critical habitat beyond those effects already analyzed in the 2001 BiOp and its supplement. Each proposed revision is described below.
        Haulout Closure Revisions
        The proposed action would revise Table 4 to 50 CFR part 679 to reduce the pollock fishing closure area around Puale Bay from 10 nautical miles (nm) to 3 nm from January 20 through May 31. Puale Bay is located in Shelikof Strait on the east side of Kodiak Island. The current 10 nm fishing closure would remain unchanged from August 25 through November 1. The number of Steller sea lions using the haulout at Puale Bay has declined greatly, ranging from 14,234 winter non-pups in 1977, to 40 non-pups in 1997. Since 1990, the usage of this site in the summer and winter has been approximately 100 animals.
        The decline in the Steller sea lion population at Puale Bay haulout correlates with the decline of pollock spawning aggregations in Shelikof Strait. Incidental take of Steller sea lions in foreign fisheries targeting spawning aggregations of pollock was observed to be very high in the Shelikof Strait area. The recovery of Steller sea lions at this site and in Shelikof Strait may be linked to the overall biomass level of the spawning aggregations of pollock rather than to the availability of pollock in specific near shore areas (i.e., within the closure zone). Additional fishing for pollock closer to shore of the Puale Bay haulout is not likely to affect the overall spawning aggregations of pollock in the Shelikof Strait because the total allowable catch (TAC) for pollock in the area will remain unchanged. Assuming the recovery of Steller sea lions is linked in some way to the recovery of the spawning aggregations of pollock in the Shelikof Strait, allowing additional pollock fishing near Puale Bay likely would not substantially affect the recovery of the Steller sea lions in the Shelikof Strait. According to NMFS telemetry data, Steller sea lions on the east side of Kodiak Island appear to spend most of their time closer to shore, presumably foraging there. This action would maintain a 3 nm closure to pollock fishing around Puale Bay, providing protection to these nearshore foraging areas for Steller sea lions. By allowing fishing closer to shore, the safety for the pollock fishing fleet would be improved, and the efficiency of harvest may be improved if pollock spawning aggregations occur in the waters between 3 nm and 10 nm of Puale Bay.

        To offset any potential effects on Steller sea lions by allowing pollock fishing within 3 nm to 10 nm of Puale Bay, the proposed action also would revise Table 4 to 50 CFR part 679 to expand the pollock fishing closure area around the Cape Douglas/Shaw Island haulout from 10 nm to 20 nm. Pollock spawning aggregations historically have not been observed in this area, but other types of prey species may be used in this area by Steller sea lions. By expanding the closure area, the potential interaction between the fishing fleet and Steller sea lions would be reduced. Cape Douglas is one of 19 haulout sites that have been identified in the 1998 BiOp (see ADDRESSES) as new sites that warranted protection. Added protection to this site may be more beneficial to Steller sea lions than the current closures around Puale Bay, where Steller sea lion recovery may be more dependent on the recovery of the pollock spawning aggregations in Shelikof Strait. This action also would provide some economic relief to pollock fishery participants by offsetting the opening of Puale Bay waters that historically have had more pollock harvests with the closure of Cape Douglas waters that have had less pollock harvest.
        The proposed action also would revise Table 5 to 50 CFR part 679 to reduce the Pacific cod pot gear fishery closure around Kak Island from 20 nm to 3 nm. Because of the overlap of the closure area with the 20 nm closure around Sutwik Island, only the west side of Kak Island would be open from 3 nm to 20 nm. This area periodically has been used by the Chignik area small vessel fleet to fish for Pacific cod with pot gear. Reducing the Pacific cod pot gear fishing closure area around Kak Island would not likely result in significantly increased fishing activities by the small boat fleet. Therefore, this proposed revision is not likely to adversely affect Steller sea lions and their critical habitat beyond those effects analyzed in the 2001 BiOp because of the small number of small vessels that are likely to participate in the Pacific cod pot gear fishery and the slow rate of removal of prey species by the Pacific cod pot gear fishery. This action would provide some economic relief and additional safety to participants in the Pacific cod pot gear fishery by allowing fishing in areas closer to shore.
        Last, the proposed action would revise Table 5 to 50 CFR part 679 to eliminate the Pacific cod pot gear fishing closure around the Castle Rock haulout. This area has been used by the small vessel fleet to fish for Pacific cod with pot gear during seven of the past nine years in the State of Alaska Pacific cod fishery. Because of the small number of small vessels and the method of fishing, NMFS has determined that opening this area to pot gear fishing is not likely to adversely affect the western DPS of Steller sea lions or its critical habitat beyond those effects already analyzed in the 2001 BiOp and its supplement. Opening waters around Castle Rock to Pacific cod pot gear fishing would increase safety for the participants in the fishery and would provide some economic relief by allowing Pacific cod harvest in those waters.
        Pollock Harvest Management Revisions
        To provide efficient harvest of pollock, the proposed action would revise § 679.23(d)(2) to remove the stand down periods between the pollock A and B seasons and between the C and D seasons. Currently, pollock fishing must stop between February 25 and March 10 and between September 15 and October 1. These stand down periods require fishery participants to return to port and wait for the opening of the B season or the D season. By allowing continuous fishing between the A and B seasons and between the C and D seasons when TACs are available, the participants in the pollock fishery would receive some economic relief by not having to stop fishing activities between seasons.
        In the past several years, the pollock fishery participants were not able to fully harvest the A season pollock TAC in area 620 before February 25 because the pollock spawning aggregations moved into the area at a later time. A large amount of the unharvested pollock TAC has been rolled over into subsequent seasons. To provide greater opportunity for harvest of the seasonal TAC apportionments in the A season, the length of the A and C seasons would be increased to include the time period that previously was the stand down period. The new A and C season dates would be: A season, January 20 through March 10; and C season, August 25 through October 1. Because the Steller sea lion protection measures requiring four equal seasonal apportionments of pollock harvest would remain unchanged, NMFS has determined that this proposed revision would have no adverse effect on Steller sea lions or their critical habitat.
        The proposed action would revise § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B) to provide for the rollover of unharvested pollock seasonal TAC apportionment to a subsequent season based on the estimated biomass within a statistical area during a season. The Steller sea lion protection measures require pollock harvest to be seasonally apportioned and spatially apportioned based on the estimates of pollock biomass. The Council's GOA Groundfish Plan Team develops estimates of the amount of biomass in each statistical area by season for the annual harvest specifications. The seasonal apportionments for the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA are distributed among statistical areas 610, 620 and 630 based on the estimate of the amount of pollock biomass that occurs in each statistical area in a season. These seasonal apportionments are published in the annual harvest specifications (69 FR 9261, February 27, 2004) and are the basis for temporal and spatial management of pollock harvest in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas.
        The protection measures allow limited amounts of unharvested pollock to be rolled over into subsequent seasons during a fishing year. The current regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(a)(iii)(B) state that “within any fishing year, under harvest or over harvest of a seasonal apportionment may be added to or subtracted from remaining seasonal apportionments in a manner to be determined by the Regional Administrator, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 30 percent of the annual TAC apportionment for a GOA regulatory area.” This provision does not allow for consideration of the estimated distribution of biomass among statistical areas by season, as intended by the Steller sea lion protection measures, potentially resulting in pollock harvests that are not appropriate for the estimated amount of pollock biomass available.
        The proposed action would change the rollover provision to allow rollover of a statistical area's unharvested pollock apportionment into the subsequent season. The rollover amount would be limited to 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for the statistical area. Any unharvested pollock above the 20 percent limit could be further distributed to the other statistical areas, in proportion to the estimated biomass in the subsequent season in those statistical areas. Because the harvest of pollock is apportioned among four seasons, the 20 percent seasonal apportionment limit on the rollover would be equivalent annually to the 30 percent annual limit on rollover currently in the regulations. The 20 percent seasonal apportionment limit would provide for better control of harvest than the current regulations because the amount of rollover allowed is based on seasonal biomass estimates, better fulfilling the temporal and seasonal distribution of harvest intended by the Steller sea lion protection measures. The participants in the pollock fishery also would benefit from reapportionments among statistical areas of unharvested pollock that exceed the 20 percent limit. The industry's ability to fully harvest a seasonal apportionment has varied among the statistical areas with some area harvests being consistently below the seasonal apportionments. The reapportionments among statistical areas would reduce the potential for foregone harvest, allowing the pollock fishery in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas to fully harvest available TAC.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would amend existing Steller sea lion protection measures in 50 CFR part 679 for the GOA pollock trawl and Pacific cod pot gear fisheries. The action would modify some fishing closure boundaries to better reflect historic use patterns, reduce unanticipated and unnecessary potential burdens on the fishing industry, and maintain protection for the western DPS of Steller sea lions (i.e., avoid jeopardy of extinction for the western DPS of Steller sea lions and the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat). Any changes to the pollock or Pacific cod fisheries affected by this action must not reduce overall efficacy of the Steller sea lion protection measures.
        The proposed action would open groundfish fishing areas around three GOA Steller sea lion haulouts and close an area around one GOA Steller sea lion haulout to pollock and Pacific cod fishing; change pollock season stand-down periods, and change procedures for the rollover of unharvested pollock seasonal apportionments.
        Factual Basis for Certification

          Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule applies: Small entities will be directly regulated by this action. This includes all small fishing operations in the GOA Pacific cod pot gear and pollock trawl gear fisheries. NMFS has determined that there were 131 small entities participating in the GOA pot gear fishery and 110 small entities participating in the GOA pollock trawl gear fishery in 2002.

          Estimate of economic impact on small entities, by entity size and industry: The proposed regulatory change has a potential to yield some small benefit, but with negligible cost to industry. The analysis contained in the RIR prepared for this action concludes that all action alternative options affecting the GOA pollock trawl fishery have the potential to result in positive net benefits. The potential effect of the pollock trawl closure area of Option 1 of Alternative 2 (Cape Douglas/Shaw Island) is offset by an opening in an area that appears to be of somewhat greater historic importance to the fleet (Puale Bay). The number of vessels participating in the Cape Douglas/Shaw Island fishery is confidential (i.e., four or fewer), while between nine and 17 vessels have participated in the fishery near Puale Bay from 2001 through 2003.
        The elimination of pollock trawl stand-down periods in Option 4 of Alternative 2 may lead to greater operational efficiency, but will not materially alter the revenue earned. Similarly, the change in the rollover method proposed in Option 5 of Alternative 2 may make additional pollock harvest possible earlier in the year in some areas; however, it will not alter the total annual Western and Central GOA area apportionment of total allowable catch as set in the groundfish harvest specifications process, and thus, will not materially affect total revenue. Overall, these measures have the potential to be marginally beneficial to all operators in the GOA pollock trawl fishery, including 110 small entities.
        The areas proposed to be opened to Pacific cod pot fishing in Option 2 of Alternative 2 (Kak Island area) provide some additional nearshore fishing area near the port of Chignik and may marginally reduce operational costs. This provision has some potential to improve safety as well. The area to be opened under Option 3 (Castle Rock) provides some potential additional fishing area with no apparent costs. All vessels participating in these fisheries are small entities, but the number of participants (i.e., four or fewer) is confidential. Overall, these measures have the potential to be beneficial, although to a very few small entities in the GOA Pacific cod pot gear fishery.

          Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule would impose “significant economic impacts”: The two criteria recommended to determine significant economic impact are disproportionality and profitability of the action. The proposed action would not place a substantial number of small entities at a disadvantage relative to large entities. This action would provide additional opportunity for harvest in areas that historically have been used by small entities, but this opportunity is not provided exclusively to small entities.
        This rule does not significantly reduce the profit for small entities. The costs of harvest would potentially be reduced with the opening of the closure areas and with the removal of the stand down periods between harvest seasons. The proposed action provides additional opportunities, spatially and temporally, for pollock and Pacific cod harvest that may result in additional profit for fishery participants. The absence of cost data precludes quantitative estimation of these potential cost savings and profits, although they would be expected to be minor.

          Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule would impose impacts on “a substantial number” of small entities: A very small number of small entities have harvested Pacific cod by pot gear in the area of Kak Island and Castle Rock haulouts (i.e., four or fewer vessels). NMFS is unable to report the actual number of vessels because of confidentiality restrictions. The harvest of pollock near Cape Douglas/Shaw Island haulout has also been by so few vessels that the harvest data are also confidential. The opening of Puale Bay is likely to provide additional fishing opportunity to fewer than 10 percent of the small entities participating in the pollock fishery. The removal of the mandatory stand down periods between seasons and revision of the method of rolling over unharvested pollock would, however, affect all small entities participating in the pollock fishery.

          Description of, and an explanation of the basis for, assumptions used: Catch information used for the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries is based on catch reporting within a State statistical area (no finer resolution of catch location is available). The closures proposed encompass only a small portion of one or more State statistical areas. The reported catch within a State statistical area was, for lack of a better option, assumed to be evenly distributed so that the proportion of the closure area to the statistical area(s) would be in the same proportion as the estimated catch from the proposed closure area compared to the estimated catch for the entire statistical area. Because catch information is not collected to a finer scale than the statistical area, it is necessary to use this method to get an estimated portion of the amount of harvest that may be applied to a closure area.
        The economic analysis contained in the RIR (see ADDRESSES) further describes the potential size, distribution, and magnitude of the economic impacts that this action may be expected to have on small entities. Based upon that analysis, it is NMFS' finding that although the proposed action may affect a substantial number of small entities, it likely does not have the potential to have a significant economic impact on the small entities participating in these fisheries.
        The Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, determined that fishing activities conducted pursuant to this rule would not affect endangered and threatened species or critical habitat under the ESA.

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

          Dated: September 16, 2004.
          William T. Hogarth
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); Pub. L. 105-277, Title II of Division C; Pub. L. 106-31, Sec. 3027; and Pub. L.106-554, Sec. 209.

        2. In § 679.20, paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(B) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.20
          General limitations.

          (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (B) GOA Western and Central Regulatory Areas seasonal apportionments. Each apportionment established under paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(A) of this section will be divided into four seasonal apportionments corresponding to the four fishing seasons set out at § 679.23(d)(2) as follows: A Season, 25 percent; B Season, 25 percent; C Season, 25 percent; and D Season, 25 percent. Within any fishing year, underharvest or overharvest of a seasonal apportionment may be added to or subtracted from remaining seasonal apportionments in a manner to be determined by the Regional Administrator, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal TAC apportionment for the statistical area. The reapportionment of underharvest will be applied to the subsequent season within the same statistical area up to the 20 percent limit specified in this paragraph. Any underharvest remaining beyond the 20 percent limit may be further apportioned to the subsequent season in the other statistical areas, in proportion to estimated biomass and in an amount no more than 20 percent of the seasonal TAC apportionment for the statistical area.

        3. In § 679.23, paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(iii) are revised to read as follows:

          § 679.23
          Seasons.

          (d) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) A season. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., January 20 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 10;

          (iii) C season. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., August 25 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., October 1; and

        4. Tables 4 and 5 to part 679 are revised to read as follows:

          EP21SE04.030

          EP21SE04.031

          EP21SE04.032

          EP21SE04.033

          EP21SE04.034

          EP21SE04.035

          EP21SE04.036

          EP21SE04.037

          EP21SE04.038

          EP21SE04.039

          EP21SE04.040

          EP21SE04.041

          EP21SE04.042

          EP21SE04.043

          EP21SE04.044

      [FR Doc. 04-21217 Filed 9-20-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 030320066-3066-01; I.D. 022103D]
        RIN 0648-AQ78
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Delay of Full Retention and Utilization Requirements for Rock Sole and Yellowfin Sole

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 75 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).  This amendment would delay the effective date of requirements for 100-percent retention and utilization requirements of rock sole and yellowfin sole from January 1, 2003, until June 1, 2004.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 75 to provide the Council and the affected industry with additional time to develop and assess alternatives to address groundfish discards in the groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI).  This action is designed to be consistent with the the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before May 12, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall, or delivered to NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453, Juneau, AK, 99801-1668, and marked Attn: Lori Durall.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (907) 586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendment 75 may be obtained from NMFS at the above address or by calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907) 586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kent Lind, 907-586-7228 or kent.lind@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI under the FMP.  The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).  Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.  General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 75 for Secretarial review and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2003, with comments on the FMP amendment invited through April 29, 2003.  Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by  April 29, 2003, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.  All comments received by April 29, 2003, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
        Purpose and Need for Amendment 75
        In 1997, the Council adopted a regulatory program to reduce the amount of groundfish discards in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska.  This program, known as the Improved Retention/Improved Utilization (IR/IU) Program, was adopted as Amendment 49 to the FMP for the Groundfish Fishery of the BSAI and Amendment 49 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) (Amendments 49/49).  The IR/IU program requires that vessels fishing for groundfish in Alaska retain all pollock and Pacific cod beginning in 1998 when directed fishing for those species is open.  On January 1, 2003, the program expanded to include all rock sole and yellowfin sole in the BSAI, and all shallow water flatfish in the GOA.
        These requirements were set out in the final rule to implement Amendment 49 for the BSAI (62 FR 63880, December 3, 1997), and the final rule to implement Amendment 49 for the GOA (62 FR 65379, December 12, 1997).
        In the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for BSAI Amendment 49, NMFS assessed the biological, economic and social impacts of improved retention and utilization.  This analysis found that the proposed actions could result in significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including a significant number of relatively small catcher/processor vessels that use trawl gear.  Because of their size, these vessels are limited to freezing headed and gutted products.
        To mitigate some of the effects that IR/IU regulations could have, the Council delayed implementation of the rules on the most negatively affected fisheries (i.e., those groundfish fisheries in which rock sole, yellowfin sole and shallow-water flatfish are caught and discarded) for a period of 5 years.
        The Council recognized the need to conduct an assessment of the impacts of IR/IU regulations on small entities to determine whether a modification of the IR/IU regulations would minimize such impacts and continue to meet the Council's objectives.  These objectives include ensuring healthy fisheries, reducing bycatch and waste, and improving utilization of fish resources with minimum negative effects of regulations on small entities.
        To this end, the Council began an analysis in early 2002, to examine alternative approaches to current 100-percent retention requirements for rock sole and yellowfin sole that could achieve the Council's objectives of reducing bycatch but that would have less negative effects on industry.  The analysis concluded that some entities currently participating in the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI might discontinue their participation due to the economic burden the existing rules could place on their operation. -
        In June 2002, therefore, the Council revised its IR/IU problem statement to state that 100-percent retention of rock sole and yellowfin sole would result in severe economic losses to certain participants in the fishery, while less than 100-percent retention of only those species would not be enforceable.  The Council also began an analysis of a variety of alternative regulatory approaches that would provide for reductions in groundfish discards in a less burdensome manner.

        In October 2002, the Council concluded that while several alternative proposals under analysis showed merit, they were not sufficiently developed and analyzed in a manner that would allow for implementation on January 1, 2003.  Therefore, the Council adopted BSAI Amendment 75 to delay implementing the 100-percent retention requirements for rock sole and yellowfin sole in the BSAI until June 1, 2004, to provide the Council and industry with additional time to develop alternative regulatory proposals.  Also in October 2002, the Council considered whether to delay 100-percent retention requirements for shallow water flatfish in the GOA groundfish fisheries.  The Council concluded, however, that full retention of shallow water flatfish in the GOA is practicable and would not result in the same economic burden as would the same requirement for rock sole and yellowfin sole in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.  Therefore, the Council decided not to delay 100-percent retention requirements for shallow water flatfish in the GOA.
        Elements of the Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would delay the effective date for IR/IU retention and utilization requirements for rock sole and yellowfin sole in the BSAI until June 1, 2004.  No other regulatory actions are contained in this proposed rule.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendment that this rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact that 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 in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble.  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.  There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        There are 176 small entities (all catcher vessels) and 34 large entities (6 catcher vessels, 24 head and gut catcher processors, and 4 surimi catcher processors) active in these fisheries.  Since per vessel costs are not available for these vessels, individual vessel profitability could not be estimated.  Therefore, changes in gross revenue of the 176 vessels are used as a proxy for changes in individual vessel profitability.  Furthermore, assumptions are made that revenues losses and gains are shared equally among these vessels and discards represent a displacement of revenue tonnage if hold space is limited.  There are no economic impacts resulting from disproportionate sizes of vessels in the fishery.

        A copy of the complete analysis can be obtained from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/.

        A summary of the analysis follows:
        The preferred alternative would delay implementation of IR/IU flatfish regulations in the BSAI fisheries until June 2004.  The economic impact of the preferred alternative on individual vessels is expected to be minimal.
        Alternative 1, which represents a 100-percent retention requirement, would lead to decreases in gross revenue for the affected fisheries and could yield substantial decreases in gross revenue associated with rock sole in the Pacific cod fishery.  Alternative 2 would allow some discards of the IR/IU flatfish species. The percent retention requirement would be set independently for each species and would range from 50-percent to 90-percent.  The analysis of the effects of alternative retention requirements on catcher vessels shows that virtually 100-percent of the catch of rock sole and yellow sole is discarded in all the fisheries in which rock sole and yellow sole are caught. Consequently, any retention requirement for rock sole or yellow sole would be expected to result in adverse economic and operational impacts.  A full retention requirement for rock sole would have the greatest effect, and this requirement would result in less than a five percent displacement in revenue tonnage for all catcher vessel classes.

        Alternative 3 would delay implementation of IR/IU flatfish rules for up to 3 years. Delaying implementation will postpone the severe economic consequences discussed under Alternatives 1 and 2.  Alternative 4 exempts fisheries from IR/IU flatfish regulations if flatfish discards are less than 5 percent of total groundfish catch.  Discards exceed 5 percent in most flatfish fisheries and in Pacific cod trawl fisheries in the BSAI.  The revenue reductions of this alternative are similar to those of  Alternative 1.  A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

        Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: March 24, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

            PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          1.  The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub. L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 57.

        -
          2.  In § 679.27, paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.27
            Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program.

            (b) * * *
            (3) Rock sole in the BSAI (beginning June 1, 2004).
            (4) Yellowfin sole in the BSAI (beginning June 1, 2004).

      [FR Doc. 03-7516 Filed 3-27-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 110103005-1005-01]
        RIN 0648-BA48
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Greater Amberjack Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule that would implement a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would establish a June through July seasonal closure of the recreational sector for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The intended effect of the proposed rule is to maintain the rebuilding plan targets for the overfished greater amberjack resource, reduce the likelihood of exceeding the recreational quota for greater amberjack, minimize in-season quota closures for greater amberjack during peak recreational fishing months, and increase social and economic benefits for Gulf recreational fishers by maximizing the number of fishing days available to the recreation sector. This rule also proposes revisions to the codified text to clarify the definition of a venting device used to deflate the abdominal cavity of a Gulf reef fish.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 23, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by 0648-BA48 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Rich Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. 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-2010-0281” in the keyword search, then check the box labeled “Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions”, then select “Send a comment or submission”. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment (EA), an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone 813-348-1630; fax 813-348-1711; e-mail gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be downloaded from the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rich Malinowski, 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        Greater amberjack is currently overfished and undergoing overfishing and has been under a rebuilding plan since 2003. In 2006, a new stock assessment was completed and determined the stock was not recovering at the rate previously projected. The Council initiated a stock assessment update in 2010 with the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review occurring in January 2011.
        During the February 2010 Council meeting, the Council requested that the greater amberjack recreational fishing season be reviewed and analyzed by Council staff and NMFS to potentially establish a recreational season closure. Currently, the recreational sector is open to harvest all year while the commercial sector has a seasonal closure of March through May each year.
        In 2008, Amendment 30A to the FMP was approved for greater amberjack. NMFS issued a final rule on July 3, 2008 (73 FR 38139), to implement Amendment 30A. Amendment 30A established recreational and commercial quotas of 1,368,000 lb (620,514 kg) and 503,000 lb (228,157 kg), respectively. In 2008, the recreational sector remained open throughout the year with an estimated harvest of 88,731 lb (40,248 kg) under the quota. In 2008, the commercial sector harvested an estimated 412,516 lb (187,114 kg) round weight, 82 percent of the available quota.
        In 2009, the greater amberjack recreational sector was projected to reach its quota and closed on October 24, 2009, which resulted in an estimated harvest overage of 124,817 lb (56,616 kg) round weight. The 9 percent overage in 2009 by the recreational sector was achieved in 69 fewer fishing days than in 2008. Accountability measures established in Amendment 30A reduced the 2010 recreational quota to 1,243,184 lb (563,899 kg) round weight, which was projected to be met in late August 2010. However, these projections were completed prior to the fishery closures implemented as a result of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill in the Gulf. Recent projections, completed by NMFS in October of 2010, indicate the 2010 quota for Gulf recreational greater amberjack is unlikely to be exceeded, primarily because of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill fishery closures and the associated reductions in recreational fishing effort. Final 2010 recreational harvest data will be available in the spring of 2011.
        The commercial sector was closed on November 7, 2009 after harvesting an estimated 632,928 lb (287,091 kg), which accounts for a 25.8-percent overage of the 503,000 lb (228,157 kg) commercial quota. The 129,928-lb (58,934-kg) overage was deducted from the 2010 commercial quota resulting in a quota of 373,072 lb (169,223 kg) round weight for the 2010 fishing year, as prescribed in the accountability measures of Amendment 30A.
        The greater amberjack rebuilding plan is scheduled to increase the total allowable catch (TAC) or annual catch limit of 2,547,000 lb (1,155,300 kg) round weight for the recreational sector and 938,000 lb (425,470 kg) round weight for the commercial sector in the years 2011-2013. These increases would only take place if the 2010 stock assessment reveals the greater amberjack stock is on schedule to be rebuilt in 2012. Should the 2010 stock assessment reveal that greater amberjack is not rebuilding on target, the quotas would remain at the current levels.
        Provisions of This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would establish a 2-month seasonal closure of the recreational sector for greater amberjack within the Gulf reef fish fishery. Harvest and possession of recreational greater amberjack would be prohibited in or from the Gulf EEZ during the months of June and July each year. In 2009, the recreational sector demonstrated it has the capacity to exceed the recreational quota, thus requiring an in-season quota closure and prompting the Council to review the recreational fishing season. At its October 2010 meeting, the Council voted to establish a 2-month seasonal closure, from June 1 through July 31, beginning in 2011. This seasonal closure is intended to minimize in-season quota closures for greater amberjack during peak economic fishing months and maximize social and economic benefits for Gulf recreational fishers by maximizing the number of fishing days available to the recreational sector.
        This 2-month closure coincides with the open recreational seasons for other managed reef fish species, including red snapper. Dividing the recreational greater amberjack season into two portions of the year that bracket the red snapper season provides recreational fishers the opportunity to fish for at least one of the targeted species year round (provided the recreational quota for greater amberjack is not exceeded). A closed season for Gulf greater amberjack that overlaps with an open season for Gulf red snapper is intended to minimize the social and economic impacts to recreational fishers in the Gulf.
        Additional Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule

        NMFS implemented a “venting device” gear requirement for the Gulf reef fish fishery through Amendment 27 to the FMP. A final rule implementing this amendment published on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5117). The venting device requirement became effective on June 1, 2008. The requirement states, “At least one venting tool is required and must be used to deflate the swim bladders of Gulf reef fish to release the fish with minimum damage.” NMFS recently became aware that this requirement as well as the definition for “venting device” incorrectly specifies venting the “swim bladders” of fish. Instead, the regulation should require venting the “abdominal cavities” of fish. Venting the swim bladder of a fish could result in the mortality of the fish. However, venting the abdominal cavity of the fish allows the gases in the fish to escape, without causing harm to the fish. Therefore, through this rulemaking, NMFS proposes to revise the definition of “venting device” in § 622.2 and § 622.41 of the regulations, to more accurately characterize the part of the fish's anatomy where venting should occur. The venting tool should be used to vent the “abdominal cavity” of the fish, not the “swim bladder” of the fish. This is a mere technical correction to appropriately identify the area on the fish to be vented. It in no other way alters the existing regulatory requirements.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory amendment, 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.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and 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 the full analysis is available from the Council (see
          ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The proposed rule would implement an annual seasonal closure for the recreational sector to the harvest of greater amberjack for the months of June through July in or from the Gulf EEZ. The purpose of this proposed rule is to maintain the rebuilding plan targets for the overfished greater amberjack resource, reduce the likelihood of exceeding the recreational quota for greater amberjack, minimize in-season quota closures for greater amberjack during peak recreational fishing months, and increase social and economic benefits for Gulf recreational fishers by maximizing the number of fishing days available to the recreational sector. The proposed rule also revises the definition of a venting device from one used to deflate the swim bladders of fish to one used to deflate the abdominal cavities of fish. This is a mere technical correction to align the definition of venting to its true intent of reducing mortality when releasing the fish.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule.
        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified for this proposed rule.
        The proposed rule is expected to directly affect for-hire fishing vessels that harvest greater amberjack in the Gulf. The for-hire sector is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. For-hire vessels are required to have a Gulf reef fish for-hire permit to harvest greater amberjack in the Gulf. The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A for-hire business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
        In 2009, there were 1,422 unique for-hire vessels that were permitted to operate in the Gulf reef fish fishery. These vessels were distributed as follows: 140 vessels in Alabama, 877 vessels in Florida, 101 vessels in Louisiana, 54 vessels in Mississippi, and 232 vessels in Texas. The for-hire permit does not distinguish between headboats and charter boats, but in 2009, the headboat survey program included 79 headboats. The majority of headboats were located in Florida (43), followed by Texas (22), Alabama (10), and Louisiana (4). It cannot be determined with available data how many of the 1,422 for-hire vessels permitted to operate in the Gulf reef fish fishery harvest greater amberjack, so all permitted for-hire vessels are assumed to comprise the universe of potentially affected vessels. The average charterboat is estimated to earn approximately $88,000 (2008 dollars) in annual revenues, while the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $461,000 (2008 dollars).

        Based on these revenue estimates, all for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities. Some fleet activity (i.e., multiple vessels owned by a single entity) may exist in the for-hire sector but its extent is unknown, and all vessels are treated as independent entities in this analysis.
        All entities expected to be directly affected by the proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities, so no disproportionate effects on small entities relative to large entities are expected because of this action.
        The proposed rule would establish a June 1 through July 31 seasonal closure of the recreational greater amberjack sector of the Gulf reef fish fishery. On the other hand, the no action alternative would likely result in a recreational sector closure commencing on August 27, 2011, as a result of the quota being met or exceeded. Relative to the no action alternative, the proposed rule is expected, for the first year, to result in an increase in profits by $52,526 for the charterboat sector as a whole, or by $39 per charterboat. Conversely, the proposed rule is expected, in the first year, to result in a decrease in profits by $59,832 for the headboat sector as a whole, or by $757 per headboat. Relative to the average revenues of $88,000 per charterboat and $461,000 per headboat, the estimated effects of the proposed rule may be deemed relatively small. Considering the effects on charterboats and headboats as a whole, the proposed rule, in the first year is expected to result in a net decrease in overall for-hire vessel profits of $7,306. This net amount is deemed small, particularly when spread over all 1,422 for-hire vessels. In addition, it is expected that net profits for both charterboats and headboats would not deteriorate as much as they would under an unplanned quota closure associated with the no action alternative. Based on the resulting net effects on profits, it is concluded that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Four alternatives, including the proposed action, were considered in this amendment. The first alternative to the proposed action is the no action alternative. This alternative resulted in quota closure and overages in 2009, prompting a reduction in the following year's (2010) quota. In April 2010, the recreational sector requested the Council to consider a seasonal closure to minimize the adverse effects of the quota closure. The second alternative to the proposed action would establish a March through May seasonal closure. This alternative is expected to result in larger overall adverse economic effects than the proposed action. While this alternative would result in less adverse economic effects on headboats, the adverse economic effects on charterboats would be substantially larger. The third alternative to the proposed action would establish a May through June seasonal closure. This third alternative has been estimated to result in larger adverse economic effects than the proposed action. Similar to the second alternative to the proposed action, this third alternative would result in less adverse economic effects on headboats but substantially larger adverse economic effects on charterboats.
        The proposed rule to correct the definition of venting device would have no additional economic effects on small entities because this tool is already required to be used, and this correction merely clarifies how it should be used.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: January 19, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
          1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In  § 622.2, the definition for “venting device” is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.2
            Definitions and acronyms.

              Venting device means a device intended to deflate the abdominal cavity of a fish to release the fish with minimum damage.

            3. In § 622.34, paragraph (o) is added to read as follows:

            § 622.34
            Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

            (o) Seasonal closure of the recreational sector for greater amberjack. The recreational sector for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from June 1 through July 31, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.

            4. In § 622.41, the first sentence of paragraph (m)(3) is revised to read as follows:

            622.41 Species Specific Limitations.

            (m) * * *
            (3) Venting tool. At least one venting tool is required and must be used to deflate the abdominal cavities of Gulf reef fish to release the fish with minimum damage. * * *

      [FR Doc. 2011-1370 Filed 1-21-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [R03-OAR-2005-VA-0006; FRL-7913-6]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Virginia; Emission Standards for Solvent Cleaning Operations Using Non-Halogenated Solvents

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia which consists of regulatory modifications intended to clarify the applicability of the solvent metal cleaning operations using non-halogenated solvents provisions. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by June 16, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0006 by one of the following methods:
          A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          B. Agency Web site:
            http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          C. E-mail:
            campbell.dave@epa.gov.
          D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0006, Dave Campbell, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
          E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R03-OAR-2005-VA-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the RME index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, pertaining to the Virginia solvent metal cleaning operations using non-halogenated solvents provisions with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

          Dated: May 6, 2005.
          Donald S. Welsh,
          Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 05-9780 Filed 5-16-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 141
        [FRL-7911-5]
        Notice of a Public Meeting To Discuss the Development of Regulations for Aircraft Public Water Systems

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of a public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding a public meeting to discuss the development of regulations for aircraft public water systems. To support the rulemaking process, EPA will undertake a collaborative stakeholder process with representatives from industry, government, public interest groups, and the general public.

          DATES:
          The public meeting will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern standard time, on Wednesday, June 1, 2005. There will be a one hour break for lunch between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th & K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The hotel is located one block north of the McPherson Square Metro stop on the orange and blue lines. The hotel's telephone number is (202) 682-0111.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general information about this meeting or to pre-register, please contact Travis Creighton by phone at (202) 564-3858, by e-mail at creighton.travis@epa.gov, or by mail at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4606M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also pre-register for the meeting online at http://www.lcgnet.com/ePA/aircraft_conference/. For technical inquiries regarding the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, contact Rick Naylor at (202) 564-3847, or by e-mail: naylor.richard@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The purpose of this public meeting is to discuss EPA's plan to develop regulations for aircraft public water systems. Specifically, EPA will provide a presentation on:
        1. Current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations as they apply to aircraft public water systems.
        2. Recent EPA aircraft drinking water sampling results.
        3. The process that will be followed in developing an aircraft drinking water rule.
        4. Key issues that must be addressed in the development of a new aircraft drinking water rule. These issues include:
        a. Which contaminates are of concern for aircraft water systems that take on water from domestic sources only, or from both domestic and foreign sources?
        b. What is the appropriate monitoring frequency for aircraft water systems that take on water from domestic sources only, or both domestic and foreign sources?
        c. What is the appropriate frequency of disinfecting and flushing aircraft water systems?
        d. Should aircraft that obtain all of their water from another public water system be classified as a “consecutive” public water system that can obtain reduced monitoring requirements under EPA's regulations (40 CFR 141.29)?
        e. How should EPA address aircraft water from foreign sources?
        f. What should be done to address the low disinfectant residual levels in the drinking water found on a high percentage of aircraft?

        Attendees will have an opportunity to make oral remarks at specific points during the meeting. EPA also welcomes written remarks received by June 22, 2005, which can be sent to Travis Creighton by e-mail or by mail at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        Special Accommodations

        Any person needing special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact Travis Creighton at the phone number or e-mail address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Requests for special accommodations should be made at least five business days in advance of the public meeting.

          Dated: May 9, 2005.
          Cynthia C. Dougherty,
          Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

      [FR Doc. 05-9484 Filed 5-12-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [CGD05-04-057]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington, DC and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone, May 27 through May 30, 2004, encompassing the waters of the Potomac River in order to safeguard a large number of high-ranking officials and spectators from terrorist acts and incidents. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and property, and prevent terrorist acts or incidents. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 19, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may mail comments and related material to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Ports and Waterways Department, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791. The Ports and Waterways Department of Coast Guard Sector Baltimore maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Ports and Waterways Department of Coast Guard Sector Baltimore between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Comments

        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-04-057), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. If as we anticipate—because of the closeness of the event, we make the final rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, we will explain our good cause for doing so in the final rule, as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
        Public Meeting

        We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Ports and Waterways Department of Coast Guard Sector Baltimore at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register.
        Background and Purpose
        Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, inflicted catastrophic human casualties and property damage. These attacks highlighted the terrorists' ability and desire to utilize multiple means in different geographic areas to increase their opportunities to successfully carry out their mission, thereby maximizing loss of life and destruction of property using multiple terrorist acts.
        Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. The threat of maritime attacks is real as evidenced by the October 2002 attack on a tank vessel off the coast of Yemen and the prior attack on the USS COLE. These attacks manifest a continuing threat to U.S. assets as described in the President's finding in Executive Order 13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) that the security of the U.S. is endangered by the September, 11, 2001 attacks and that such disturbances continue to endanger the international relations of the United States. See also Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks, (67 FR 58317, September 13, 2002); Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism, (67 FR 59447, September 20, 2002). The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and conflict in Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the Al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
        The Captain of the Port is establishing a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large gathering of spectators and high-ranking officials at or near the National Mall in Washington, DC would have. This temporary security zone applies to all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, between the Long Railroad Bridge to the Arlington Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin from May 27 through May 30, 2004. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone and any revisions to the zone. This security zone is issued under authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191 and 33 U.S.C. 1226.
        Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security zone as defined by this rule to depart the security zone. However, the COTP may, in his discretion grant waivers or exemptions to this rule, either on a case-by-case basis or categorically to a particular class of vessel that otherwise is subject to adequate control measures.
        Discussion of Proposed Rule
        On Saturday, May 29, 2004, nearly 59 years after the end of World War II, the National World War II Memorial will be dedicated in Washington, DC at 2 p.m. local time. The Memorial Day weekend celebration on the National Mall will culminate an 11-year effort to honor America's World War II generation. The official dedication celebration will span 4 days, and includes several “Tribute to a Generation” dedication events. The security zone will be in effect from May 27 through May 30, 2004.
        Regulatory Evaluation
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
        We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
        The operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to provide the minimal interruption of vessel operations necessary to provide immediate, improved security for persons, vessels, and the waters of the Potomac River in Washington, DC. Additionally, this security zone is temporary in nature and vessels and facilities can appeal to the Captain of the Port for a waiver of the requirements of the security zone. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the national interest in protecting high ranking officials and the public at large from the devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.
        Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
        The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit on the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge complex) to the Arlington Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels with compelling interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the security zone.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
          ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        Assistance for Small Entities

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674.
        Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        Federalism
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
        Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
        Energy Effects
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
        Environment
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
        Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
          1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            33 U.S.C. 1226,1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

          2. Add § 165.T05-057 to read as follows:

            § 165.T05-057
            Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington, DC and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia.
            (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge complex) to the Arlington Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.
            (b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, all vessels in this zone are to depart the security zone. However, the COTP may, in his discretion grant waivers or exemptions to this rule, either on a case-by-case basis or categorically to a particular class of vessel that otherwise is subject to adequate control measures.
            (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on VHF channel 16 (157.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
            (c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.
            (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 4 a.m. local time on May 27, 2004, through 10 p.m. local time on May 30, 2004.

            Dated: April 2, 2004.
            Curtis A. Springer,
            Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

      [FR Doc. 04-10112 Filed 5-3-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        RIN 0648-BA98
        Western Pacific Fisheries; Fishing in the Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery ecosystem plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council proposes to amend four fishery ecosystem plans to establish fishing requirements consistent with the Presidential proclamations that created the Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments on the proposed amendments by April 2, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed amendments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0070, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0070, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            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), and will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared Amendment 3 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago, Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas, Amendment 3 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for American Samoa, and Amendment 6 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific. The amendments are presented as a single document, which includes background information on this proposed rule, an environmental assessment, and a regulatory impact review. You may obtain the draft amendment document from www.regulations.gov or from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or from www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, tel 808-944-2200.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council and NMFS manage fisheries through fishery ecosystem plans for American Samoa, the Mariana Archipelago (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), the Pacific Remote Islands (PRI), Hawaii, and western Pacific pelagic fisheries.
        In 2009, President Bush issued Presidential Proclamations that established three marine national monuments in the central and western Pacific under the authority of the Antiquities Act, as follows:
        • Proclamation 8335 of January 6, 2009, “Establishment of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument” (74 FR 1557, January 12, 2009).
        • Proclamation 8336 of January 6, 2009, “Establishment of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument” (74 FR 1565, January 12, 2009).
        • Proclamation 8337 of January 6, 2009, “Establishment of the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument” (74 FR 1577, January 12, 2009).

        The proclamations recognize that it is in the public interest to preserve these submerged lands, waters, and marine resources, which are biologically diverse, contain sites of historical and scientific interest, and are essential to the long-term study of tropical marine ecosystems. For more detailed information regarding the marine resources and background for the management of the Monuments, please refer to the Proclamations, available at www.regulations.gov.

        Among other things, the Proclamations define the Monuments' boundaries, prohibit commercial fishing, and describe the management of Monument resources. The Proclamations direct the Secretary of Commerce to take action under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to regulate fisheries and ensure proper care and management of the monument, including allowing for traditional indigenous fishing practices.
        The Council recommended incorporating the Proclamations' fishery management provisions into its fishery ecosystem plans, and recommended that NMFS establish certain provisions relating to traditional indigenous fishing practices. To manage fisheries in the monuments consistent with the Proclamations, the Council has submitted, for Secretarial review, Amendment 3 to Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago, Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas, Amendment 3 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for American Samoa, and Amendment 6 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific. The Council recommended amending the four plans to incorporate and establish fishing management provisions consistent with the proclamations, including the following:
        • Identify the boundaries of the Monuments and their various management units.
        • Prohibit commercial fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands and Rose Atoll Monuments, and in the Islands Unit of the Marianas Trench Monument.
        • Establish management measures for non-commercial and recreational charter fishing in the Monuments, including but not limited to the following:
        ○ Require Federal permits and reporting for non-commercial and recreational charter fishing to aid in the monitoring of fishing activities.
        ○ Allow customary exchange in non-commercial fisheries in the Marianas Trench and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments to help preserve traditional, indigenous, and cultural fishing practices.
        ○ Define customary exchange as the non-market exchange of marine resources between fishermen and community residents, and the residents' families and friends, for goods, services, and/or social support, for cultural, social, or religious reasons, and may include cost recovery through monetary reimbursements and other means for actual trip expenses (e.g., ice, bait, food, or fuel) that may be necessary to participate in fisheries in the western Pacific.
        ○ Limit the eligibility for non-commercial fishing to residents and businesses of local fishing communities for the Rose Atoll Monument and Marianas Monument Islands Unit.
        ○ Prohibit all fishing within 12 nm of the Pacific Remote Islands, subject to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service authority to allow non-commercial fishing in consultation with NOAA and the Council.
        ○ Prohibit all fishing within 12 nm around Rose Atoll. The Council and NMFS would review this regulation after three years.
        • Prohibit the conduct of commercial fishing outside the Monument and non-commercial fishing within the Monument during the same trip.
        NMFS must receive any public comments on the proposed amendments by April 2, 2013 to be considered in the Secretary of Commerce's decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendments. NMFS expects to soon publish and request public comments on a proposed rule that would implement the measures recommended in the amendments.

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

          Dated: January 28, 2013.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-02116 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P