        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 140214140-4140-01]
        RIN 0648-BD92
        Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Seabird Avoidance Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This proposed rule would implement a Seabird Avoidance Program in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. The proposed rule was recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in November 2013 and is specifically designed to minimize the take of ESA-listed short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus). A 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion required NMFS to initiate implementation of regulations within 2 years mandating the use of seabird avoidance measures by vessels greater than or equal to 55 feet length overall (LOA) using bottom longline gear to harvest groundfish. The seabird avoidance measures, including streamer lines that deter birds from ingesting baited hooks, are modeled after a similar regulatory program in effect for the Alaskan groundfish fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before October 9, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0099, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0099 click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Steve Copps.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736; Attn: Steve Copps.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Copps, 206-526-6158; (fax) 206-526-6736; steve.copps@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce interactions between ESA-listed seabirds and groundfish longline gear. Many seabirds attack baited hooks as the longline is being set and become lethally hooked and drowned. The proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery (fishery) to require seabird avoidance measures—specifically the use of streamer lines and related provisions similar to those currently mandated in the Alaskan groundfish fishery—by vessels 55 ft LOA or greater in the bottom longline fishery.
        The proposed rule is needed to minimize takes of endangered short-tailed albatross and comply with a 2012 Biological Opinion (Opinion) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 2012 Opinion evaluated the risks of continued operation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery on ESA-listed seabirds, including short-tailed albatross. The 2012 Opinion included a Term and Condition requiring NMFS to promulgate regulations mandating the use of streamer lines by certain longline vessels 55 feet LOA or greater, patterned on the Alaska streamer line regulations. Accordingly, for the fishery to be exempt from ESA section 9 prohibition regarding the take of a listed species, NMFS must initiate implementation of streamer line regulations by November 21, 2014. The 2012 Opinion anticipates the yearly average take of one short-tailed albatross killed from longline hooks or trawl cables. As the short-tailed albatross population is expanding, it is expected to result in more interactions with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries. This action would implement one of the Terms and Conditions of the 2012 Opinion and reduce the risk of exceeding the take limits of short-tailed albatross contained in the Opinion, which in turn would reduce the risk of economic harm to the fishing industry that could result from the incidental take limit being exceeded.

        The proposed rule would require streamer lines, sometimes referred to as tori or bird-scaring lines, to be deployed as the longline gear is being set. A streamer line effectively fences off the longline from seabird interactions. The streamer line is a line (typically 50-fathoms or 90-meters long) that extends from a high point near the stern of the vessel to a drogue (usually a buoy with a weight). As the vessel moves forward the drogue creates tension in the line producing a span from the stern where the streamer line is aloft. The aloft section includes streamers made of UV protected, brightly colored tubing spaced every 16 feet (5 meters). Streamers must be heavy enough to maintain a near-vertical fence in moderate to high winds. Individual streamers should extend to the water to prevent aggressive birds from getting to the groundline. When deployed in pairs—one from each side of the stern—streamer lines create a moving fence around the sinking groundline reducing or eliminating bird interactions. Streamer lines have been effective at reducing seabird bycatch in fisheries throughout the world, including Alaskan fisheries that are similar to Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries.
        In addition to this proposed regulatory action, NMFS has worked in collaboration with academia, NGOs, the fishing industry, coastal tribes, and Washington Sea Grant to develop a multi-dimensional seabird conservation initiative for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. The initiative includes research, industry outreach, and making free streamer lines available to any Pacific Coast longliner to encourage voluntary use. The importance of the initiative was emphasized in 2011 by the take of a short-tailed albatross in the groundfish longline fishery off Oregon.
        This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery to require seabird avoidance measures—specifically the use of streamer lines and related provisions currently mandated in the Alaskan groundfish fishery (50 CFR 679.24(e))—by vessels 55 ft LOA or greater using bottom longline gear pursuant to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In sum, the regulation would:
        • Require the use of streamer lines in the commercial longline fishery of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery for non-tribal vessels 55 feet in length or greater;
        • Require vessels to deploy one or two streamer lines depending on the type of longline gear being set;
        • Require that streamer lines meet technical specifications and be available for inspection; and,
        • Allow for a rough weather exemption from using streamer lines for safety purposes. The threshold for the rough weather exemption is a Gale Warning as issued by the National Weather Service.
        The proposed rule is designed to be consistent with the requirements of the Opinion and responsive to issues raised through the public process and consultation with experts.
        Rough-Weather Exemption
        NMFS is proposing a rough-weather exemption to the streamer line regulations to address safety-at-sea concerns. NMFS consulted with the longline industry and the Council to identify a weather threshold where the deployment of streamer lines becomes hazardous. Based on these consultations, a National Weather Service Gale Warning is being proposed as the most appropriate threshold. When a Gale Warning is issued by the National Weather Service, fishermen would not be required to deploy streamer lines. This is designed to maintain safety at sea and effective reduction of seabird bycatch.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        NMFS and the Council prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for this regulation that is available on the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/ or available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for 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. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared. The analysis of the Chief Counsel was as follows:
        The proposed action is needed to minimize takes of endangered short-tailed albatross and comply with the 2012 Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as described previously. This action would implement one of the Terms and Conditions of the Opinion and reduce the risk of exceeding the take limits of short-tailed albatross, which in turn would reduce the risk of economic harm to the fishing industry that could result from the incidental take limit being exceeded.
        The proposed rule is not expected to have significant direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts because cost of the required streamer lines is currently being subsidized 100% by NMFS. If this subsidy program ends, the cost of the streamer lines would be negligible at $300 per pair. The cost is less than 0.1% of the average affected vessel's 2013 annual average ex-vessel revenue.
        Effective July 14, 2014, a business involved in finfish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide (See 79 FR 33647).
        NMFS conducted its analysis for this action using the new size standard. The affected entities by this rule are those vessels 55 ft LOA or larger that participate in the fishery or may seek to participate in the fishery. During 2013, 293 vessels used longline gear. Forty of these vessels were 55 ft LOA or larger of which 25 vessels participated in the groundfish fishery. When ranked according to Pacific Coast ex-vessel revenues, the top vessel had revenues far less than $2.0 million and the top 3 vessels averaged $1.3 million in ex-vessel revenues. Average vessel revenues for the affected vessels in 2013 are about $408,000. The average annual per vessel revenue based on Pacific Coast landings information and other information is well below $20.5 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore this rule will not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
        For the reasons above, the Chief Counsel for Regulation certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the FMP is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006 concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
        On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concluded that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concluded that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions.
        As Steller sea lions and humpback whales are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), incidental take of these species from the groundfish fishery must be addressed under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E). West coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other west coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. On February 27, 2012, NMFS published notice that the incidental taking of Steller sea lions in the West Coast groundfish fisheries is addressed in NMFS' December 29, 2010 Negligible Impact Determination (NID) and this fishery has been added to the list of fisheries authorized to take Steller sea lions. 77 FR 11493 (Feb. 27, 2012). NMFS is currently developing MMPA authorization for the incidental take of humpback whales in the fishery.
        On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The 2012 Opinion evaluated the risks of continued operation of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery on ESA-listed seabirds, including short-tailed albatross. The 2012 Opinion included a Term and Condition requiring NMFS to promulgate regulations mandating the use of streamer lines by longline vessels 55 feet LOA or greater, patterned on the Alaska streamer line regulations. Accordingly, for the fishery to be exempt from the ESA section 9 prohibition regarding take of a listed species, NMFS must initiate implementation of streamer line regulations by November 21, 2014. The 2012 Opinion anticipates the yearly average take of one short-tailed albatross killed from longline hooks or trawl cables. As the short-tailed albatross population is expanding, it is expected to result in more interactions with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries. This action would implement one of the Terms and Conditions of the 2012 Opinion and reduce the risk of exceeding the take limits of short-tailed albatross, which in turn would reduce the risk of economic harm to the fishing industry that could result from the incidental take limit being exceeded. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, or bull trout critical habitat.
        This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

        Public comment is sought on all aspects of this proposed rule. Send comments to NMFS, West Coast Region at the ADDRESSES above.
        This proposed rule was developed after meaningful collaboration, through the Council process, with the tribal representative on the Council. The proposed regulations have no direct effect on the tribes.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries.

          Dated: September 4, 2014.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S. C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S. C. 773 et seq.

        2. In § 660.11, add paragraph (6)(i)(A) to the definition of “Fishing gear” and add the definition for “Seabird” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 660.11
          General definitions.

            Fishing gear * * *
          (6) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) Snap gear means a type of bottom longline gear where the hook and gangion are attached to the groundline using a mechanical fastener or snap.

            Seabird means those bird species that habitually obtain their food from the sea below the low water mark.

        3. In § 660.12, paragraph (a)(15) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.12
          General groundfish prohibitions.
          (a) * * *
          (15) Fail to comply with the requirements of the Seabird Avoidance Program described in § 660.61 when commercial fishing for groundfish using bottom longline gear.

        4. Add § 660.61 to read as follows:

          § 660.61
          Seabird Avoidance Program.
          This section contains the requirements of the Seabird Avoidance Program.
          (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Seabird Avoidance Program is to minimize interactions between fishing gear and seabird species, including short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus).
          (b) Applicability. The requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section apply to the following fishing vessels:

          (1) Vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA engaged in commercial fishing for groundfish with bottom longline gear as defined in § 660.11 pursuant to the gear switching provisions of the Limited Entry Trawl Fishery, Shoreside IFQ Program as specified in § 660.140(k), or pursuant to Subparts E or F of this Part, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
          (2) Exemptions. The requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section do not apply to Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries, as described at § 660.50, or to anglers engaged in recreational fishing for groundfish, as described in Subpart G of this Part.
          (c) Seabird Avoidance Requirements.

          (1) General Requirements. The operator of a vessel described in 660.61(b)(1) must:
          (i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section;
          (ii) Gear inspection. Upon request by an authorized officer or observer, make the seabird avoidance gear available for inspection;
          (iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section that meets the standards specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section while bottom longline and snap gears are being deployed.
          (iv) Handling of hooked short-tailed albatross.
          (A) Safe release of live short-tailed albatross. Make every reasonable effort to ensure short-tailed albatross brought on board alive are released alive and that, whenever possible, hooks are removed without jeopardizing the life of the bird(s). If the vessel operator determines, based on personal judgment, that an injured bird is likely to die upon release, the vessel operator is encouraged to seek veterinary care in port. Final disposition of an injured bird will be with a Wildlife Rehabilitator. If needed, phone the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 503-231-6179 to assist in locating a qualified Wildlife Rehabilitator to care for the short-tailed albatross.
          (B) Dead short-tailed albatross must be kept as cold as practicable while the vessel is at sea and frozen as soon as practicable upon return to port. Carcasses must be labeled with the name of vessel, location of hooking in latitude and longitude, and the number and color of any leg band if present on the bird. Leg bands must be left attached to the bird. Phone the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 503-231-6179 to arrange for the disposition of dead short-tailed albatross.
          (C) All hooked short-tailed albatross must be reported to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement by the vessel operator by phoning 360-753-7764 (WA); 503-682-6131 (OR); or 916-414-6660 (CA) as soon as practicable upon the vessel's return to port.
          (D) If a NMFS-certified fisheries observer is on board at the time of a hooking event, the observer shall be responsible for the disposition of any captured short-tailed albatross and for reporting to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement. Otherwise, the vessel operator shall be responsible.
          (2) Gear Requirements. The operator of a vessel identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must comply with the following gear requirements:
          (i) Snap gear. Vessels using snap gear as defined at § 660.11 must deploy a minimum of a single streamer line in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(i)-(ii) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
          (ii) Bottom longline. Vessels using bottom longline gear must deploy streamer lines in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(iii) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
          (iii) Weather Safety Exemption. Vessels are exempted from the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section when a National Weather Service Gale Warning is in effect. This exemption applies only during the time and within the area indicated in the National Weather Service Gale Warning.
          (3) Gear performance and material standards:

          (i) Material standards for all streamer lines. All streamer lines must:
          (A) Have streamers spaced a maximum of every 16 ft 5 in (5 m);
          (B) Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to 10 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind.
          (C) Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or 3/8-inch polyester line or material of an equivalent density.
          (ii) Snap gear streamer standards. For vessels using snap gear, a streamer line must:
          (A) Be a minimum length of 147 ft 7 in (45 m).
          (B) Be deployed so that streamers are in the air a minimum of 65 ft 7 in (20 m) aft of the stern and within 6 ft 7 in (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water before the first hook is set.
          (iii) Bottom longline streamer line standards. Vessels using bottom longline gear but not snap gear must use paired streamer lines meeting the following requirements:
          (A) Streamer lines must be a minimum length of 300 feet (91.4 m);
          (B) Streamer lines must be deployed so that streamers are in the air a minimum of 131 ft (40m) aft of the stern for vessels under 100 ft (30.5 m) LOA and 197 ft (60m) aft of the stern for vessels 100 ft (30.5 m) or over.
          (C) At least one streamer line must be deployed in accordance with paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) before the first hook is set and a second streamer line must be deployed within 90 seconds thereafter.
          (D) For vessels deploying bottom longline gear from the stern, the streamer lines must be deployed from the stern, one on each side of the main groundline.
          (E) For vessels deploying bottom longline gear from the side, the streamer lines must be deployed from the stern, one over the main groundline and the other on one side of the main groundline.

        5. In § 660.140, paragraph (k)(1)(iv) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.140
          Shorebased IFQ Program.

          (k) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iv) The vessel must comply with prohibitions applicable to limited entry fixed gear fishery as specified at § 660.212, gear restrictions applicable to limited entry fixed gear as specified in §§ 660.219 and 660.230(b), and management measures specified in § 660.230(d), including restrictions on the fixed gear allowed onboard, its usage, and applicable fixed gear groundfish conservation area restrictions, except that the vessel will not be subject to limited entry fixed gear trip limits when fishing in the Shorebased IFQ Program. Vessels using bottom longline and snap gears as defined at § 660.11 are subject to the requirements of the Seabird Avoidance Program described in § 660.61.

        6. In § 660.230, paragraph (b)(5) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.230
          Fixed gear fishery-management measures.

          (b) * * *
          (5) Vessels fishing with bottom longline and snap gears as defined at § 660.11 are subject to the requirements of the Seabird Avoidance Program described in § 660.61.

        7. In § 660.330, paragraph (b)(2)(i) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.330
          Open access fishery-management measures.

          (b) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) Fixed gear (longline, trap or pot, set net and stationary hook-and-line gear, including commercial vertical hook-and-line gear) must be attended at least once every 7 days. Vessels fishing with bottom longline and snap gears as defined at § 660.11 are subject to the requirements of the Seabird Avoidance Program described in § 660.61.

      [FR Doc. 2014-21474 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        48 CFR Part 244
        [DFARS Case 2000-D028]
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Subcontract Commerciality Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify the responsibilities of contractors and administrative contracting officers regarding determinations as to whether a subcontract item meets the definition of “commercial item” specified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before November 13, 2001, to be considered in the information of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Respondents may submit comments directly on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. As an alternative, respondents may e-mail comments to: dfars@acq.osd.mil. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D028 in the subject line of 3-mailed comments.
          Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulation Council, Attn: Mr. Rick Layser, OUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D028.

          At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Rick Layser, (703) 602-0293.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        This rule proposes amendments to the DFARS to specify that—
        (1) The contractor will determine whether a particular subcontract item meets the definition of “commercial item”; and
        (2) When conducting a contractor purchasing system review, the administrative contracting officer will review the adequacy of rationale documenting commercial item determinations to ensure compliance with the definition of “commercial item” in FAR 2.101.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule merely clarifies responsibilities regarding commercial item determinations for subcontracts. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2000-D028.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 244
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 244 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 244 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          PART 244—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
          2. Section 244.303 is added to read as follows:

            244.303
            Extent of review.
            Also review the adequacy of rationale documenting commercial item determinations to ensure compliance with the definition of “commercial item” in FAR 2.101.
            3. Section 244.402 is added to read as follows:

            244.402
            Policy requirements.
            (a) Contractors must determine whether a particular subcontract item meets the definition of a commercial item (but see FAR 15.403-1(c)(3)). Contractors are expected to exercise reasonable business judgment in making such determinations, consistent with the guidelines for conducting market research in FAR part 10.

      [FR Doc. 01-22428 Filed 9-10-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5000-04-M


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; FRL-9919-20-OAR]
        RIN 2060-AS39
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)). In addition to this proposed rule the EPA is publishing a direct final rule that amends the reporting requirements of the MATS rule by temporarily requiring affected sources to submit all required emissions and compliance reports to the EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System Client Tool and temporarily suspending the requirement for affected sources to submit certain reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool and the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by December 19, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.
          • Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.
          • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. 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 Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. The 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.regulations.gov, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address: parker.barrett@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

        The EPA is proposing this rule to take action on amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU; MATS). In addition, the EPA has published a direct final rule revising the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10031 in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
        If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct portion of the direct final rule, we will withdraw that portion of the rule and it will not take effect. In this instance, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

        If we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out in the direct final rule, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

        The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for this proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register.
        II. Does this action apply to me?
        Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule include:

            Category
            NAICS code 1

            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            221112
            Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units.

            Federal government 2

            221122
            Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by the federal government.

            State/local/tribal government 2

            221122
            Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by states, tribes or municipalities.

            921150
            Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian country.

            1 North American Industry Classification System.

            2 Federal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this direct final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this direct final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
        III. Statutory and Executive Orders

        For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: November 7, 2014.
          Gina McCarthy,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2014-27127 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 130710605-3605-01]
        RIN 0648-BD41
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Establish Funding Responsibilities for the Electronic Logbook Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed changes to management measures; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to establish funding responsibilities for an upgrade to the shrimp electronic logbook (ELB) program as described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council). Newer and more efficient ELB units have been purchased by NMFS for the Gulf shrimp fleet and are available for installation on Gulf shrimp vessels. If the framework action is implemented, the proposed changes to the management measures would include establishing a cost-sharing program to fund the ELB program. The proposed changes would require NMFS to pay for the software development, data storage, effort estimation analysis, and archival activities for the new ELB units, and vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery to pay for installation and maintenance of the new ELB units and for the data transmission from the ELB units to a NOAA server. The purpose of the proposed changes is to ensure that management of the shrimp fishery is based upon the best scientific information available and that bycatch is minimized to the extent practicable.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 6, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed changes to the management measures, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0127” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0127, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

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

          Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed changes to the management measures may be submitted in writing to Anik Clemens, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; and OMB, by email at OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The shrimp fishery of the Gulf is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The final rule implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP, which published on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56039), established the requirement for an ELB program for the Gulf shrimp fishery. The program is administered by NMFS and is a cost-effective way to accurately determine the amount and location of effort occurring in the shrimp fishery in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Current regulations require vessels to participate in the ELB program, if selected by the NMFS Science and Research Director (SRD).
        The ELB program provides data on Gulf shrimp fishing effort that are critical to both the Council and NMFS in performing annual assessments of the status of shrimp stocks. The ELB program is also a key component in the Council's red snapper rebuilding plan because accurate estimates of juvenile red snapper mortality attributable to the shrimp fishery are essential data for red snapper stock assessments. Accurate estimates of shrimp fishing effort from the ELB program are also used to generate mortality estimates on a number of other species captured as bycatch in the shrimp fishery. In particular, the effort information from the ELB program is used to estimate and monitor incidental sea turtle takes.
        Currently, NMFS funds the deployment of ELB units on approximately 500 shrimp vessels, roughly one-third of the offshore fleet. The previous contract expired on March 31, 2013; a new contract with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission extended the services and will expire December 31, 2013. The contract for the current ELB program will lapse because funding is not available at this time. NMFS recently purchased newer and more efficient ELB units and they are now available for installation. To continue the ELB program, additional funding is needed regardless of the equipment used. Therefore, the Council voted for a framework action to require vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery to share in the cost of the ELB program. If additional funding becomes available, the current ELB units could be continued to be used for multiple years to allow a smoother transition to the new ELB units, and sharing the costs of the ELB program with the shrimp fishery may not be necessary.
        Cost-Sharing for the Gulf Shrimp ELB Program
        NMFS purchased the new ELB units for each of the vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery through the NMFS vessel monitoring system (VMS) program, an estimated one-time cost of $1,100,000 for 1,500 vessels. If the cost-sharing program is implemented, NMFS would pay for the software development, data storage, effort estimation analysis, and archival activities, which are estimated to cost approximately $313,791 annually. Vessel owners would pay for installation and maintenance of the new ELB units and the data transmission from the ELB units to a NOAA server. The initial installation cost would be approximately $200 per vessel, and the annual wireless provider contract (data transmission) cost is estimated to be $720 per vessel. This division of costs between NMFS and the shrimp fishery is similar to the Gulf reef fish VMS program, and other cost sharing data reporting programs within NMFS throughout the U.S.
        NMFS initially sent a letter to each vessel permit holder in the Gulf shrimp fishery outlining the upgraded ELB program. This letter included the timeline and process for installation of the new ELB units.

        If the cost-sharing program is implemented, NMFS will, in a subsequent letter, inform vessel owners that they have been selected to participate in this program, and that they have a total of 90 days to comply with the regulations to install and activate their new ELB units including 30 days to activate a wireless account and 60 days to install the new ELB unit after it has been shipped by NMFS and received by the vessel owner. These vessel owners must contact Verizon Wireless, the wireless provider, by email at VZWGulfCoastELB@VerizonWireless.com, or by phone: 888-211-3258, to initiate service for the new ELB unit.
        No Changes to Regulatory Text
        The framework action and the proposed changes would not require any changes to the current regulatory text within § 622.51(a), “Commercial vessel owners and operators,” regarding the requirements for the Gulf shrimp ELB program. This is because the current regulations specify that the SRD will select the vessel owners who will participate in the ELB program and how the ELB program is administered, and this would not change in this rulemaking. The proposed changes would revise the funding responsibilities for the ELB program, which are described in the FMP; however, the regulatory text would not change. The changes to the management measures are being proposed pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the framework action is consistent with FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The proposed changes to the management measures have been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the proposed changes to the management measures, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that the proposed changes, if implemented, 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 in the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed changes to the management measures. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.

        The ELB program for the Gulf shrimp fishery, established through the final rule to implement Amendment 13 to the FMP in 2006, required selected vessels to carry ELB units. The proposed changes to the management measures would require selected vessels to carry new ELB units that are more modern and technologically advanced. From the standpoint of technical and professional skills needed, the new ELB units do not materially differ from the current ELB units. In fact, the new ELB units would no longer require a technician to meet vessels to pull and program the memory card. Data collected by ELB units would be automatically transmitted to NMFS servers via a cellular phone connection activated when the vessel is within non-roaming cellular range. A key feature introduced by the proposed changes is that the vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery would share the cost of the ELB program, whereas currently all costs of the ELB program are borne by the government. Each federally permitted shrimp vessel would be responsible for the one-time cost of installing the ELB unit ($200) and the annual cost of data transmission ($720) through a contract with the service provider. The vessel permit holders would also be responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing the ELB unit. The replacement of one ELB unit is estimated at about $425.
        NMFS expects the proposed changes to the management measures to directly affect commercial fishermen with valid or renewable Federal Gulf shrimp permits for harvesting penaied shrimp in the Gulf Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Small Business Administration has established small entity size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $19.0 million from finfish fishing (NAICS code 114111), or $5.0 million from shellfish fishing (NAICS code 114112), or $7 million from other marine fishing (NAICS code 114119) for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, all qualifiers apply except that the annual receipts threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
        The Federal Gulf shrimp permit has been placed under a moratorium since 2007. At the start of the moratorium, 1,915 vessels qualified and received Gulf shrimp permits. Over time, the number of permitted shrimp vessels declined, and in 2012 there were 1,582 such permitted vessels. According to the Southeast Regional Office Web site, the Constituency Services Branch (Permits) unofficially listed 1,431 holders of Gulf shrimp permits as of June 25, 2013.

        During 2006 through 2010, an average of 4,582 vessels fished for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and state waters, of which 20 percent held Gulf shrimp permits. Despite being fewer in number, vessels with Gulf shrimp permits accounted for an average of 67 percent of total shrimp landings and 77 percent of total ex-vessel revenues. Of all vessels with Gulf shrimp permits, 73 percent were active and 27 percent were inactive (i.e., did not commercially fish).
        During 2006 through 2010, an average permitted shrimp vessel generated revenues from commercial fishing ranging from around $205,000 to $244,000. An average active permitted vessel had revenues from commercial fishing ranging from around $233,000 to $274,000. As may be expected, revenues from commercial fishing for an average inactive permitted vessel were practically none.
        Based on the revenue figures above, all permitted shrimp vessels are expected to be directly affected by the proposed changes to the management measures and are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.
        Because all directly affected entities have been determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities, NMFS determined that the proposed action would affect a substantial number of small entities.
        Because NMFS determined that all entities expected to be affected by the proposed changes to the management measures are small entities, the issue of disproportional effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
        The vessel permit holders' share of the cost of the ELB program consists of a one-time cost of installing the ELB unit, an annual cost of transmitting data from the ELB unit to NMFS servers, and a periodic cost of repairing or replacing defective ELB units. On a per vessel basis, the installation cost is $200 and the annual data transmission cost is $720. In the event of equipment failure, the cost of repair could run from a small amount to $425, which is the cost of replacing an ELB unit.

        During 2006 through 2010, an average permitted shrimp vessel had negative net operating revenues in all years, except 2009. Its net profits (i.e., net operating revenues plus net receipts from non-operating activities, such as government payments) were positive in 2006 ($2,961), 2009 ($1,238), and 2010 ($94,279). However, it should be noted that the 2010 profits came mainly from earnings associated with the Deepwater Horizon MC252 (DWH) oil spill in the form of damage claims and revenues from the vessel's participation in BP's clean-up program. Without these oil spill related revenues, net profits in 2010 would have been negative $2,480.
        For active permitted shrimp vessels, net operating revenues were negative in all years during 2006 through 2010. In addition, profits in all years were negative, except in 2010. Again, the positive net profits in 2010 were due to revenues associated with the DWH oil spill. The situation is worse for inactive permitted shrimp vessels, with net revenues and profits (except for 2010) being more negative than those of active permitted shrimp vessels. The average inactive permitted shrimp vessel had higher net profit in 2010 than the average active permitted shrimp vessel.
        The cost of the ELB program would impose a significant impact on the profits of an average permitted shrimp vessel. The effects would be even more significant for vessels that are not active in the fishery. It is noted that there are some vessels that are substantially more profitable than the average vessel, and thus would be able to absorb the per vessel cost of the ELB program. However, there are other vessels that are only slightly more profitable than the average vessel, and very likely the impacts on their profits would be significant.
        The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council.
        The proposed action would continue the ELB program. Being adjudged and proven to be very effective in collecting shrimp effort data in the Gulf EEZ, continuation of the ELB program has been deemed necessary so that NMFS could effectively carry out its mandate to base conservation and management measures on the best scientific information available and to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. Therefore, no other alternative to collect shrimp effort data was considered.
        However, three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for funding the ELB program. As noted above, the preferred alternative would provide for cost sharing between NMFS and the vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery. The second alternative would require NMFS to bear the entire cost of the ELB program. NMFS has recognized the vital role the ELB program has played in estimating shrimp effort in the Gulf, but due to tight budget constraints, NMFS cannot fully fund the ELB program. The third alternative would require the vessel permit holders to fund the entire cost of the ELB program. For several years now, the Gulf shrimp industry has been in relatively dire financial condition, thus the Gulf shrimp fishery indicated that funding the entire cost of the ELB would not be possible.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
        The proposed changes to the management measures contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA. NMFS estimates the requirement for the Gulf shrimp fishery to share in the costs of the new ELB units, which includes installation ($200) and data transmission ($720), to average 1 hour and $920 per response for the first year. After the first year, NMFS estimates the requirement for vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery to share in the costs of the new ELB units, which includes data transmission, to average 1 hour and $720 per response. These estimates of the public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information.

        These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. NMFS seeks public comment regarding: Whether this proposed collection-of-information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirement, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).

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

          Dated: September 30, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-24266 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 383, 384, 390, and 391
        [Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2210]
        RIN 2126-AA10
        Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver's License; Availability of Supplemental Document

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; availability of supplemental document.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice advises the public that FMCSA is placing in the public docket an additional document that the Agency may rely on in support of a final rule to integrate information regarding the medical certification status of a driver into the commercial driver's license (CDL) process. FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on this matter on November 16, 2006. Because the involved state cost analysis document was completed after publication of the NPRM and subsequent public comment period, the Agency now dockets and invites comment on it.

          DATES:
          Comments on the document are due by July 28, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by docket number FMCSA-1997-2210, by one of the following methods: Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand delivery. Please do not submit the same comments by more than one method. FMCSA encourages use of the Federal eRulemaking portal. It provides the most efficient and timely method of receiving and processing your comments.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation; 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.; Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number (FMCSA-1997-2210) or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN 2126-AA10) for this action. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading at http://www.regulations.gov for further information.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

            Submitting Comments:

          • You can find electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the “help” section of the Web site.
          • For notification that FMCSA received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on line.
          • All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address or on the Web site.
          • Comments received after the comment closing date will be available in the docket and will be considered to the extent it is practical.
          FMCSA will continue to put relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, FMCSA, Room W64-224, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: (202) 366-4001.  E-mail address: FMCSAMedical@dot.gov. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 16, 2006, FMCSA published an NPRM on how the Agency proposes to integrate information regarding the medical certification status of a driver of a commercial motor vehicle into the CDL process (71 FR 66723). This rulemaking is required by section 215 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1767, December 9, 1999; set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31305).
        For a full explanation of this proposal, please see the preamble to the NPRM. The docket for this rulemaking (FMCSA-1997-2210) contains the NPRM and all of the background information for this rulemaking, including comments.
        This notice calls attention to an additional docketed document which was not used in developing the NPRM that FMCSA may rely on in support of its final rule. Placing this document in the docket now is necessary because it only became available after the NPRM was published and after conclusion of the comment period established in the NPRM.
        The Agency has placed the state cost analysis document referenced below in the docket for this rulemaking and will accept comments on this document until July 28, 2008.
        The document that FMCSA is placing in the docket is titled: State Cost Analysis to Implement Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) dated November 16, 2006 titled “Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the CDL,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation by the North American Driver Safety Foundation, October 2007. Several States asserted in their comments to the NPRM that they believe the Agency underestimated State costs for complying with the proposed rule. They requested FMCSA to gather additional data from States on the anticipated costs for this proposal. In response, the Agency arranged to survey a sample of nine States to evaluate whether the costs to States to implement this rule would be different than those used in the NPRM. This report describes what cost information was collected and how that additional cost information was analyzed to better estimate the national costs of implementing the requirements outlined in the NPRM.

          Issued on: June 20, 2008.
          John H. Hill,
          Administrator.

       [FR Doc. E8-14608 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 140822715-4715-01]
        RIN 0648-BE37
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery; 2015-2017 Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes specifications for the commercial tilefish fishery for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. This action would set the acceptable biological catch, annual catch limit, total allowable landings, and harvest allocations for the individual fishing quota and incidental fishery components of the commercial tilefish fishery. The intent of this action is to establish allowable harvest levels and other management measures to prevent overfishing while allowing optimum yield, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by September 18, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0103, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0103, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Tilefish Specifications.”

            Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available upon request from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Regulations implementing the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and N. The FMP (section 1.2.1.2) states that, after a “benchmark” stock assessment, conducted at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) sponsored stock assessment workshop (SAW), and subsequent review by the stock assessment review committee (SARC), from which the biological reference points for tilefish could change, a change to the quota may be warranted. The 58th SAW met in December 2013, assessed the tilefish stock using updated information and a new analytical model, and concluded that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Fishing mortality (F) was estimated to be 74 percent of the F that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be 101 percent of SSBMSY. The stock assessment was reviewed and accepted by the SARC in January 2014. Based on the results of this assessment, NMFS has determined that the tilefish stock has been rebuilt.
        The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met in March 2014 to review the assessment results and other available scientific information and make recommendations for an overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for up to a 3-year period. The SSC accepted the new stock assessment model, and identified the tilefish assessment as Level 3 under the Council's tiered ABC control rule structure. The previous stock assessment had been considered Level 4. The change in assessment level led the SSC to apply a different requirement of the Council's risk policy for setting ABC relative to the OFL. This change resulted in a lower recommended ABC, and therefore a lower harvest quota, than has been used in this fishery since 2001.
        The Council's Tilefish Monitoring Committee met to consider the SSC's recommendations as well as additional information about the fishery, including recent average estimated discards of tilefish, to recommend annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and total allowable landings (TAL) for the same 3-year time period. The Monitoring Committee recommended for each of the three years that the ACL and ACT be set equal to the ABC. In determining a recommended TAL, the Monitoring Committee incorporated a deduction of 5 mt from the ACT to account for discards of tilefish across all fisheries. This amount represents the recent average discards calculated from observer data.
        The Council met on April 9, 2014, to consider the SSC's and Monitoring Committee's recommendations, receive public comments, and to formalize recommendations to NMFS for the 2015-2017 catch limit specifications, management measures, and research set-aside amounts. The Council's quota recommendations are listed in Table 1.

          Table 1—Current Tilefish Harvest Limits for 2014 Relative to Proposed Specifications for 2015, 2016, and 2017

            2014
            2015
            2016
            2017

            Overfishing Limit (OFL)
            NA
            989 mt
            1,063 mt
            1,091 mt

            Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)
            913 mt
            801 mt
            861 mt
            861 mt

            Annual Catch Limit (ACL)
            913 mt
            801 mt
            861 mt
            861 mt

            Total Allowable Landings (TAL)
            905 mt
            796 mt
            856 mt
            856 mt

            Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Fishery 1

            1,895,250 lb (859,671 kg)
            1,667,136 lb (756,200 kg)
            1,792,799 lb (813,200 kg)
            1,792,799 lb (813,200 kg)

            Incidental Fishery 1

            99,750 lb (45,246 kg)
            87,744 lb (39,800 kg)
            94,357 lb (42,800 kg)
            94,357 lb (42,800 kg)

            1 Kg are converted from lb, and may not necessarily add exactly due to rounding.

        The Council recommended the same quota for 2017 as proposed for 2016, because, even though stock assessment projections indicate that the quota could be increased slightly, the Tilefish FMP has used a constant landings management strategy since it was implemented in 2001. The tilefish industry has been supportive of this approach, and stated they benefit from the predictability that a stable quota provides. At the urging of the tilefish industry, and because the lower harvest in 2017 would likely support further growth in this stock, the Council decided that the value of quota stability between 2016 and 2017 outweighed the potential gain from the small amount of quota increase that could have been realized in 2017. As in previous years, the Council opted not to allocate any tilefish quota for research set-aside. If these recommended quotas are implemented, the Council would have the opportunity to review updated information on the status of the tilefish fishery each year, and may choose to recommend changes to these specifications before the 2016 or 2017 fishing years.
        The regulation at § 648.292(b)(1) specifies that the TAL for each fishing year will be 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg), unless modified by the specifications process. This default value in the regulations may become confusing, because this action is proposing different TALs for 2015, 2016, and 2017 that would not appear in the regulations. To avoid confusion this action would revise the regulations to remove this reference to a specific TAL value.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared a draft EA for this action that analyzes the impacts of this proposed rule. A copy of the draft EA is available from the Federal e-Rulemaking portal www.regulations.gov. Type “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0103” in the Enter Keyword or ID field and click search. A copy of the EA is also available upon request from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which is included in the EA for this action and supplemented by information contained in the preamble of 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 legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY of the proposed rule. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial harvesting sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $20.5 million for finfish businesses. A small business in the recreational fishery (i.e., party or charter vessel operations) is a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million. The proposed measures regarding the 2015, 2016, and 2017 tilefish quotas could affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit for tilefish. Vessel permit data shows that in 2013 there were 1,827 vessels that held a valid commercial tilefish permit and 393 vessels held a valid party/charter tilefish permit. However, not all of those vessels are active participants in the fishery. According to dealer-reported landings data, 141 vessels landed tilefish in fishing year 2013. In addition, according to vessel trip report data, 25 party/charter vessels reported catching tilefish in 2013.
        Some of the vessels with tilefish permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. Firms are classified as finfish or for-hire firms based on the activity from which they derive the most revenue. All of the party/charter firms fall within the definition of a small business according to the 2010-2012 average revenues; however some of these firms also landed tilefish commercially. If the contribution of tilefish commercial receipts is more than 50 percent of the total, the party/charter firm is considered a commercial operation. Using the $20.5 million cutoff for commercial finfish firms, there are 190 firms that are small and 4 that are large assuming average revenues for the 2010-2012 period. The majority of the permitted vessels readily fall within the definition of small business.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        In general terms, the active tilefish fishery participants derive a small share of gross receipts from the tilefish fishery. However, for small entities generating on average $10,000 or more of their total revenues from tilefish revenues, a large number of the active participants generate a large share of gross receipts from the tilefish fishery. The category of small entities likely to be affected by the proposed actions is that of IFQ shareholders and fishermen in the commercial fishery. The overall commercial tilefish quota is allocated to IFQ shareholders, which are allocated 95 percent of the overall quota and incidental fishery vessels which are allocated 5 percent of the overall quota. IFQ vessels directly target tilefish using bottom longline gear, and incidental vessels land tilefish incidentally when targeting other species. Most of the incidental landings occur with bottom trawl gear. However, for the incidental fishery, changes in quotas are not expected to affect the effort of vessels that land tilefish incidentally (e.g., otter trawl vessels) as the catch and/or landings of tilefish incidentally occur as these vessels target other species and their fishing behavior is not expected to be driven by the level of the incidental tilefish quota.
        The IRFA addressed three alternatives (including a no action/status quo alternative) for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 tilefish fishing years. All quota alternatives considered in this analysis are based on various commercial harvest levels for tilefish. Procedurally, the economic effects of the quota alternatives were estimated using four steps. First, the dealer-reported landings data were queried to identify all vessels that landed at least one pound of tilefish in fishing year 2013 (November 1, 2012—October 31, 2013). The second step was to estimate total revenues from all species landed by each vessel during fishing year 2013. This estimate provides the basis from which subsequent quota changes and their associated effects on vessel revenues were compared.
        The third step was to deduct or add, as appropriate, the expected change in vessel revenues depending upon which of the quota scenarios were evaluated. This was accomplished by estimating proportional reductions or increases in the quota scenarios for 2015 versus the base quota year 2013. For 2016 and 2017, proportional reductions between the 2016-2017 measures and the status quo (no action) alternative for 2016-2017 were used to assess revenue changes. For the purpose of estimating the 2015, 2016, and 2017 quotas and revenue changes, the following assumptions were made: (a) The industry will fully harvest, and not exceed, the 2014 quota; and (b) the entire tilefish quota allocations will be taken in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The fourth step was to compare the estimated 2015, 2016, and 2017 base revenues for every vessel to assess potential changes.

        The proposed action (Alternative 1) would set commercial tilefish quotas for 2015, 2016, and 2017 at 1.755 million lb (796 mt), 1.887 million lb (856 mt), and 1.887 million lb (856 mt), respectively. Under Alternative 1 for 2015-2017, it is expected that the number of vessels impacted by revenue losses on the order of 5 percent or less (relative to the status quo) would range from 134 (in year 2015) to 138 (in each year 2016 and 2017). In addition, it is expected that that the number of vessels impacted by revenue losses on the order of 5 percent or more would range from 7 (in year 2015) to 3 (in each year 2016 and 2017). All vessels with revenue reduction of 5 percent or greater are from New Jersey and/or New York, with the largest number of impacted vessels homeported in Suffolk County, NY.
        Overall, it is expected that Alternative 1 for 2015-2017 would result in a combined decrease in revenue of $1,567,979 relative to the status quo quota for 2015-2017. Because the overall dependence on tilefish for most of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses is small (83 to 97 percent of the vessels), it is expected that the potential decrease in revenue stated above would more greatly affect the 11 vessels that are more dependent on tilefish (i.e., IFQ vessels) than the vessels that incidentally catch tilefish. On average, each IFQ vessel that landed tilefish during fishing year 2013 (11 vessels) would incur a total reduction in revenues of $135,416 under Alternative 1 over the 3-year period, when compared to the status quo alternative for 2015-2017; and each incidental vessel (130 vessels) would incur a $603 reduction in revenues over the same 3-year period.
        Alternative 2 is the status quo alternative, and contains commercial quotas of 1.995 million lb (905 mt) for tilefish for each 2015, 2016, and 2017. Under this alternative, the tilefish specifications would result in no change in commercial landings when compared to current conditions. Therefore, commercial landings for tilefish would be expected to be the same relative to 2014 quota. As such, it is not expected that revenue changes would occur under this alternative when compared to existing conditions.
        Alternative 3 would set commercial tilefish quotas for 2015, 2016, and 2017 at 1.755 million lb (796 mt), 1.887 million lb (856 mt), and 1.938 million lb (879 mt), respectively. Under Alternative 3 for 2015-2017, it is expected that the number of vessels impacted by revenue losses on the order of 5 percent or less (relative to the status quo) would range from 138 (in year 2016) to 141 (in 2017). In addition, it is expected that that the number of vessels impacted by revenue losses on the order of 5 percent or more would range from 7 (in year 2015) to 3 (in year 2016; no vessels were projected to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more in 2017). All vessels with revenue reduction of 5 percent or greater are from New Jersey and/or New York, with the largest number of impacted vessels homeported in Suffolk County, NY.
        Overall, it is expected that Alternative 3 for 2015-2017 would result in a combined decrease in revenue of $1,393,547 relative to the status quo quota for 2015-2017. Because the overall dependence on tilefish for most of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses is small, it is expected that the potential decrease in revenue stated above would more greatly affect the 11 vessels that are more dependent on tilefish (i.e., IFQ vessels) than the vessels that incidentally catch tilefish. On average, each IFQ vessel that landed tilefish during fishing year 2013 (11 vessels) would incur a total reduction in revenues of $120,352 under Alternative 3 over the 3-year period, when compared to the status quo alternative for 2015-2017; and each incidental vessel (130 vessels) would incur a $536 reduction in revenues over the same 3-year period.
        For both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 projected changes in ex-vessel gross revenues associated with the quotas in 2015-2017 relative to the status quo are based on assumed static prices for tilefish. However, it is possible that given the potential decrease in landings for tilefish, the price for this species may increase, holding all other factors constant. If this occurs, an increase in the price for tilefish may mitigate some of the revenue losses associated with lower quantity of tilefish quota availability.
        The Council recommended Alternative 1 for 2015, 2016, and 2017, over Alternatives 2 and 3 because it is projected to prevent overfishing in 2015 and 2016, while allowing quota stability between 2016 and 2017, which the tilefish industry considers important in order to promote stability in price and supply in the marketplace. Alternative 2 was not recommended by the Council because it would exceed the catch level recommendations of the Council's SSC, and would therefore be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Alternative 3 was not selected because it would not support the consistency of quota/landings from year to year that the tilefish industry considers important to maintaining price and supply stability in this fishery.

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

          Dated: August 27, 2014.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

          2. In § 648.292, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 648.292
            Tilefish specifications.

            (b) TAL. (1) The TAL for each fishing year will be specified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
            (2) The sum of the TAL and the estimated discards shall be less than or equal to the ACT.

      [FR Doc. 2014-20963 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P