        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0564; FRL-9902-56-Region 4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida: Non-interference Demonstration for Removal of Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve the State of Florida's August 15, 2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the State's approved maintenance plans addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, Florida's revision, including updated modeling, shows that the Southeast Florida, Tampa Bay and Jacksonville areas would continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if the currently applicable Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard for gasoline of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) was modified to a less stringent standard of 9.0 psi for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties (hereafter also referred to as “Maintenance Plan Areas”) during the high-ozone season. Also, based on a request by the State on November 29, 2012, EPA is proposing to remove the existing SIP references related to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas. The State has included a technical demonstration with the August 15, 2013, SIP revision which demonstrate that the less-stringent RVP standard and the absence of an inspection and maintenance program in these areas would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or any other applicable standard. Approval of this SIP revision is a prerequisite for EPA's consideration of an amendment to the regulations to remove the Maintenance Plan Areas from the list of areas that are currently subject to the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirements. The specific elements of the maintenance plan modeling that EPA is proposing update for the Maintenance Plan Areas are the ozone maintenance plan attainment inventories, emissions projections and air quality monitoring data. The revised modeling utilizes updated models to calculate the mobile source emissions. EPA has preliminarily determined that Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision with respect to the changes to the modeling and associated technical demonstration associated with the State's request for the removal of the Federal RVP requirements, and with respect to the use of updated models, is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions of the Maintenance Plan Areas from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirements, such action will occur in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA has also preliminarily determined that removal of the regulatory provisions associated with the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs from the Maintenance Plan Areas is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 9, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0564 by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
          4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0564, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0564. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through 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, 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sean Lakeman of the Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043, or via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

          I. What is being proposed?
          II. What is the background of the areas?
          III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?
          IV. What is the history of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program in the areas?
          V. What are the section 110(l) requirements?
          VI. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's submittal and request?
          VII. Proposed Action
          VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. What is being proposed?
        Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas counties in Florida are currently designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As discussed further below, these counties were previous nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS but were subsequently redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for this NAAQS, and as such, these counties were required to implement a “110(a)(1) ozone Maintenance Plan” for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1
           This rulemaking proposes to approve a revision to the 110(a)(1) ozone Maintenance Plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve changes to the previously-approved 110(a)(1) ozone Maintenance Plans, including updated modeling, that show that the Maintenance Plan Areas can continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard without reliance on emissions reductions from inspection and maintenance programs previously implemented in these Areas,2
           and without the use of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in any of the Maintenance Plan Areas during the high ozone season—June 1 through September 15.3
           EPA is also proposing to conclude that the new modeling associated with these changes demonstrates that the Maintenance Plan Areas would continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS without the implementation of an inspection and maintenance program and with the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Maintenance Plan Areas during the high ozone season. Consistent with section 110(l) of the Act, EPA also proposes to conclude that the removal of the regulatory references in the Florida SIP to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas, and the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Maintenance Plan Areas during the high ozone season would not interfere with other applicable requirements.

            1 Per the Phase 1 final rule to implement the 1997 8-hour Ozone standard, anti-backsliding provisions—codified at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)—require maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone standard designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to submit a maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA demonstrating maintenance out to 10 years after designation. See 69 FR 23996 (Apr. 30, 2004).

            2 On August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40137), and August 15, 2002 (67 FR 53314), EPA removed the emission reductions attributable to the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program in the ozone maintenance plans for the Jacksonville (i.e., Duval County), Southeast Florida (i.e., Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties) and Tampa (i.e,. Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties) areas. However, in those rulemakings, EPA did not remove Florida Code Annotated Section 62-242 from the table of EPA-approved rules at 40 CFR 52.520. EPA is now proposing to remove these rules from the Florida SIP.

            3 As discussed further below, a separate rulemaking is required for relaxation of the current requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Area. While EPA evaluates the approvability of Florida's revision to the maintenance plan pursuant to section 110(l), the decision regarding removal of Federal RVP requirements pursuant to section 211(h) in the Area is made at the discretion of the Administrator.

        Specifically, the new modeling conducted by Florida to account for the proposed relaxation of the applicable RVP standard in the Maintenance Plan Areas results in changes to the on-road mobile and non-road emissions associated with the maintenance plans.4
           This modeling also accounts for the absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas. As such, the Florida SIP revision updates the on-road mobile and non-road source emissions for the Areas. EPA is also proposing approval of these changes.

            4 In addition to a less stringent RVP standard, the new modeling also utilizes updated models for on-road and off-road mobile emission sources.

        This preamble is hereafter organized into six parts. Section II provides the background of the designation status for the Maintenance Plan Areas with respect to the various ozone NAAQS. Section III describes the applicable history of Federal gasoline regulation. Section IV includes the history of the inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Areas. Section V provides the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of the volatility standards. Section VI provides EPA's analysis of the information submitted by Florida to support: (1) The removal of the regulatory references to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas, and a relaxation of the more stringent volatility standard in the Areas; (2) changes to the on-road mobile and non-road source emissions associated with the 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the Areas; and (3) provides EPA's analysis regarding the proposed change.
        II. What is the background of the areas?

        On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated the Southeast Florida area (i.e., Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties) as Moderate; the Jacksonville area (i.e., Duval County) as Transitional; and the Tampa area (i.e., Hillsborough and Pinellas counties) as Marginal nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in greater detail below, as part of the RVP requirements associated with its nonattainment designation, gasoline sold in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas could not exceed 7.8 psi RVP during the high-ozone season months.
        Following implementation of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement in the Southeast Florida, Jacksonville and Tampa areas, each area was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (60 FR 41 (January 3, 1995); 60 FR 10326 (February 24, 1995); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995), respectively).

        Included with Florida's redesignation requests, the State submitted the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plans ensuring that these areas would remain in attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for at least a period of 10 years (consistent with CAA 175A(a)). The maintenance plans submitted by Florida followed EPA guidance for maintenance areas subject to section 175A of the CAA. Florida later updated all three maintenance plans, in accordance with section 175(A)(b) to extend the maintenance plans to cover additional years such that the entire maintenance period was for at least 20 years after the initial redesignation of these areas to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
        These 1-hour ozone maintenance plan requirements remained in place for the Maintenance Plan Areas when they were subsequently designated unclassifiable/attainment for the subsequent 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 5

           and then designated unclassifiable/attainment for the revised 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012. However, the Maintenance Plan Areas were required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.6
           As required, these 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include components demonstrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provide contingency measures should an area violate the NAAQS. Florida's ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas did not remove the 7.8 psi RVP standard, and as such, these areas remain subject to the 7.8 psi RVP standard per the terms of their approved respective 110(a)(1) maintenance plans. However, Florida did submit, and EPA subsequently approved, maintenance plans to remove the emission reductions attributable to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance in the Maintenance Plan Areas. More discussion on the history of the gasoline volatility requirement, and the history of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas, is provided below.

            5 Effective June 15, 2004, Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties in Florida were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. The same counties were designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.

            6 As noted above, maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone standard designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard are required to submit a maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA demonstrating maintenance out to 10 years after designation. See 69 FR 23996 (Apr. 30, 2004).

        III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?
        On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
        The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).
        The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that we may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
        On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658).
        As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to EPA's volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the limits of CAA section 211(h).7

           In those rulemakings, EPA explained that the Governor of a State may petition EPA to set a volatility standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a nonattainment area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is appropriate because of a particular local economic impact and that sufficient alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.

            7 See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990), 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991) and 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).

        As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard in a nonattainment area is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years after redesignation. Depending on the Area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard. As noted above, however, Florida did not request relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi RVP standard when the Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, Florida is now seeking to relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard after the Area has been redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the original modeling and maintenance demonstration supporting the section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plans must be revised to reflect continued attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP standard that the State has requested.
        IV. What is the history of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program in the areas?
        The State of Florida previously implemented a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program in the Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa areas as part of the State's strategy to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This program was referred to as the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program (MVIP). On July 1, 2000, the Florida legislature terminated the MVIP for Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa, and removed the program's statutory authority. As a consequence of this repeal, FDEP developed and submitted SIP revisions to remove the emissions reductions attributable to this program in the aforementioned areas from the Florida SIP. Specifically, on December 10, 1999, FDEP submitted a revision to the SIP for the ozone air quality maintenance plans for the Jacksonville and Southeast Florida areas, and on August 29, 2000, for the Tampa, Florida area. FDEP's submissions requested the removal of the emission reduction credits attributable to the MVIP from the future year emission projections contained in those plans and provided a demonstration that such removals would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. At the time, however, Florida did not also explicitly request removal from its SIP of the regulatory references to the MVIP program. Subsequently, in EPA's final rulemakings, published August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40137), and August 15, 2002 (67 FR 53314), the Agency approved the SIP revisions removing the emissions reductions that were attributable to the inspection and maintenance program in the Maintenance Plan Areas, but the regulatory references to the MVIP program remained.
        In summary, Florida's December 10, 1999, and August 29, 2000, SIP revisions demonstrated that the Maintenance Plan Areas could maintain the ozone NAAQS without the implementation of the MVIP. EPA reviewed the State's emissions inventory and modeling analyses and found that they met the applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore, the State made the necessary demonstration that the MVIP was not necessary to maintain the ozone NAAQS and that attainment of the NAAQS for any other pollutant would not be affected by removing the MVIP from the SIP. However, in EPA's final rulemakings related to Florida's December 10, 1999, and August 29, 2000, SIP revisions, EPA did not remove Florida Code Annotated Section 62-242 from the table of EPA-approved rules at 40 CFR 52.520. On November 29, 2012, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA requesting that EPA remove Rules 62-242.100 through 62.242.900 (i.e., entire Chapter 62-242) from the Florida SIP. In its letter, the State noted that these rules relate to the defunct MVIP, and also noted EPA's previous rulemakings to remove the emissions reductions attributable to this program in its SIP. Today's proposed action is being taking in response to FDEP's request in the November 29, 2012, letter.
        EPA notes that the MVIP was terminated over 12 years ago and as mentioned above, on August 15, 2013, FDEP submitted revisions to the 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the same counties formerly subject to the MVIP. EPA also notes that Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision included a technical demonstration supporting the State's request to relax the applicable RVP standard in the Maintenance Plan Areas. That demonstration provides that, were the Maintenance Plan Areas subject to the less stringent RVP standard, continued maintenance is demonstrated and the ambient air quality standard should not be violated in the future. This demonstration of continued maintenance is premised upon the absence of the previously-implemented MVIP in the Maintenance Plan Areas, and as such, is consistent with the previous analysis demonstrating that discontinuing the MVIP in the Maintenance Plan Areas would not interfered with the continued maintenance in these Areas.
        V. What are the section 110(l) requirements?
        Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision is whether the requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA. Because the modeling associated with the current maintenance plans for Florida are premised in part upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirements, a request to revise the maintenance plan modeling to no longer rely on the 7.8 psi RVP requirement is subject to the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the State must demonstrate that its August 15, 2013, SIP revision will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As discussed above, it should also be noted that Florida's technical demonstration in its August 15, 2013, SIP revision accounts for the absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas.
        The section 110(l) non-interference demonstration is a case-by-case determination based upon the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated, but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The specific elements of the 110(l) analysis contained in the SIP revision depend on the circumstances and emissions analyses associated with that revision. EPA's analysis of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, including review of section 110(l) requirements, is provided below.
        Finally, EPA notes that this rulemaking is only proposing to approve the State's revision to its existing maintenance plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas showing that the areas can continue to maintain the standard without the emission reductions attributable to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance program, and without relying upon gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi being sold in the Areas during the high ozone season. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, a separate rulemaking is required for relaxation of the current requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Area.
        VI. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's submittal and request?
        a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions for Non-Interference Analyses for Florida's Request for Removal of the Federal RVP Requirement

        On August 15, 2013, FDEP submitted revisions to the 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas. The submission modifies the existing 110(a)(1) maintenance plans to account for a less stringent applicable RVP gasoline requirement of 9.0 psi for these areas. Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards and on other the applicable NAAQS. Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision also includes an update to the attainment inventory, emissions projections and air quality data which continues to account for the absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs, and the 7.8 psi RVP requirements for the Maintenance Plan Areas.
        For the purposes of these changes, EPA is making the preliminary determination that the applicable NAAQS 8

           of interest for the non-interference demonstration required by section 110(l) of the CAA are the ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. VOC and NOx emissions are precursors for ozone and particulate matter (PM), and NO2 is a component of NOx. There are no emissions reductions attributable to the emissions of lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), or carbon monoxide (CO) from RVP requirements. As a result, there is no information indicating the proposed SIP revision would have any impact on those NAAQS. Therefore, EPA's analysis below focuses on the impact of Florida's changes to the RVP requirements on the ozone, particulate matter and NO2 NAAQS.

            8 The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2.

        Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, includes revised mobile source emissions modeling using EPA's approved models—Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and NONROAD2008—to support the request to modify the RVP gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and accounts for the removal of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance program for the Areas. In that technical demonstration, FDEP provided information regarding the emissions trends from the maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. To determine these emissions, FDEP's maintenance demonstration compared the 2002 baseline emissions inventory to the 2018 projected emissions inventory for each Maintenance Plan Area. FDEP used 7.8 RVP for model years 2002, 2009 and 2011 and 9.0 RVP for model year 2014 and 2018, and did not include inspection and maintenance programs in any of the Areas. FDEP concluded that if projected emissions remain at or below the baseline emissions, continued maintenance is demonstrated and the ambient air quality standard should not be violated in the future. In addition to comparing the final year of the plan, all of the interim years are compared to the 2002 baseline to demonstrate that these years are also expected to show continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as shown below in tables 1 and 2.
        While the remainder of this rulemaking is focused on the emission impacts related to the potential relaxation of the Federal RVP requirements from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in the Maintenance Plan Areas, it should be noted that since the time that EPA removed the emission reductions attributable to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the areas, no credit for inspection and maintenance programs has been taken in the Florida SIP. Only the residual regulatory citation and language remained in the Florida SIP. Today's action is proposing to remove this residual regulatory citation and language from the Florida SIP based on the technical demonstration that accounts for the absence of the inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas.
        Relaxation of the RVP standard from 7.8 to 9.0 psi revealed a slight increase in NOx and VOC emissions. Notwithstanding this slight increase, EPA believes the most appropriate analysis for purposes of evaluating non-interference is whether total area emissions in the future years would remain at or below the level determined to be consistent with maintenance of the NAAQS. The State's emission analysis is comprised of two different man-made emission inventory source classifications; (1) on-road mobile and (2) off-road mobile, which are each discussed below.
        On-road mobile sources are those vehicles that travel on the roadways. The MOVES model uses the road class vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and other operating conditions as input parameters to generate an output file that contain estimated emissions. For the projected years' inventories, the on-road mobile sources emissions are calculated using the MOVES mobile model for the future year with the projected VMT to generate emissions that take into consideration expected Federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover and new fuel standards.
        Off-road mobile sources are equipment that can move but do not use the roadways (i.e., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad locomotives, aircraft). With the exception of the railroad locomotives and aircraft engines, the emissions from this category are calculated using the EPA's NONROAD2008 non-road mobile model. The railroad locomotive and aircraft engine emissions are estimated by taking an activity and multiply by an emission factor. Total off-road mobile source emissions represent the sum of emissions generated by the NONROAD 2008 model and emissions calculated for aircraft and railroad locomotives.

        As noted above, although the revised emissions analysis showed slight increases in NOX and VOC emissions for on-road and off-road mobile sources when the less-stringent RVP standard was used, the Maintenance Plan Areas nonetheless continue to demonstrate a downward trend in NOX and VOC emissions through all future years. Tables 1 and 2 below provide the emission analysis results for total on-road, area, point and non-road emissions in the Maintenance Plan Areas using a less-stringent RVP standards of 9.0 psi for years 2014 and 2018. Tables 3 and 4 below show a comparison of VOC and NOX estimates for 2009 and projected emissions for 2018 if the 7.8 psi RVP remained in place.

          Table 1—Total Man-Made VOC Emissions (tons per day (tpd)) for the Maintenance Plan Areas

            County
            2002
            2005
            2008
            2011
            2014
            2018

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            138.9
            127.4
            116.0
            107.3
            104.2
            103.9

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            207.6
            191.6
            175.6
            165.6
            162.4
            165.2

            Dade
            276.7
            257.4
            238.0
            224.4
            218.7
            219.9

            Palm Beach
            180.1
            164.1
            148.1
            136.6
            131.0
            129.6

              Tampa Area

            Hillsborough
            165.1
            152.2
            139.3
            129.5
            125.8
            125.3

            Pinellas
            135.1
            124.7
            114.3
            106.7
            104.3
            104.8

          Table 2—Total Man-Made NOX Emissions (tpd) for the Maintenance Plan Areas

            County
            2002
            2005
            2008
            2011
            2014
            2018

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            259.4
            188.2
            127.1
            90.5
            64.3
            62.3

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            263.4
            208.3
            153.2
            112.5
            88.9
            67.7

            Dade
            294.3
            247.8
            201.3
            160.3
            131.6
            102.5

            Palm Beach
            189.7
            154.1
            118.5
            89.1
            71.2
            56.5

              Tampa Area

            Hillsborough
            315.5
            230.4
            145.2
            99.0
            82.5
            66.4

            Pinellas
            152.4
            122.0
            91.6
            68.1
            55.3
            44.6

          Table 3—Total Man-Made VOC Emissions (tons per summer day) for the Maintenance Plan Areas

            County
            2009
            7.8 RVP
            2018
            7.8 RVP
            9.0 RVP

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            112.1
            103.1
            103.9

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            170.1
            164.1
            165.2

            Dade
            231.6
            218.3
            219.9

            Palm Beach
            142.9
            128.3
            129.6

              Tampa Area

            Hillsborough
            135.0
            124.3
            125.3

            Pinellas
            110.9
            103.9
            104.8

          Table 4—Total Man-Made NOX Emissions (tons per summer day) for the Maintenance Plan Areas

            County
            2009
            7.8 RVP
            2018
            7.8 RVP
            9.0 RVP

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            106.6
            62.2
            62.3

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            134.8
            67.6
            67.7

            Hillsborough
            116.8
            66.3
            66.4

            Dade
            185.8
            102.3
            102.5

            Palm Beach
            106.6
            56.4
            56.5

              Tampa Area

            Hillsborough
            116.8
            66.3
            66.4

            Pinellas
            81.4
            44.5
            44.6

        As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, NOX and VOC emissions in the Maintenance Plan Areas will continue to decrease, even with the increase in high ozone season fuel RVP to 9.0 psi. The slight increase in emissions as shown in Tables 3 and 4 is being mitigated area-wide by a steady decrease in tailpipe emissions, which is the result of a cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing the older fleet and other Federal and State emissions reduction programs. As discussed below, based on this data, together with air quality data, and maintenance demonstrations and attainment designations for the NAAQS, EPA is making the preliminary determination that the slight increase in NOX and VOC emissions resulting from this change will not interfere with the Maintenance Plan Areas' ability to maintain the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement. More details on the individual non-interference analyses for the ozone, PM, and NO2 NAAQS are provided below.
        b. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS
        As described above, each of the Maintenance Plan Areas was redesignated to attainment for purposes of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These redesignations were based upon Florida redesignation requests for each Maintenance Plan Area which included the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plans ensuring the areas would remain in attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for at least a period of 10 years (consistent with CAA 175A(a)). These maintenance plan requirements remained in place for the counties when they were subsequently designated unclassifiable/attainment on April 30, 2004, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858) effective June 15, 2004. However, because these 1997 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/attainment areas had existing maintenance plans pursuant to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, they were required to submit a 10-year 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As required, 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a previous 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas, the Maintenance Plan Areas were already subject to the Federal RVP requirements for high ozone season gasoline. Although originally implemented for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these Federal RVP requirements continued to apply to the Maintenance Plan Areas per the 110(a)(1) maintenance plans required to show continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
        The Maintenance Plan Areas are continuing to meet the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,9

           and are meeting the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on recent air quality monitoring data. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075 parts per million (ppm) or less. The current design values for ozone for the Maintenance Plan Areas are shown in Table 5 with the highest design value in the Area being 0.072 ppm in 2012. EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC and NOX precursor emissions, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the requested change to RVP requirements in the Areas during the high ozone season would cause the Maintenance Plan Areas to be out of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

            9 The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.075 ppm. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met when the design value is greater than 0.075 ppm.

        Table 5 below show the design value (DV) for the Maintenance Plan Areas currently show attainment of the 2008 8-hour NAAQS based upon the most recent design values.

          Table 5—Area Design Values

            County
            2005-2007 DV (ppm)

            2006-2008 DV (ppm)

            2007-2009 DV (ppm)

            2008-2010 DV (ppm)

            2009-2011 DV (ppm)

            2010-2012 DV (ppm)

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            0.077
            0.075
            0.070
            0.068
            0.067
            0.065

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            0.067
            0.068
            0.063
            0.062
            0.060
            0.059

            Dade
            0.074
            0.074
            0.069
            0.068
            0.065
            0.065

            Palm Beach
            0.065
            0.067
            0.065
            0.065
            0.063
            0.063

              Tampa Area

            Hillsborough
            0.081
            0.081
            0.079
            0.075
            0.073
            0.072

            Pinellas
            0.072
            0.072
            0.069
            0.067
            0.066
            0.067

        In light of the current designations, monitoring and emissions trend data showing attainment and the submitted modeling, including the fact that the NOX emissions inventories are projected to continue to significantly decrease,10
           EPA has preliminarily determined that the revised modeling associated with Florida's technical demonstration related to the State's request to change to the RVP requirement for the Maintenance Plan Areas will not interfere with continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

            10 Future decreases in the inventory are an order of magnitude greater than the increases associated with the change in RVP.

        c. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM NAAQS

        The precursors for fine particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) are NOX, SO2, VOC and ammonia. As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, the RVP requirements result in emissions benefits for VOC and NOX, accordingly EPA focused on these precursors for the analysis of the potential impact of Florida's requested SIP change.

        On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 μg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour NAAQS at 35 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.11

            11 EPA also retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m3 as a secondary NAAQS to protect against certain welfare effects and EPA retained the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/m3.

        On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), all counties in the Maintenance Plan Areas were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standards, and on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), all counties in the Areas were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As Table 6 indicates the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour design values demonstrate attainment of the respective NAAQS for the Maintenance Plan Areas.

          Table 6—PM2.5 Design Values

            Year
            2007-2009
            2008-2010
            2009-2011
            2010-2012

              Annual Design Value

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            9.0
            8.6
            8.4
            8.1

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            7.3
            7.0
            6.8
            6.7

            Dade
            8.0
            7.8
            7.5
            7.5

            Palm Beach
            6.5
            6.3
            6.3
            7.1

              Tampa Area

            Pinellas
            8.2
            7.9
            7.7
            7.5

              24-Hour Design Value

              Jacksonville Area

            Duval
            21
            18
            22
            21

              Southeast Florida Area

            Broward
            18
            16
            15
            15

            Dade
            18
            16
            14
            14

            Palm Beach
            17
            14
            14
            16

              Tampa Area

            Pinellas
            18
            16
            16
            16

        As noted above, although the revised emissions analysis showed slight increases in the PM precursor emissions (NOX and VOC) associated with the less-stringent RVP standard, the Maintenance Plan Areas nonetheless continue to demonstrate a downward trend in NOX and VOC emissions through all future years. Therefore, EPA does not expect the RVP revision to have a significant effect on continued maintenance of the PM NAAQS. EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to the Federal RVP requirement the Areas will not interfere with the Areas maintaining the 1997 PM2.5 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
        d. Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

        On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA finalized designations for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. All counties in Florida, were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Based on Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, EPA has evaluated the potential increase in the NOx emissions (between June 1st and September 15th) associated with the proposed less-stringent 9.0 psi RVP requirement to determine whether this change would cause the Maintenance Plan Areas to violate the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. This evaluation indicates that the slight increase in NOX emissions associated with the less-stringent RVP requirement would be mitigated by a steady decrease in tailpipe emissions, which is the result of cleaner new light- and heavy-duty vehicle fleets replacing the older fleets. See Tables 2 and 4 above.

        In light of the current designation, including the fact that NOx emissions inventories are projected to continue to significantly decrease, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to the Federal RVP requirements for the Maintenance Plan Areas would not interfere with the continued decline in NOX emissions, nor with attainment or maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
        VII. Proposed Action
        First, EPA is proposing to approve the State of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision to its 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the State's showing that the Maintenance Plan Areas can continue to maintain the 1997 ozone standard without emissions reductions associated with both the previously-implemented MVIP, and the use of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi during the high ozone season—June 1 through September 15 in the Maintenance Plan Areas. Second, EPA is proposing to approve updated attainment inventories, emissions projections and air quality monitoring which are associated with updated and revised modeling related to the proposed change in the applicable RVP standard, and the absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs for the Maintenance Plan Areas. The models used to calculate these projections for mobile sources also have been updated to the most currently-approved versions. Third, EPA is proposing to remove the Florida Code Annotated Section 62-242, which pertains to the previously-implemented MVIP, from the Florida SIP.
        EPA has preliminarily determined that Florida's August 15, 2013 SIP revision, including the technical demonstration associated with the State's request for the removal of the Federal RVP requirements, and the updated attainment inventory, emissions projections and air quality monitoring data, are consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions of the Maintenance Plan Areas from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirements, such action will occur in a separate, subsequent rulemaking.
        VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

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

          Dated: October 28, 2013.
          Beverly H. Banister,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2013-26850 Filed 11-7-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 021016235-2235-01; I.D. 092402E]
        RIN 0648-AP87
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 10

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a regulation to implement Amendment 10 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 10 addresses the two unrelated subjects of the transferability of limited entry permits and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for market squid. Only the provisions regarding limited entry permits require regulatory action. The purpose of this proposed rule is to establish the procedures by which limited entry permits can be transferred to other vessels and/or individuals so that the holders of the permits have maximum flexibility in their fishing operations while the goals of the FMP are achieved.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by December 16, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments on the proposed rule to Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

          Copies of Amendment 10, which includes an environmental assessment/regulatory impact review, and determination of the impact on small businesses may be obtained from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon, 97220. Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule should be sent to Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Council distributed Amendment 10 for public review on April 22, 2002. At its June 2002 meeting, the Council reviewed written comments, received comments from its advisory bodies, and heard public comments. The Council submitted Amendment 10 for Secretarial review by a letter dated August 19, 2002. On October, 3, 2002, a notice of availability of Amendment 10 and the associated documents was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 62001).
        Background

        On June 10, 1999, Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan was partially approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Two of the provisions of Amendment 8 were disapproved. However, these two provisions addressed matters required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to be included in all fishery management plans. As such, the Council was required to revisit these issues in subsequent actions. First, bycatch provisions of Amendment 8 were disapproved because they did not contain a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch in the fishery. Bycatch requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act were eventually addressed in Amendment 9, which was approved on March 22, 2001. Second, optimum yield for market squid (Loligo opalescens) was disapproved because Amendment 8 did not provide an estimate of MSY. The Council is addressing MSY through submission of Amendment 10.
        Market Squid
        Various approaches to determine an MSY proxy for market squid have been attempted. With little knowledge of the biology of squid and inadequate data available, other than landings, results from all methods used were determined to contain too much uncertainty for management, especially considering the large harvests in the 1990s resulting from new market demand. Amendment 10, which contains a description of these methods, examines such things as historical landings, the range of the species, and the manner in which the fishery is conducted.
        Additional data on squid became available from research conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) through a program implemented by State legislation establishing permit fees to fund squid research. With new information on growth, maturity, and fecundity, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended, and the Council concurred, that the SSC work with NMFS and the CDFG to organize a stock assessment review panel (STAR). The STAR panel met on May 14-17, 2001, at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California, and developed what became known as the egg escapement (EE) method. A report was prepared and presented to the Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (Management Team) in August 2001.
        At a public meeting on August 14-15, 2001, the Management Team discussed the STAR panel report and decided on the values to be used in the EE method, making its recommendations to the Council at the Council's November 21, 2001, meeting.
        The EE method is based on a modeling approach that addresses the life history of the species, with a focus on the mortality and spawning rates of sexually mature females. Per-recruit analysis theory was used to generate stock parameter estimates, such as mean standing stock of eggs per harvested female, eggs per recruit, and egg escapement. All of the estimates were evaluated across a range of fishing mortality. To gauge the fishery's impact on the squid population, the estimated reproductive output of the harvested population was compared with the population's output in the absence of fishing.
        The EE method allows for “real-time” management of the fishery, without an unnecessarily large investment in personnel or regulations. The method would be used as a management tool to assess whether the fleet is fishing above or below a sustainable level of exploitation. A sustainable level of egg escapement can be practically interpreted as a level of reproductive (egg) escapement that is believed to be at or near a minimum level necessary to allow the population to maintain its level of abundance into the future, that is, to allow for sustainable reproduction year after year.
        A critical underpinning of the EE approach is that the fishery continues to concentrate strictly on squid spawning grounds. This fishery has the following characteristics: (1) historically, harvests have consisted almost entirely of mature animals that have laid some or all of their eggs before capture; (2) recruitment and future catches in each fishing season largely depend on successful and adequate spawning in the preceding season; (3) the squid are determinate spawners, with potential lifetime fecundity fixed at maturity; (4) the squid die soon after laying their full complement of eggs; and (5) interpretable, anatomical evidence of spawning must be able to be estimated from commercial harvest data, which can be routinely collected through an ongoing port sampling program. The fact that evidence of spawning can be derived from commercially landed specimens offers a unique opportunity to implement an EE method for fisheries management.
        The proposed alternative in Amendment 10 is to adopt the EE method to monitor the market squid fishery in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action will require amending the FMP, but will not require implementing rules.
        Capacity Goal
        Regulations at 50 CFR 660.514 prohibit the transfer of a limited entry permit to a different vessel or a different owner after December 31, 2000. This provision was imposed to allow for attrition in the fleet following an initial period of transfers. Since then, the Council's Management Team has been working on issues related to the harvesting capacity of the fleet by examining the fleet's dependency on a variety of species that exhibit wide variability and by determining the actual physical capacity of the fleet. Amendment 10 would establish a capacity goal for the fleet and set conditions for the transfer of permits to maintain the capacity goal.

        The purpose of the capacity goal is to ensure that fishing capacity in the CPS limited entry fishery is in balance with resource availability. The preferred alternative in Amendment 10 is to establish a capacity goal for the limited entry fleet by using a proxy of 5,650.9 mt of the aggregate gross tonnage (GT) of the fleet. Measuring the actual harvesting capacity of a vessel and monitoring each vessel's capacity can be complicated because the amount of fish a vessel can carry depends on many factors; therefore, Amendment 10 proposes to use GT as a proxy for capacity. The aggregate gross tonnage level of 5,650.9 mt would result in a larger, diverse CPS finfish fleet, which also relies on other fishing opportunities such as fishing for squid and tuna. The current fleet of 65 vessels, which totals 5,650.9 mt GT, satisfies this goal. Estimated normal harvesting capacity for the current fleet, which was determined by reviewing historical average and maximum landings per trip, ranged from 60,000 mt to 111,000 mt per year. The physical harvesting capacity of the current fleet ranged from 361,000 to 539,000 mt per year. Physical capacity is a technological or engineering measure of the maximum potential output per unit of time.
        Permit Transfers
        Under the proposed alternative in Amendment 10, as long as aggregate fleet gross tonnage is not above 5,933.5 mt (fleet gt plus 5 percent) limited entry permits could be transferred with the following restrictions: (1) full transferability of permits only to vessels of comparable capacity (vessel GT +.10 (GT) or less), and (2) permits could be combined up to a greater level of capacity in cases where the vessel to which the permits would be transferred to is of greater harvesting capacity than the vessel from which the permit originated.
        Each limited entry permit would have an endorsement based on the currently permitted vessel's calculated GT as defined by the formula in 46 CFR 69.209 for ship-shaped hulls. This formula is used by the U.S. Coast Guard (GT=0.67 (length x breadth x depth)/100).
        The original permits and their respective endorsements would remain in effect for the lifetime of each permit, regardless of the GT of a vessel to which it was transferred. In cases where a permit was transferred to a vessel with a smaller GT, the original GT endorsement would remain, and excess GT could not be split out from the original permit configuration and sold. In cases where two or more permits were transferred to a larger vessel, the larger vessel would hold the original permits and could fish for CPS finfish as long as the aggregate GT endorsements, including the 10 percent allowance, as defined by the formula for comparable capacity (vessel GT + .10 (GT) or less) added up to the new vessel's calculated GT. In the event that a vessel with multiple permits leaves the CPS limited entry program, the permits could be sold together or separately, but the original permit endorsement could not be altered.
        To ensure manageability of the permit program and stability of the fleet, only one transfer per permit would be allowed during each calendar year. Permits could be used only on the vessel to which they were registered. Catch history would be tied to the vessel and not to the permits.
        Maintaining the Capacity Goal
        When the upper threshold of aggregate fleet capacity plus 5 percent (5,933.5 mt) is reached, fleet capacity would be restored to the capacity goal (5,650.9 mt) by restricting conditions for permit transfer. When the threshold of 5,933.5 mt is reached or exceeded, permits could only be transferred to vessels with equal or smaller GT, and the 10-percent vessel allowance would be removed. Restoring the 10 percent-allowance could be considered once total aggregate fleet capacity reached the 5,650.9 mt target.
        Procedures for Issuing New Limited Entry Permits
        Based on positive changes in CPS finfish resources or market conditions, and, if the Council determines, and recommends to NMFS, that new limited entry permits should be issued, the qualifying criteria originally established in the FMP would be used for issuance of these new permits. This would entail continuing down the list of vessels having landings during the 1993-97 window period in order of decreasing window period landings from the original qualifying level of 100 mt. If no vessel meets the qualifying criteria of 100 mt, then the permit would be issued to the vessel with total landings nearest 100 mt during the qualifying period. New permits could be issued on either a temporary or permanent basis, depending on the circumstances surrounding the need for additional fleet capacity.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 10, which this rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. 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 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 as follows:

          There are some fish processors operating in the west coast CPS finfish fishery that would not be considered small businesses, but the vast majority of CPS finfish fishery participants are considered small businesses under the SBA standards. The small entities that could be affected by the proposed regulatory actions would consist exclusively of fish-harvesting businesses, i.e. fishing vessels. All vessels fishing for CPS are considered small business.
          The proposed rule would establish a capacity goal for the CPS fleet, maintain the existing fleet of 65 vessels with limited entry permits, allow transfer of permits to new vessels and/or individuals under conditions controlling the size of the vessels, and issue new permits if justified by resource and economic conditions. Establishing a capacity goal sets a limit on the capital that can be invested to harvest a limited resource. Restraining the growth of the capacity of the existing fleet would maintain the capacity goal while allowing fishing vessels to take full advantage of all fishing opportunities, which is important to the economics of CPS vessels because of the wide fluctuations in abundance that occur with many of the individual species. Allowing the transfer of permits gives the holders of limited entry permits flexibility in the management of their individual business operations while maintaining the capacity goal and allows non participants in the fishery to enter the fishery. The payment to the seller for a permit would presumably at least reflect the worth of that permit remaining with the transferring vessel. Issuing new permits would only occur when economic conditions were favorable for adding additional vessels. The procedures for qualifying new vessels would therefore not have an impact on the existing fleet, but the alternatives for issuing new permits could have disproportionate effects on vessels vying for entry. Effects of the regulatory actions under consideration are expected to be neutral, although positive results will likely accrue in the long term by making permits transferable. This will provide some protection to the investments of individual fishermen and reduce the possibility of a declining fleet.

        As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0204. Public reporting burden for an application for transfer of a limited entry permit is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (See ADDRESSES) and to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, D.C. 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the 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 PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subject in 50 CFR Part 660
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 24, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

            PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

          2. In § 660.502, definitions for “comparable capacity”, and “gross tonnage” are added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

            § 660.502
            Definitions.

              Comparable capacity means gross tonnage plus 10 percent of the vessel's calculated gross tonnage.

              Gross tonnage (GT) means gross tonnage as determined by the formula in 46 CFR 69.209(a) for a vessel not designed for sailing (.67 x length x breadth x depth/100). A vessel's length, breadth, and depth are those specified on the vessel's certificate of documentation issued by the U.S. Coast Guard or State.

          3. In § 660.512, a new paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

            § 660.512
            Limited entry fishery.

            (h) Issuance of new permits. (1) When the aggregate gross tonnage of all vessels participating in the limited entry fishery declines below 5,650.9 metric tons (mt), the Council will review the status of the fishery, taking into consideration:
            (i) The changes in gross tonnage that have and are likely to occur in the transfer of limited entry permits;
            (ii) The actual harvesting capacity as experienced in the current fishery in comparison to the capacity goal;
            (iii) Comments of the CPSMT;
            (iv) Any other relevant factors related to maintaining the capacity goal.
            (2) Following its review, the Council will recommend to NMFS whether additional permit(s) should be issued and if the new permit(s) should be temporary or permanent. The issuance of new permit(s) shall be based on the following:
            (i) The qualifying criteria in paragraph (b) of this section, but vessels that were issued a permit before December 31, 2000, are not eligible.
            (ii) If no vessel meets the qualifying criteria in paragraph (b), then the permit(s) will be issued to the vessel(s) with total landings nearest 100 mt during the qualifying period of paragraph (b).
            (iii) No vessel will be issued a permit under this paragraph (h) that is currently registered for use with a permit.
            (3) The Regional Administrator will review the Council's recommendation and determine whether issuing additional permit(s) is consistent with the FMP and with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If issuing additional permit(s) is appropriate, the Regional Administrator will:
            (i) Issue the appropriate number of permits consistent with the Council's recommendation; and
            (ii) Publish a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that a new permit has been issued, the conditions attached to the permits, and the reasons for the action.

          4. Section 660.514 is revised to read as follows:

            § 660.514
            Transferability.
            (a) General. (1) The SFD will process applications for transferring limited entry permits to a different owner and/or to a different vessel according to this section.
            (2) After the effective date of the final rule, the SFD will issue a limited entry permit to the owner of each vessel permitted to participate in the limited entry fishery for CPS. This permit will replace the existing permit and will include the gross tonnage of the vessel, which will constitute an endorsement for that vessel for the purpose of regulating the transfer of limited entry permits.
            (b) Criteria. (1) When the aggregate gross tonnage of all vessels participating the limited entry fishery is at or below 5,650.9 mt, a permit may be transferred to a different owner or to a different vessel in the following circumstances only:
            (i) A permit may be transferred to a vessel without a permit if the vessel without a permit has a comparable capacity to the capacity on the permit or is less than comparable capacity on the permit.
            (ii) When a permit is transferred to a vessel without a permit that has less gross tonnage than that of the permitted vessel, the excess gross tonnage may not be separated from the permit and applied to a second vessel.
            (iii) A permit may be transferred to a vessel without a permit that is of greater than comparable capacity only if two or more permits are transferred to the vessel without a permit to equal the gross tonnage of the vessel. The number of permits required will be determined by adding together the comparable capacity of all permits being transferred. Any gross tonnage in excess of that needed for a vessel remains with the permit.
            (2) When a vessel with multiple permits leaves the fishery, the permits may be sold separately and applied to other vessels according to the criteria in this section.
            (c) Stipulations. (1) The gross tonnage endorsement of a permit is integral to the permit for the duration of the permit, regardless of the gross tonnage of any vessel to which the permit is transferred.
            (2) Permits may be used only on the vessel for which they are registered by the SFD. All permits that authorize a vessel to operate in the limited entry fishery must be on board the vessel during any fishing trip on which CPS is harvested or is on board.
            (3) A permit may be transferred only once during a calendar year.
            (d) Vessel alterations. (1) A permitted vessel's length, breadth, or depth may be altered to increase the gross tonnage of the vessel only if the aggregate gross tonnage of all vessels participating the limited entry fishery equals to, or is below 5,650.9 mt, and only under the following conditions:
            (i) The gross tonnage of the altered vessel, calculated according to the formula in 46 CFR 69.209(a), does not exceed 110 percent of the vessel's original gross tonnage endorsement, and
            (ii) A new certificate of documentation is obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard or State. Modifications exceeding 110 percent of the vessel's gross tonnage endorsement will require registration of the vessel under an additional permit or permits or under a permit with a sufficient gross tonnage endorsement.
            (2) A copy of the certificate of documentation indicating changes in length, depth, or breadth must be provided to the SFD.
            (3) The revised gross tonnage will not be valid as an endorsement until a revised permit is issued by the SFD.
            (e) Applications. (1) All requests for the transfer of a limited entry permit will be made to the SFD in writing and shall contain the following information:

            (i) Name, address, and phone number of the owner of the permitted vessel.
            (ii) Name of the permitted vessel and documentation number of the vessel.
            (iii) Name, address, and phone number of the owner of the vessel to which the permit is to be transferred.
            (iv) Name and documentation number of the vessel to which the permit is to be transferred.
            (v) Signature(s) of the owner(s) of the vessels participating in the transfer.
            (vi) Any other information that the SFD may request.
            (2) No permit transfer is effective until the transfer has been authorized by the SFD.
            (f) Capacity reduction. (1) When the aggregate gross tonnage of the limited entry fleet reaches 5,933.5 mt, a permit may be transferred to a vessel without a permit only if the vessel without a permit is of the same or less gross tonnage.
            (2) When the aggregate gross tonnage of the limited entry fleet reaches 5,933.5 mt, alterations in the length, depth, or breadth of a permitted vessel may not result in an increase in the gross tonnage of the vessel.

      [FR Doc. 02-27613 Filed 10-29-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        48 CFR Part 241
        [DFARS Case 2003-D069]
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Utility Services

          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 update text pertaining to the acquisition of utility services. This proposed rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 25, 2005, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2003-D069, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Defense Acquisition Regulations Web Site:
            http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail:
            dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2003-D069 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.
          All comments received will be posted to http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Michele Peterson, (703) 602-0311.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background

        DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/transf.htm.

        This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed changes—
        • Delete text on use of competitive procedures and delegated authority to acquire utility services at DFARS 241.202 and 241.203, as these issues are adequately addressed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
        • Delete obsolete text on preaward contract reviews at DFARS 241.270; and

        • Delete procedures and corresponding definitions related to connection charges and award of separate contracts for utility services at DFARS 241.101, 241.202, and 241.205. Text on this subject will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi.

        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this rule 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 deletes DFARS text that is obsolete or duplicative of FAR policy or that addresses DoD procedural matters. 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 subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D069.

        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 241
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 241 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 241 continues to read as follows:

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

          PART 241—ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES
          2. Section 241.101 is amended by removing the definitions of “Definite term contract”, “Dual service area”, and “Indefinite term contract”, and by revising the definition of “Service power procurement officer” to read as follows:

            241.101
            Definitions.

              Service power procurement officer means for the—
            (1) Army, the Chief of Engineers;
            (2) Navy, the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command;
            (3) Air Force, the head of a contracting activity; and
            (4) Defense Logistics Agency, the head of a contracting activity.
            3. Section 241.103 is revised to read as follows:

            241.103
            Statutory and delegated authority.
            (1) The contracting officer may enter into a utility service contract related to the conveyance of a utility system for a period not to exceed 50 years (10 U.S.C. 2688(c)(3)).
            (2) See PGI 241.103 for statutory authorities and maximum contract periods for utility and energy contracts.
            4. Section 241.202 is revised to read as follows:

            241.202
            Procedures.
            (1) Connection and service charges. The Government may pay a connection charge when required to cover the cost of the necessary connecting facilities. A connection charge based on the estimated labor cost of installing and removing the facility shall not include salvage cost. A lump-sum connection charge shall be no more than the agreed cost of the connecting facilities less net salvage. The order of precedence for contractual treatment of connection and service charges is—
            (i) No connection charge.
            (ii) Termination liability. Use when an obligation is necessary to secure the required services. The obligation must be not more than the agreed connection charge, less any net salvage material costs. Use of a termination liability instead of a connection charge requires the approval of the service power procurement officer or designee.
            (iii) Connection charge, refundable. Use a refundable connection charge when the supplier refuses to provide the facilities based on lack of capital or published rules which prohibit providing up-front funding. The contract should provide for refund of the connection charge within five years unless a longer period or omission of the refund requirement is authorized by the service power procurement officer or designee.
            (iv) Connection and service charges, nonrefundable. The Government may pay certain nonrefundable, nonrecurring charges including service initiation charges, a contribution in aid of construction, membership fees, and charges required by the supplier's rules and regulations to be paid by the customer. If possible, consider sharing with other than Government users the use of (and costs for) facilities when large nonrefundable charges are required.
            (2) Construction and labor requirements. Follow the procedures at PGI 241.202(2) for construction and labor requirements associated with connection and service charges.

            241.203
            [Removed]
            5. Section 241.203 is removed.
            6. Section 241.205 is revised to read as follows:

            241.205
            Separate contracts.
            Follow the procedures at PGI 241.205 when acquiring utility services by separate contract.

            241.270
            [Removed]
            7. Section 241.270 is removed.

      [FR Doc. 05-3198 Filed 2-18-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 041307D]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; Notice of Limited Access Privilege Program Public Workshop

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of an additional public workshop.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS will present an additional public workshop in June 2007 on the proposed program to implement the Amendment 80 Program (Program) for potentially eligible participants and other interested parties. The Program would implement a limited access privilege program (LAPP) for specific groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the proposed Program, discuss the key proposed Program elements, and answer questions. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding and reviewing this proposed Program.

          DATES:
          The workshop will be held on Monday, June 18, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific standard time.

          ADDRESSES:
          The workshop will be held at the Nordby Conference Center, Fishermen's Terminal, 3919 18th Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS has published a proposed rule that would implement a LAPP for Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for BSAI Groundfish (FMP) (72 FR 30052, May 30, 2007). Among other things, Amendment 80 would allocate specific BSAI groundfish resources among a defined group of harvesters under a LAPP; limit the bycatch of halibut and crab resources; assign Amendment 80 quota share (QS) that could be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege on an annual basis; allow Amendment 80 QS holders to form a cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders on an annual basis to receive an exclusive harvest privilege; implement use caps to limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person could hold; limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that could be taken by participants in the Program; ensure minimum retention of groundfish while fishing in the BSAI; and establish necessary monitoring and enforcement standards. Amendment 80 was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council on June 9, 2006.
        In addition to other laws, the Program is specifically designed to meet the requirements of:
        • Section 219 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447; December 8, 2004), which defined the Amendment 80 sector and implemented a capacity reduction program for several catcher/processor sectors;
        • Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; July 11, 2006), which amended provisions of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and
        • The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007), which modified provisions related to the CDQ Program and instituted other measures applicable to LAPPs.

        NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding and reviewing the proposed requirements. A similar workshop was held May 23, 2007 (72 FR 27798, May 17, 2007). At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the proposed Program, and discuss the key Program elements, including: quota share application; cooperative and limited access participation provisions; cooperative quota transfer provisions; measures to establish sideboard limits to protect non-LAPP fishery participants, the appeals process; catch accounting; monitoring and enforcement; and electronic reporting. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
        Special Accommodations

        This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Glenn Merrill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by June 11, 2007.

          Dated: May 31, 2007.
          James P. Burgess
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-10923 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S