        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0022; FRL-9946-11-Region 6]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Permitting of Greenhouse Gases

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana on December 21, 2011. This revision outlines the State's program to regulate and permit emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Louisiana Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. We are proposing to approve those provisions to the extent that they address the GHG permitting requirements for sources already subject to PSD for pollutants other than GHGs. We are proposing to disapprove those provisions to the extent they require PSD permitting for sources that emit only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit since that is no longer consistent with federal law. The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0022, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
        I. Background

        On January 2, 2011, GHGs became subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act and thus regulated under the PSD permitting program. See 75 FR17004, April 2, 2010. To establish a process for phasing in the permitting requirements for stationary sources of GHGs under the CAA PSD and title V programs, on June 3, 2010, the EPA promulgated a final rule “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” (referred to as the Tailoring Rule). See 75 FR 31514. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) adopted revisions to the Louisiana Administrative Code on April 20, 2011, to address the PSD permitting requirements for sources with GHG emissions. These revisions, which included content from the Tailoring Rule, were submitted to the EPA on December 21, 2011, for inclusion in the Louisiana SIP. Specifically, the LDEQ submitted new definitions for “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e),” “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” and revisions to the existing definitions of “major stationary source” and “significant” at LAC 33:III.509(B). The submittal also included revisions to the general permitting program requirements at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14) to limit the regulation of GHGs under Louisiana's SIP to match any future changes in federal law or decisions by the Supreme Court or U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The December 21, 2011 submittal also included revisions to the Louisiana title V program at LAC 33:III.502 which is not a part of the SIP requirements under section 110 of the Act and will be addressed by the EPA in a separate action at a later date.
        II. The EPA's Evaluation
        In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD and title V requirements to sources only if they were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. These sources are referred to as “anyway sources.” Under its understanding of the CAA at the time, the EPA believed the Tailoring Rule was necessary to avoid a sudden and unmanageable increase in the number of sources that would be required to obtain PSD and title V permits under the CAA because the sources emitted GHGs over applicable major source and major modification thresholds.
        In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA applied to some sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs, and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA regulations. We generally describe the sources covered by PSD during Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as “Step 2 sources.”

        On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of stationary source permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) and thus require the source to obtain a PSD or title V permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits for emissions of pollutants other than GHGs contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). With respect to PSD, the ruling effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for “anyway sources” and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or “anyway sources.” With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's judgment ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.”

        The EPA promulgated a final rule on August 19, 2015, removing the portions of the PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources from the federal regulations that the D.C. Circuit specifically identified as vacated (40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). See 80 FR 50199. We no longer have the authority to conduct PSD permitting for Step 2 sources, nor can we approve provisions submitted by a state for inclusion in their SIP providing this authority.
        A. Evaluation of the Louisiana Automatic Rescission Provisions
        Louisiana's December 21, 2011 SIP submission submittal adds automatic rescission provisions to the State's PSD regulations at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14). The automatic rescission provisions provide that in the event that there is a change in federal law, or the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order which limits or renders ineffective the regulation of GHGs under title I of the CAA, then the corresponding provisions of the Louisiana PSD program shall be limited or rendered ineffective to the same extent.

        The EPA is proposing to approve the Louisiana automatic rescission provisions. In assessing the approvability of automatic rescission provisions, the EPA considers two key factors: (1) Whether the public will be given reasonable notice of any change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission provisions, and (2) whether any future change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission provisions would be consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on federal GHG permitting requirements. See, e.g., 79 FR 8130 (February 11, 2014) and 77 FR 12484 (March 1, 2012). These criteria are derived from the SIP revision procedures set forth in the CAA and federal regulations.

        Regarding public notice, CAA section 110(l) provides that any revision to a SIP submitted by a State to EPA for approval “shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.” In accordance with CAA section 110(l), LDEQ followed applicable notice-and-comment procedures prior to adopting the automatic rescission provisions. Thus, the public is on notice that the automatic rescission provisions in the Louisiana PSD program will enable the Louisiana PSD program and the Louisiana SIP to update automatically to reflect any order by a federal court or any change in federal law that limits or renders ineffective the regulation of GHGs under the CAA's PSD permitting program. Additionally, the EPA interprets this provision to require the LDEQ to provide notice to the general public and regulated community of the changes to the Louisiana PSD program in the event that the automatic rescission provision is triggered. The EPA invites comment, particularly from the State, regarding this interpretation.
        The EPA's consideration of whether any SIP change resulting from Louisiana's automatic rescission provisions would be consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on federal GHG permitting requirements is based on 40 CFR 51.105, which states that “[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion thereof, will not be considered part of an applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by the Administrator in accordance with this part.” To be consistent with 40 CFR 51.105, any automatic SIP change resulting from a court order or federal law change must be consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the effect of such order or federal law change on GHG permitting requirements. We interpret this provision to mean that Louisiana will wait for and follow the EPA's interpretation as to the impact of any federal law change or the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order before Louisiana's SIP would be changed. In the event of a court decision or federal law change that triggers (or likely triggers) application of Louisiana's automatic rescission provisions, the EPA intends to promptly describe the impact of the court decision or federal law change on the enforceability of its GHG permitting regulation. The EPA invites comment, particularly from the State, regarding this interpretation.
        B. Evaluation of the Submitted Revisions to the Louisiana PSD Program
        Prior to the court decisions, the State submitted amended PSD provisions to enable permitting Step 1 and Step 2 sources and the GHG emissions from such sources on December 21, 2011. The EPA has an obligation under section 110 of the CAA to act upon a submitted revision to a state's SIP within 18 months of receipt. The December 21, 2011 SIP revisions have not been withdrawn; therefore, the EPA has an obligation to act on the submitted provisions. We have the authority under section 110(k)(3) of the Act to partially approve and partially disapprove portions of a SIP submittal that are not wholly approvable. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to propose partial approval under section 110(k)(3) of the Act of the submitted provisions that enable the State to permit GHG emissions from Step 1 sources consistent with federal requirements. Simultaneously, we are proposing disapproval of the provisions that enable the permitting of Step 2 sources under the PSD program.

        Our evaluation finds that the revised rules in Louisiana's December 21, 2011 SIP submission achieve the same result as the Step 1 permitting provisions in 40 CFR 51.166 that remain applicable at this time. However, the state rules achieve this result in a manner that differs from the way the EPA's regulations are presently written. The state has not enacted limitations on the meaning of the term “subject to regulation” as reflected in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iv). Instead, the State has adopted a significance level for GHGs whereby the net emissions increase of GHGs calculated on a mass basis equals or exceeds 0 tpy and the net emission increase of GHGs calculated on a CO2e basis is 75,000 tons per year CO2e for new major stationary sources or major modifications, which applies to determine whether the BACT requirement applies to GHGs in PSD permitting. Although the Louisiana SIP submission is structured differently than the EPA's federal rules, the primary practical effect of both is the same: The PSD BACT requirement does not apply to GHG emissions from an “anyway source” unless the source emits GHGs at or above the 75,000 ton per year threshold. Therefore, we find this aspect of Louisiana's SIP submissions to be approvable because it is consistent with the relevant provisions of 40 CFR 51.166.

        It is important to note, however, that the EPA's proposed approval is not based on determination by either EPA or the state that 75,000 tons per year CO2e is an appropriate de minimis level for GHGs. The EPA's proposed approval of the significant emissions rate for GHGs in LDEQ's rule is based only on the recognition that Louisiana's rule applies the same applicability level for the GHG BACT requirement that is presently reflected in the EPA's regulations.

        In establishing the significance level, the State rulemaking does not establish that 75,000 is a de minimis amount of GHG. Nothing in the state's rulemaking record and nothing in this EPA action provide support to substantiate 75,000 tons per year significance level as a de minimis level. See UARG, 134 S. Ct. 2427, at 2449 (noting that the EPA had not established the 75,000 tons per year level in the Tailoring Rule as a de minis threshold below which BACT is not required for a source's GHG emissions).

        Given the deficiencies in the justification for the GHG BACT applicability level in the existing EPA regulations, the EPA is planning to move forward in a separate, national rulemaking to propose a GHG Significant Emission Rate (SER) that would be justified as a de minis threshold level for applying the BACT requirement to GHG emissions under PSD. In the event that the EPA ultimately promulgates a final GHG SER, Louisiana, like all other SIP-approved states, may be obligated to undertake rulemaking to demonstrate consistency with federal requirements or may be subject to a SIP Call to correct a deficiency in the SIP-approved program.
        III. Proposed Action
        Section 110(k)(3) of the Act states that the EPA may partially approve and partially disapprove a SIP submittal if we find that only a portion of the submittal meets the requirements of the Act. We are proposing to approve the revisions to the Louisiana PSD permitting program submitted on December 21, 2011, that provide the State the authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs from Step 1 sources in the Louisiana PSD program. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that the revisions are approvable because the submitted rules are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and are consistent with the laws and regulations for PSD permitting of GHGs. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the following specific revisions to the Louisiana SIP for PSD permitting:
        • New provisions at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14) adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted December 20, 2011;
        • New definitions of “carbon dioxide equivalent” and “greenhouse gases” at LAC 33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted December 20, 2011; and
        • Revisions to the definitions of “major stationary source” paragraphs (a) and (b) and “significant” at LAC 33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted December 20, 2011.
        Upon promulgation of a final approval of these proposed revisions, the EPA would also remove the provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) under which the EPA narrowed the applicability of the Louisiana PSD program to regulate sources consistent with federal requirements. The provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) will no longer be necessary when we finalize approval of the state regulations into the Louisiana SIP.

        We are also proposing to disapprove the provisions submitted on December 21, 2011, that would enable the State of Louisiana to regulate and permit Step 2 sources, under the Louisiana PSD program because the submitted provisions are no longer consistent with federal laws. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to disapprove revisions to the definitions at LAC 33:III.509 for “major stationary source” paragraph (c) “significant” as it pertains to Step 2 sources, as adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted December 20, 2011. Finalization of this proposed disapproval will not require the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan because the Louisiana PSD program would continue to regulate GHG emissions consistent with federal statutory and regulatory permitting requirements. We are proposing this disapproval under section 110 and part C of the Act; as such, we will also not impose sanctions as a result of a final disapproval.
        The EPA is also taking the opportunity to correct an omission in our proposed approval of revisions to the Louisiana Major New Source Review program on August 19, 2015. In that action we neglected to specifically identify the revisions submitted on December 20, 2005 to the PSD definition of “major stationary source” at LAC 33:III.509(B) as part of our proposed action. In both the TSD associated with docket EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131 and in the TSD accompanying today's action, we have evaluated this submission and found the revised regulations to be consistent with federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(iii). As such, we are also proposing approval of the revisions to the definition of “major stationary source” at LAC 33:III.509(B) submitted on December 20, 2005 as subparagraph (e), but was moved to subparagraph (f) in the December 20, 2011 submittal.
        IV. Incorporation by Reference

        In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action proposes approval of the portions of the submitted revisions to State law for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions consistent with federal requirements and proposes disapproval of the portions of the state laws that do not meet Federal requirements for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small governments.
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to disapprove provisions of state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: April 29, 2016.
          Ron Curry,
          Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 2016-10739 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015]
        RIN 2127-AG51
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In January 2008, NHTSA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in connection with its ongoing rulemaking to upgrade the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on roof crush resistance. That rulemaking is part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes.
          We received a petition from Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety requesting an extension of the comment period. After considering the petition, we are extending the comment period by 10 days, from March 17, 2008, to March 27, 2008.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
          You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.

          Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical issues: Mr. Christopher Wiacek, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4801.

            For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On August 23, 2005, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (70 FR 49223) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)1

           to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. As discussed in the NPRM, this rulemaking is part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes. In addition to roof crush, other strategies in the comprehensive approach include crash-avoidance initiatives such as electronic stability control, which will significantly reduce the number of rollovers, as well as crashworthiness efforts such as ejection mitigation and improved door lock strength, which will lower the probability of ejection when rollovers do occur.

            1 Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22143.

        On January 30, 2008, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (73 FR 5484) a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 2
           for its ongoing rulemaking on roof crush resistance. We asked for public comment on a number of issues that may affect the content of the final rule, including possible variations in the proposed requirements. We also announced the release of the results of various vehicle tests conducted since the proposal and invited comments on how the agency should factor this new information into its decisions regarding the final rule. We noted that, in developing a final rule, the agency would consider the comments submitted on both the August 2005 NPRM and the SNPRM. Thus, there is no need for persons to re-submit the comments they provided for the NPRM.

            2 Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0015.

        We provided a 45-day comment period for the SNPRM. We stated we believed this was appropriate given that the SNPRM has a more limited focus than the NPRM, and given the need to comply with a statutory deadline. The statutory deadline for issuing a final rule is July 1, 2008.
        In a petition dated February 25, 2008, Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) requested a 30-day extension of the comment period. The petitioners stated that a 45-day period “is a relatively short time period that does not provide safety organizations adequate opportunity to review the newly proposed regulatory alternative, evaluate the additional test data * * * or consider the policy implications of the changes and prepare comments * * *.” They did not provide detailed information concerning why a longer comment period is needed or what additional information would result from the extension.
        After considering the petition from Public Citizen and Advocates, we have decided to extend the comment period by 10 days. In considering the extension request, we weighed the statutory deadline, the complexity of this rulemaking, and the basis for the request. We recognize that there are a number of complex issues involved with this rulemaking, and wish to facilitate the efforts of the petitioners and other interested persons to provide complete comments. However, we also note, as indicated above, that the SNPRM has a more limited focus than the NPRM, and the July 1, 2008 statutory deadline. After weighing these considerations and the specific information provided by the petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to provide a 10-day extension, but not a 30-day extension.
        Finally, we note that given the 10-day extension and the July 1, 2008 statutory deadline, our ability to consider late comments is likely to be limited. Therefore, while we will consider late comments to the extent possible, we encourage interested persons to submit their comments by the new comment closing date.

          Issued: March 10, 2008.
          Ronald L. Medford,
          Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.

      [FR Doc. 08-1025 Filed 3-10-08; 4:34 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 15
        [ET Docket No. 03-237; FCC 03-289]
        Interference Temperature Operation

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          On January 21, 2004 (69 FR 2863), the Commission published proposed rules in the Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The Notice of Inquiry requests comment, information and research on a number of issues relating to the development and use of the interference temperature metric and for managing a transition from the current transmitter-based approach to the new interference temperature paradigm. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes technical rules that would establish interference temperature limits and procedures for assessing the interference temperature to permit expanded unlicensed operation. This document contains a correction to the “ET Docket No.”, which was inadvertently published incorrectly.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 5, 2004, and reply comments must be filed on or before May 5, 2004.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gary Thayer (202) 418-2290, John Reed (202) 418-2455, or Ahmed Lahjouji (202) 418-2061, Office of Engineering and Technology.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Federal Communications Commission published a document proposing to amend part 15 in the Federal Register of January 21, 2004, (69 FR 2863). This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared. In FR Doc. 04-1192, published on January 21, 2004 (69 FR 2863), the Commission is correcting the docket no. “ET Docket No. 03-327” to reflect the correct docket no. “ET Docket No. 03-237”. In rule FR Doc. 04-1192 published on January 21, 2004 (69 FR 2863), the Commission is correcting ET Docket No. 03-327 to read as ET Docket No. 03-237:
        On page 2863, in the second column, ET Docket No. 03-327 is corrected to read as ET Docket No. 03-237.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 04-2639 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 010914227-1227-01; I.D. 080201E]
        RIN 0468-AM40
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation Program for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement Amendment 67 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area.  This action is necessary to stabilize fully utilized Pacific cod resources harvested with non-trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI).  This would be accomplished by issuing endorsements for exclusive participation in the Pacific cod non-trawl fishery in the BSAI by long-time participants.  The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the Pacific cod resources in the BSAI in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by November 15, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to room 401 of the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (analysis) prepared for Amendment 67 are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK  99501; telephone 907-271-2809.  Specifically, NMFS requests comments on the findings of the analysis, such as more information about the number of small entities adversely affected by this proposed rule and the magnitude of any such adverse effects.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          John Lepore, 907-586-7228 or email at john.lepore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared this fishery management plan (FMP) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing this FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        Background of Amendment 67
        The Council recommended, and NMFS approved, the License Limitation Program (LLP) to address concerns of excess fishing capacity in the groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska.  The LLP replaced the Vessel Moratorium Program, a program implemented by NMFS to impose a temporary moratorium on the entry of new capacity in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska and crab fisheries in the BSAI and to define the class of entities that would be eligible for licenses under the LLP.  The Vessel Moratorium Program expired on December 31, 1999, and fishing under the LLP began on January 1, 2000.  More information on the specifics of the LLP and the problems it was designed to resolve can be found in the final rule implementing the LLP (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998).
        The LLP, as implemented on January 1, 2000, was always considered by the Council and NMFS as an initial stage in a multi-staged process designed to reduce fishing capacity in the affected fisheries.  The LLP is a limited access system authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that requires a person to hold a license in order to participate in the groundfish fishery.  Under the original provisions of the LLP, an LLP groundfish license was specific as to the area in which a person could participate, but not as to gear or species.  The Council fully anticipated that specific fisheries within the LLP complex of fisheries would need further management controls to fully respond to the effects of excess fishing capacity.  One such fishery is BSAI Pacific cod harvested with non-trawl gear.
        In 1996, the Council recommended Amendment 46 to the BSAI FMP.  Amendment 46 allocated the total allowable catch (TAC) for BSAI Pacific cod among participants who used jig gear (2 percent), trawl gear (47 percent), and fixed gear (or hook-and-line gear and pot gear)(51 percent).  Amendment 46 further split the trawl gear allocation equally between catcher vessels and catcher/processor vessels.  Amendment 46 was approved by NMFS, and implemented in January 1997 (61 FR 59029, November 20, 1996).
        Although Amendment 46 initiated a process to address issues surrounding the allocation of BSAI Pacific cod fisheries among various participants, it did not address all of the issues, including increased prices for Pacific cod; reduced crab guideline harvest levels; and shortened or cancelled crab seasons due to low resource abundance, which intensified the use of Pacific cod resources by participants using pot gear.  This intensified use prompted the concern of long-time Pacific cod fishermen who use non-trawl gear about the potential erosion of historical harvest trends in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery in favor of more recent participants.  Also, the entrance of new participants in the fisheries has raised concerns regarding the  increase of competition for a fully utilized resource.

        In response to this concern, the Council recommended Amendment 64.  This amendment, approved by NMFS and implemented by final rule in September 2000 (65 FR 51553, August 24, 2000), further divided the 51 percent of the TAC for BSAI Pacific cod allocated to hook-and-line gear and pot gear as follows:  hook-and-line catcher/processor vessels, 80 percent; hook-and-line catcher vessels, 0.3 percent; pot gear vessels, 18.3 percent; and hook-and-line or pot catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA), 1.4 percent.  Amendment 64 also contained specific provisions for the accounting of directed fishing allowances and the transfer of unharvested amounts of these allowances.  Further information regarding these specific provisions can be found in the final rule that implemented Amendment 64.
        Amendments 46 and 64 established TAC allocations for different gear sectors of the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries.  However, neither amendment prevented movement among those sectors or the entrance of new participants who hold an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands area endorsement into BSAI Pacific cod fisheries, because these amendments did not require specific endorsements.
        In April 1999, the Council initiated an analysis of alternatives to add Pacific cod endorsements to LLP groundfish licenses.  Pacific cod endorsements are designed to address the concern about new participants entering the Pacific cod fisheries and movement of Pacific cod fishermen among the various sectors that use non-trawl gear.  This analysis contained the following Problem Statement:

          The hook-and-line and pot fisheries for Pacific cod in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands are fully utilized.  Competition for this resource has increased for a variety of reasons, including increased market value of cod products and a declining allowable biological catch/TAC.
          Longline and pot fishermen who have made significant long-term investments, have long catch histories, and are significantly dependent on the BSAI cod fisheries need protection from others who have little or limited history and wish to increase their participation in the fishery.
          This requires prompt action to promote stability in the BSAI fixed gear [non-trawl] cod fishery until comprehensive rationalization is completed.

        The analysis reviewed the status of Pacific cod stocks and catch, the history of Pacific cod allocations, and the economic, social, and environmental impacts of various limited access alternatives.  A copy of this analysis can be obtained for review from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        In April 2000, the Council recommended its preferred alternative for the BSAI Pacific cod non-trawl fisheries (Amendment 67).  This recommendation is currently being reviewed by NMFS.  The details of Amendment 67 are provided in the following section.
        Details of Amendment 67
        As explained earlier, the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries are fully utilized.  Therefore, any new participant increases the competition for an already fully utilized resource.  Although new participants are often discouraged from entering such a fishery due to the costs of increased competition, the relatively high value of the Pacific cod and the depressed abundance of crab resources have provided incentives for new participants to enter the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries.
        The Council considered various alternatives to limit entry into the BSAI Pacific cod fishery by fishermen using non-trawl gear.  These alternatives were designed to prevent a person who holds an LLP groundfish license, but who has not participated in the Pacific cod fisheries in the BSAI with non-trawl gear in the past, or who has not participated at a level that could constitute significant dependence on those fisheries, from participating in those fisheries in the future.
        After receiving public testimony concerning this action, the Council recommended the following eligibility requirements for Pacific cod endorsements:
        Eligibility Requirements—General Information
        As used throughout this document, a license holder means the person to whom an LLP groundfish license was issued or the person authorized to use that license.
        Qualifying amounts are in round weight.  Round weight is calculated by dividing the weight of the primary product made from the Pacific cod by the product recovery rate for that primary product as listed in Table 3 to 50 CFR part 679.  Primary product can be processed or unprocessed.
        Pacific cod that was harvested for the commercial bait fishery and properly documented would be applied toward the qualifying amount.  Properly documented means that the Pacific cod was landed in compliance with Federal and state commercial fishing regulations in effect at the time of landing.  Pacific cod that was harvested for personal use bait would not be applied toward the qualifying amount.  The Council reviewed the Pacific cod bait issue and determined that giving credit for commercial bait, but not personal bait, was consistent with a Pacific cod fishery that is commercial in nature.
        Pacific cod harvested in the Bering Sea Subarea or the Aleutian Islands Subarea would be applied toward the qualifying amount.  However, a license holder would only be authorized to harvest Pacific cod in an area in which he or she had an area endorsement.  This would be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the LLP (i.e., a person had to participate in a management area during a specific period to qualify for an area endorsement).  For example, a person who had an LLP groundfish license with only a Bering Sea area endorsement would not be authorized to harvest Pacific cod in the Aleutian Islands subarea, even though his or her Pacific cod endorsement was issued based on harvests in both the Bering Sea Subarea and the Aleutian Islands Subarea.
        Also, discarded Pacific cod would not be applied toward the qualifying amount.  Discarded fish are often not reported and do not enter the stream of commerce; therefore, they are not considered commercial in nature.
        Eligibility Requirements—Specific Information
        To receive a Pacific cod endorsement that authorizes an LLP groundfish license holder to harvest Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI but not process that Pacific cod, a person would need to have:
        1. An LLP groundfish license with a catcher vessel designation;
        2. Harvested at least 7.5 metric tons (mt) round weight of Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear or jig gear in the directed commercial BSAI Pacific cod fishery in any 1 of the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999; and
        3.  Harvested the qualifying amount with the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s LLP groundfish license.
        To receive a Pacific cod endorsement that authorizes an LLP groundfish license holder to harvest Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI and process that Pacific cod, a person would need to have:
        1. An LLP groundfish license with a catcher/processor vessel designation;
        2. Harvested at least 270 mt round weight of Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the directed commercial BSAI Pacific cod fishery in any 1 of the years 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999; and
        3. Harvested the qualifying amount with the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s LLP groundfish license.
        To receive a Pacific cod endorsement that authorizes an LLP groundfish license holder to harvest Pacific cod with pot gear in the BSAI but not process that Pacific cod, a person would need to have:
        1. An LLP groundfish license with a catcher vessel designation;
        2. Harvested at least 100,000 lb (45 mt) round weight of Pacific cod with pot gear or jig gear in the directed commercial BSAI Pacific cod fishery in each of any 2 of the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999; and

        3. Harvested the qualifying amount with the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s LLP groundfish license.
        To receive a Pacific cod endorsement that authorizes an LLP groundfish license holder to harvest Pacific cod with pot gear in the BSAI and process that Pacific cod, a person would need to have:
        1. An LLP groundfish license with a catcher/processor vessel designation;
        2. Harvested at least 300,000 lb (136 mt) round weight of Pacific cod with pot gear in the directed commercial BSAI Pacific cod fishery in each of any 2 of the years 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998; and
        3. Harvested the qualifying amount with the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s LLP groundfish license.
        Except as explained here, a license holder would need to have a Pacific cod endorsement on his or her LLP groundfish license to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI with hook-and-line or pot gear(s) including Pacific cod harvested for the commercial bait fishery.  The license holder would have to use the specific non-trawl gear designated with the Pacific cod endorsement.
        Exemptions
        A license holder would not need a Pacific cod endorsement on his or her LLP groundfish license to use a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 mt) LOA to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI with non-trawl gear.  The Council decided to exempt this class of vessels because of concern over the ability of these relatively small vessels to compete under the current fishery management regime.  Amendment 64 allocates 1.4 percent of the BSAI Pacific cod non-trawl allocation to vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA.  In providing this exemption, the Council intended to ensure that the number of vessels in this vessel class would be sufficient to take advantage of the entire allocation.
        Exemptions to the LLP would apply to the Pacific cod endorsement.  That means that a vessel that is exempt from the LLP would not need to comply with Pacific cod endorsement requirements proposed by this rule to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI with non-trawl gear.  These exemptions include (1) vessels less than 32 ft (7.5 m) LOA and (2) vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA using a limited amount of jig gear.  Specific information concerning these exemptions can be found at 50 CFR 679.4(k)(2).
        A Pacific cod endorsement would not be required to harvest Pacific cod for personal use bait.
        Other Provisions
        The Council considered several provisions that would have allowed a person to combine the catch histories of more than one vessel to qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement.  The Council recommended that a person be allowed to combine catch histories only when the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the original LLP groundfish license sank and was replaced with another vessel by that person within a specified time period.  The Council decided not to allow any other combining of landings (or catch histories) of multiple vessels because of the potential of increasing participation in a fishery in which excess capacity already is a recognized problem.  The Council determined that allowing for the combining of landings in the limited circumstances of sunken vessels would not greatly increase the number of participants (the analysis identified approximately seven vessels that may qualify for this provision).  However, it would provide equitable consideration to those persons who would have participated but for their vessel sinking.
        Specifically, a person could combine the landings of a sunken vessel with the landings of a replacement vessel to meet the eligibility criteria for a Pacific cod endorsement if:
        (1) The vessel that sank was used as the basis of eligibility for the original LLP groundfish license;
        (2) The vessel sank after January 1, 1995; and
        (3) The sunken vessel was replaced with a vessel by December 31 of the year 2 years after the vessel sank.  This time period was chosen by the Council because it corresponds with the time period used by the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes.  For example, if a vessel sank any time during 1996, replacement of that vessel had to occur before December 31, 1998.
        Another provision recommended by the Council concerns unavoidable circumstances.  This hardship provision is similar to one provided for general LLP eligibility and would enable a person to receive a Pacific cod endorsement even though that person would not qualify for an endorsement based on landings.  The requirements for eligibility under the hardship provision would be very specific.  First, a person would have to be an LLP groundfish license holder and owner of the vessel that, but for the unavoidable circumstances, would have had sufficient landings to meet the requirements for a Pacific cod endorsement.  Second, that person would have to demonstrate a specific intent to use that vessel to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI during the relevant time period and the capability to have made harvests sufficient to meet the eligibility criteria.  Third, the specific intent would have to have been thwarted by a circumstance that was unavoidable, unique to the person or unique to the vessel, and unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable to the person.  Fourth, under the circumstances, the person would have to have taken all reasonable steps to overcome the circumstances.  Fifth, any amount of Pacific cod would have to have been harvested on the vessel in the BSAI with non-trawl gear during the period of eligibility for the specific Pacific cod endorsement desired but after the vessel was prevented from participating by the unavoidable circumstance.
        Species Endorsements in the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Fisheries
        The Council recommended that the provisions of Amendment 67 apply to the CDQ fisheries.  This means that vessels not authorized to harvest Pacific cod under the LLP would be prohibited from directed fishing for Pacific cod CDQ.  However, NMFS regulations do not currently define directed fishing for Pacific cod in the CDQ fisheries.
        Through the CDQ program, NMFS allocates 10 percent of pollock and 7.5 percent of the BSAI groundfish, prohibited species, halibut, and crab TAC to 65 eligible Western Alaska communities.  The CDQ groups to which the TAC is allocated are expected to manage their allocations of CDQ and Prohibited Species Quota to account for bycatch as well as target catch.  The CDQ groups are prohibited from exceeding any of their CDQ allocations, which prevents continued fishing for one groundfish species once the quota of another groundfish or halibut bycatch species is reached.
        In the non-CDQ fisheries, NMFS defines directed fisheries based on the amount of retained catch of a given species relative to the amount of other groundfish species on board the vessel.  When a TAC amount for a species is approached, NMFS will close directed fishing for the species but allow fishing to continue in other fisheries in which the species is taken incidentally.

        Thus, in contrast to the non-CDQ fisheries, NMFS has traditionally not needed to define directed fishing within the CDQ program and current regulations prohibit the use of CDQ catch as the basis for calculating the maximum retainable bycatch.  These regulations were implemented because directed fishing closures did not apply to the CDQ fisheries.  Further, because there are no provisions for regulatory discard, vessels engaged in CDQ fisheries are often required to retain all catch.
        Implementing Amendment 67 would require that the existing regulations be amended as follows:  First, the definition of directed fishing in § 679.2 would be revised, in order to remove specific reference to the CDQ fisheries.  This reference was appropriate when the only directed fishery defined under the CDQ program was pollock.  However, under this rule, directed fishing for Pacific cod in the CDQ fisheries would be defined following the same procedure as the non-CDQ fisheries.  Second, the use of CDQ species as basis species for calculating retainable amounts of other CDQ species would be allowed.  This revision would be necessary to determine whether a vessel is directed fishing for Pacific cod in the CDQ fisheries and would be required to have  species endorsements.  Third, regulatory discards of Pacific cod by vessels that do not have a Pacific cod species endorsement would be allowed.  This revision would be necessary so that vessel operators who do not have a Pacific cod species endorsement could comply with the maximum retainable bycatch amounts of Pacific cod.
        This action would also clarify the existing CDQ regulations by specifically allowing the regulatory discard of sablefish when their retention is prohibited by other regulations.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 67 to the FMP for the Groundfish Fishery of the BSAI is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on the amendment.
        The Council prepared an environmental assessment for FMP Amendment 67 that analyzes the impacts on the environment as a result of this action.  The assessment indicates that the individual and cumulative impacts of this action would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.  This action would reduce the number of eligible participants in the BSAI non-trawl Pacific cod fishery, as compared to the status quo.  This reduction is not expected to adversely impact the targeted fishery stock, non-targeted fishery stocks, or the physical environment.
        The Council also prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA).  The IRFA was prepared by the Council because it was unable to make a definitive finding of non-significance under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The IRFA indicates that the Council took this action under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which authorizes the Council to recommend to the Secretary of Commerce limited access measures that are consistent with sound fishery management and conservation policies.  The Council recommended Amendment 67 to further rationalize the Pacific cod fisheries in the BSAI in a manner consistent with the overall principles of LLP and to protect investment-backed expectations of long-term participants in the Pacific cod fisheries.  Besides the proposed qualifying criteria, the Council considered other combinations of qualifying harvest amounts and qualifying years that could have allowed more small entities to participate; however, these alternative combinations failed to meet conservation and management goals for this fully utilized fishery.
        Approximately 365 catcher vessels, 67 catcher/processor vessels, and 5 shore-based processors were considered small entities for purposes of the IRFA.  However, because little is known about the ownership structures of certain vessels (i.e., some vessels may be tied to corporations with revenues greater than $3 million), the IRFA may have overestimated the number of small entities.  This action does not increase existing reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements.  Harvesting information necessary to determine eligibility for an endorsement is already available to NMFS.  However, if a person feels that the information is in error, he or she would need to provide alternative information for review and verification.  As this action creates a new endorsement under the LLP, it does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with any other relevant Federal regulations.
        To reduce the impacts of this recommendation on small entities the Council exempted catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) from the endorsement requirement and allowed persons operating vessels greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) to use harvests of Pacific cod with jig gear to qualify for endorsements.  The Council also included a general hardship exemption provision (details of which were already mentioned above) to further mitigate possible adverse effects to small entities that would not have otherwise qualified.  NMFS requests comments on the IRFA from small entities and others who would be affected by this proposed rule.  Specifically, NMFS requests more information about the number of small entities adversely affected by this proposed rule and the magnitude of any such adverse effects.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

        Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  September 25, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,  National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

            PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

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

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; sec. 3027, Pub. L. 106-31; 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); and sec. 209, Pub. L. 106-554.

            § 679.2
            [Amended]

          2.  In § 679.2, the definition of “Directed fishing” is amended by removing paragraph (5).

          3.  In § 679.4, paragraph (k)(1)(i) is revised and paragraph (k)(9) is added to read as follows:

            § 679.4
            Permits.

            (k) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) In addition to the permit and licensing requirements of this part, and except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, each vessel within the GOA or the BSAI must have an LLP groundfish license on board at all times it is engaged in fishing activities defined in § 679.2 as directed fishing for license limitation groundfish.  This groundfish license, issued by NMFS to a qualified person, authorizes a license holder to deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for license limitation groundfish only in accordance with the specific area and species endorsements, the vessel and gear designations, and the MLOA specified on the license.

            (9) Pacific cod endorsements—(i) General.  In addition to other requirements of this part, and unless specifically exempted in paragraph (k)(9)(iv) of this section, a license holder must have a Pacific cod endorsement on his or her groundfish license to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.  A license holder can only use the specific non-trawl gear(s) indicated on his or her license to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI.
            (ii) Eligibility requirements for a Pacific cod endorsement.  This table provides eligibility requirements for Pacific cod endorsements on an LLP groundfish license:

                IF A LICENSE HOLDER’S LICENSE HAS A...
                AND THE LICENSE HOLDER HARVESTED PACIFIC COD IN THE BSAI WITH...
                THEN THE LICENSE HOLDER MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT HE OR SHE HARVESTED AT LEAST...
                IN...
                TO RECEIVE A PACIFIC COD ENDORSEMENT THAT AUTHORIZES HARVEST WITH...

                (A) Catcher vessel designation
                hook-and-line gear or jig gear
                7.5 mt of Pacific cod in the BSAI
                in any 1 of the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999
                hook-and-line gear.

                (B) Catcher vessel designation
                pot gear or jig gear
                100,000 lb of Pacific cod in the BSAI
                in each of any 2 of the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999
                pot gear.

                (C) Catcher/processor vessel designation
                hook-and-line gear
                270 mt of Pacific cod in the BSAI
                in any 1 of the years 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999
                hook-and-line gear.

                (D) Catcher/processor vessel designation
                pot gear
                300,000 lb of Pacific cod in the BSAI
                in each of any 2 of the years 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998
                pot gear.

            (iii) Explanations for Pacific cod endorsements. (A) All eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section will be determined based on round weight equivalents.
            (B) Discards will not count toward eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section.
            (C) Pacific cod harvested for personal bait use will not count toward eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section.
            (D) A legal landing of Pacific cod in the BSAI for commercial bait will count toward eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section.
            (E) Landings within the BSAI will count toward eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section; however, a license holder will only be able to harvest Pacific cod in the specific areas in the BSAI for which he or she has an area endorsement.
            (iv) Exemptions to Pacific cod endorsements. (A) Any vessel exempted from the License Limitation Program at paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
            (B) Any catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 mt) LOA.
            (C) Any catch of Pacific cod for personal use bait.
            (v) Combination of landings and hardship provision.  Notwithstanding the eligibility requirements in paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section, a license holder may be eligible for a Pacific cod endorsement by meeting the following criteria.

            (A) Combination of landings. A license holder may combine the landings of a sunken vessel and the landings of a vessel obtained to replace a sunken vessel to satisfy the eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section only if he or she meets the requirements in paragraphs (k)(9)(v)(A)(1)—(4) of this section.  No other combination of landings will satisfy the eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section.
            (1) The sunken vessel was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s groundfish license;
            (2) The sunken vessel sank after January 1, 1995;
            (3) The vessel obtained to replace the sunken vessel was obtained by December 31 of the year 2 years after the sunken vessel sank; and
            (4) The length of the vessel obtained to replace the sunken vessel does not exceed the MLOA specified on the license holder’s groundfish license.
            (B) Hardship provision. A license holder may be eligible for a Pacific cod endorsement because of unavoidable circumstances if he or she meets the requirements in paragraphs (k)(9)(v)(B)(1)—(4) of this section.  For purposes of this hardship provision, the term license holder includes the person whose landings were used to meet the eligibility requirements for the license holder’s groundfish license, if not the same person.
            (1) The license holder at the time of the unavoidable circumstance held a specific intent to conduct directed fishing for BSAI Pacific cod in a manner sufficient to meet the landing requirements in the table at paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section but this intent was thwarted by a circumstance that was:
            (i) Unavoidable;
            (ii) Unique to the license holder, or unique to the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s groundfish license; and
            (iii) Unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable to the license holder.
            (2) The circumstance that prevented the license holder from conducting directed fishing for BSAI Pacific cod in a manner sufficient to meet the landing requirements in paragraph (k)(9)(ii) actually occurred;
            (3) The license holder took all reasonable steps to overcome the circumstance that prevented the license holder from conducting directed fishing for BSAI Pacific cod in a manner sufficient to meet the landing requirements in paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section; and
            (4) Any amount of Pacific cod was harvested in the BSAI aboard the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the license holder’s groundfish license during the time period required for the Pacific cod endorsement but after the vessel was prevented from participating by the unavoidable circumstance.

          4.  In § 679.7, paragraph (d)(11), (d)(16) and (d)(23) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.7
            Prohibitions.

            (d)* * *
            (11) For the operator of a catcher vessel using trawl gear or any vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA that is groundfish CDQ fishing as defined at  § 679.2, discard any groundfish CDQ species or salmon PSQ before it is delivered to an eligible processor listed on an approved CDP unless discard of the groundfish CDQ is required under other provisions or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard is required by laws of the State of Alaska.

            (16) Use any groundfish CDQ species as a basis species for calculating retainable amounts of non-CDQ species under § 679.20.

            (23) For any person on a vessel using fixed gear that is fishing for a CDQ group with an allocation of fixed gear sablefish CDQ, discard sablefish harvested with fixed gear unless discard of sablefish is required under other provisions or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard is required by laws of the State of Alaska.

          5.  In § 679.20, paragraph (f)(2) and (f)(3) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.20
            General limitations.

            (f) * * *
            (2) Retainable amounts.  Except as provided in Table 10 to this part, arrowtooth flounder, or any groundfish species for which directed fishing is closed may not be used to calculate retainable amounts of other groundfish species.  CDQ species may only be used to calculate retainable amounts of other CDQ species.
            (3) Directed fishing for pollock CDQ.  Directed fishing for pollock CDQ is determined based on the species composition of the total catch of groundfish while harvesting groundfish CDQ species.  For catcher/processors, the species composition of each haul is assessed to determine the directed fishery.  For catcher vessels, the species composition of the catch onboard the vessel at any time is assessed to determine the directed fishery.  The groundfish species used to calculate total catch of groundfish includes all species categories defined in Table 1 of the annual BSAI specifications.  A vessel operator using trawl gear is directed fishing for pollock CDQ if pollock represents 60 percent or more of the total catch of groundfish species by weight in a haul by a catcher/processor or 60 percent or more of the total catch of groundfish species by weight onboard the catcher vessel at any time.

          6.  In § 679.32, paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i)(A), (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (f)(4) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.32
            Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Operators of catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 mt) LOA must retain all groundfish CDQ, halibut CDQ, and salmon PSQ until it is delivered to a processor that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) or (c)(4) of this section unless discard of the groundfish CDQ species is required under other provisions or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard is required by laws of the State of Alaska.  Operators of catcher vessels using trawl gear must report the at-sea discards of halibut PSQ or crab PSQ on the CDQ delivery sheet (see § 679.5(n)(1).  Operators of catcher vessels using nontrawl gear must report the at-sea discards of halibut PSQ on the CDQ delivery report, unless exempted from the accounting for halibut PSQ under paragraph (b) of this section.

            (2) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (A) Retain all CDQ species and salmon PSQ until they are delivered to a processor that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) or (c)(4) of this section unless discard of the groundfish CDQ species is required under other provisions or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard is required by laws of the State of Alaska.

            (ii) * * *
            (A) Option 1: Retain all CDQ species.  Retain all CDQ species until they are delivered to a processor that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) or (c)(4) of this section unless discard of the groundfish CDQ or PSQ species is required under other provisions or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard is required by laws of the State of Alaska.  Have all of the halibut PSQ counted by the CDQ observer and sampled for length or average weight; or

            (f) * * *
            (4) Groundfish CDQ retention requirements.  Operators of vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are not required to retain and deliver groundfish CDQ species while halibut CDQ fishing, unless required to do so elsewhere in this part.  Operators of vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are required to comply with all groundfish CDQ and PSQ catch accounting requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, including the retention of all groundfish CDQ, if option 1 under § 679.32(c)(2)(ii) is selected in the CDP.  CDQ species may be discarded when required by other provisions or, in waters within the State of Alaska, when discard is required by laws of the State of Alaska.

      [FR Doc. 01-24518 Filed 9-28-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Office of the Secretary
        48 CFR Part 1419
        [190D0102DM DS62500000 DLSN00000.000000 DX62501; DOI-2018-0018]
        RIN 1090-AB22
        Acquisition Regulation: Removal of Outdated References

          AGENCY:
          Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Department of the Interior is issuing a proposed rule amending the Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation (DIAR) to implement Section 15(k) of the Small Business Act and remove outdated references and/or obsolete information.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments on the rulemaking on Docket Number DOI-2018-0018 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Please use Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1090-AB22 in your message. Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Christopher Bell, Procurement Analyst, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Small Business, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 4262 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 208-3458 or email christopher_bell@ios.doi.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        This proposed rule will revise the Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation (DIAR) in order to update references to other Federal and Departmental directives, remove obsolete material and remove obsolete references.
        On November 24th, 2015, the DOI Office of Acquisition and Property Management (PAM) issued a class deviation to DIAR 1419.2, to revise the content in 1419.201 and 1419.202. This proposed rule intends to update the DIAR with changes from the deviation and rescind the class deviation.
        The content of DIAR 1419.201 related to setting goals for small business contracting, the role of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) and the appointment of Small Business Specialists and was out of date and inconsistent with statutory requirements and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The deviation ensured that DOI manages our small business goals in full compliance with SBA's procedures and adhered to FAR requirements regarding the role of the OSDBU and Small Business Specialists. This proposed rule ensures that the role of the Director of the OSDBU is consistent with the Small Business Act 15 U.S.C. 644(k).
        The proposed rule simplifies DIAR 1419.202 to allow the OSDBU Director responsibility for issuing policy on the use and content of the Form DI-1886 “Acquisition Screening and Review Form”.
        The proposed rule further intends to remove the following from DIAR 1419:
        Remove DIAR 1419.505, “Rejecting Small Business Administration recommendations.” The Department has determined that the procedures in FAR 19.505 are sufficient for documenting the rejection of Small Business Administration's recommendation and that further supplemental guidance in the DIAR is duplicative and redundant;
        Remove DIAR 1419.506, “Withdrawing or modifying small business set-asides.” The Department has determined that the procedures in FAR 19.506 are sufficient for withdrawing or modifying small business set-asides and that further supplemental guidance in the DIAR is duplicative and redundant;

        Remove DIAR 1419.7, “The Small Business Subcontracting Program”, in its entirety. The DOI has determined that the procedures in FAR 19.7 are sufficient for managing the DOI's small business subcontracting program;
        Remove DIAR 1419.803, Selecting acquisitions for the 8(a) program;
        Remove DIAR 1419.9, “Contracting Opportunities for Women-Owned Small Businesses”, in its entirety. The Executive Order 12138 supporting the regulation has been superseded by the Women Owned Small Business program established under 15 U.S.C 637(m);
        Remove DIAR 1419.10, “Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program”, in its entirety. FAR 19.10 was established to meet the requirements of the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-656). Section 1335 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240) amended the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 and repealed the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program.
        II. Required Determinations
        1. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563). Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
        Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive Order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public, where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        2. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Secretary certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
        3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This proposed rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This proposed rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This proposed rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector nor does the rule impose requirements on State, local, or tribal governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
        5. Takings (E.O. 12630). This proposed rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
        6. Federalism (E.O. 13132). Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. It would not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and state governments. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
        7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988). This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule (1) meets the criteria of section 3(a) of this E.O. requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and (2) meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) of this E.O. requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
        8. Consultation with Indian tribes (E.O. 13175). The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. This rule does not apply to tribal awards made in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2204), as amended.
        9. Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is not required.
        10. National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in 43 CFR 46.210(c). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
        11. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
        12. Clarity of this Regulation. We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must (1) be logically organized; (2) use the active voice to address readers directly; (3) use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon; (4) be divided into short sections and sentences; and (5) use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the number of section or paragraphs that you find unclear, which section or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
        13. Public availability of comments. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be publically available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1419
          Government procurement, Small business.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, DOI proposes to revise 48 CFR, chapter 7, part 1419 to read as follows:

          PART 1419—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

              Subpart 1419.1—[Reserved]

              Subpart 1419.2—Policies
              Sec.
              1419.201
              General Policy.
              1419.202
              Specific policies.

              Subpart 1419.3—[Reserved]

              Subpart 1419.4—[Reserved]

              Subpart 1419.5—Set-Asides for Small Business
              1419.503
              Setting aside a class of acquisitions.
              1419.503-70
              Class set-aside for construction acquisitions.

              Subpart 1419.6—Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility
              1419.602
              Procedures.
              1419.602-1
              Referral.

              Subpart 1419.7—[Reserved]

              Subpart 1419.8—Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program)
              1419.803
              [Reserved]
              1419.810
              SBA appeals.

              Subpart 1419.9—[Reserved]

              Subpart 1419.10—[Reserved]

            Authority:
            Sec. 205(c); 63 Stat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 5 U.S.C. 301.

            Subpart 1419.1—[Reserved]

            Subpart 1419.2—Policies

              1419.201
               General Policy.
              The Director of the Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for the following;
              (a) Developing and maintaining policies, procedures, regulations, and guidelines for the effective administration of the Department's small business and disadvantaged business programs;
              (b) The appointment of Small Business Specialists to ensure compliance with all applicable law, regulation, and policy; and
              (c) The negotiation of annual small business and subcontracting goals with the Small Business Administration (SBA). The purpose of these goals is to increase participation of small business and disadvantaged small businesses in contract and subcontract opportunities.

              1419.202
              Specific policies

              1419.202-70
              Acquisition screening and Small Business Specialist recommendations.
              The Director of the OSDBU is responsible for issuing policy for use of the DI Form 1886 and determining the content of Form DI-1886 “Acquisition Screening and Review Form.”

            Subpart 1419.3—[Reserved]

            Subpart 1419.4—[Reserved]

            Subpart 1419.5—Set-Asides for Small Business

              1419.503
              Setting aside a class of acquisitions.

              1419.503-70
              Class set-aside for construction acquisitions.
              (a) Acquisitions for construction (as defined in FAR 2.101) estimated to cost $2 million or less must be set-aside on a class basis for exclusive participation by small business or disadvantaged business concerns. This class set-aside does not apply when:
              (1) The acquisition is procured using simplified acquisition procedures;
              (2) A non-competitive acquisition has been approved under the procedures of FAR 6.3;
              (3) Work is to be performed outside the U.S.; or
              (4) The Bureau Procurement Chief determines that adequate competition is not likely to be obtained if the acquisition is restricted to small business concerns.
              (b) [Reserved].

            Subpart 1419.6—Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility

              1419.602
              Procedures.

              1419.602-1
              Referral.
              The contracting officer must obtain approval from the Chief of the Contracting Office for all determinations documenting a responsive small business' lack of responsibility prior to submission to the appropriate SBA office. A copy of the determination must be sent to OSDBU within 5 working days of the approval date of the determination.

            Subpart 1419.7—[Reserved]

            Subpart 1419.8—Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program)

              1419.803
              [Reserved]

              1419.810
              SBA appeals.
              Assistant Secretary of Policy Management and Budget, without the power of redelegation, is authorized to issue the decision on an SBA appeal of a Contracting Officer's Section 8(a) decision.

            Subpart 1419.9—[Reserved]

            Subpart 1419.10—[Reserved]

            Susan Combs,
            Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget.

      [FR Doc. 2019-07814 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4334-63-P