        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT64
        Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit Revocation Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to amend part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to add regulations that describe circumstances in which the Service may revoke incidental take permits issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On December 11, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton, Civil Action No. 98-1873 (D. D.C.), invalidated 50 CFR 17.22(b)(8) and 17.32(b)(8), the regulations addressing Service authority to revoke incidental take permits under certain circumstances. The court ruled that we had adopted these regulations without adequately complying with the public notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and remanded the regulations to us for further proceedings consistent with the APA. In the Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal Register is a final rule withdrawing the permit revocations regulations in 50 CFR 17 vacated by the court order. In this document, we are requesting public comments on our proposal to reestablish the permit revocation regulations vacated by the court.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 26, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 1018-AT64, by any of the following methods: (1) Mail or hand delivery to the Chief, Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery and State Grants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; (2) FAX: 703/358-2229; (3) E-mail: pprr@fws.gov; or (4) through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions must include the identification number RIN 1018-AT64. The complete file for this proposed rule, including public comments, is available, by appointment, during normal business hours at the same address. You may call 703/358-2171 to make an appointment to view the files.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rick Sayers, Chief, Branch of Consultation and Habitat Conservation Planning, at the above address (Telephone 703/358-2171, Facsimile 703/358-1735).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This notice of proposed rulemaking applies to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only. Therefore, the use of the terms “Service” and “we” in this notice refers exclusively to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        This proposed rule applies only to 50 CFR 17.22(b) and 17.32(b), which pertain to incidental take permits. Regulations in 50 CFR 17.22(c) and 17.32(c) that pertain to Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) and in 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d) that pertain to Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) are not affected by this proposed rule.
        Background
        Promulgation of the “Permit Revocation Rule”
        The Service administers a variety of conservation laws that authorize the issuance of permits for otherwise prohibited activities. In 1974, we published 50 CFR part 13 to consolidate the administration of various permitting programs. Part 13 established a uniform framework of general administrative conditions and procedures that would govern the application, processing, and issuance of all Service permits. We intended the general part 13 permitting provisions to be in addition to, and not in lieu of, other more specific permitting requirements of Federal wildlife laws.
        We subsequently added many wildlife regulatory programs to title 50 of the CFR. For example, we added part 18 in 1974 to implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act; modified and expanded part 17 in 1975 to implement the Endangered Species Act of 1973; and added part 23 in 1977 to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The regulations in these parts contain their own specific permitting requirements that supplement the general permitting provisions of part 13.
        With respect to the ESA, the combination of the general permitting provisions in part 13 and the specific permitting provisions in part 17 has worked well in most instances. However, the Service has found that, in some areas of permitting policy under the Act, the “one size fits all” approach of part 13 has been inappropriately constraining and narrow. These areas include specifically the Habitat Conservation Planning, Safe Harbor Agreement, and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances programs. Incidental take permitting under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA is one such area.
        On June 12, 1997 (62 FR 32189), we published proposed revisions to our general permitting regulations in 50 CFR part 13 to identify, among other things, the situations in which the permit provisions in part 13 would not apply to individual incidental take permits. On June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706), we published a final set of regulations that included two provisions that relate to revocation of incidental take permits. The first provides that the general revocation standard in 50 CFR 13.28(a)(5) will not apply to several types of ESA permits, including incidental take permits. The second provision, hereafter referred to as the Permit Revocation Rule, described circumstances under which incidental take permits could be revoked. On September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52676), we published a correction to the regulations promulgated in our June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706), final rule; however, the correction was not associated with permit revocation.
        The Permit Revocation Rule, which was codified at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(8) (endangered species) and 17.32(b)(8) (threatened species), provided that an incidental take permit “may not be revoked * * * unless continuation of the permitted activity would be inconsistent with the criterion set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv) and the inconsistency has not been remedied in a timely fashion.” The criterion in section 10(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv)) that “the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild” is one of the statutory criteria that incidental take permit applicants must meet in order to obtain a permit. The criterion is substantively identical to the definition of “jeopardize the continued existence of” in the joint Department of the Interior/Department of Commerce regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402.02). In essence, the Permit Revocation Rule authorizes the Service to revoke an incidental take permit if continuation of the permitted activity would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and the jeopardy situation is not remedied in a timely fashion.
        On February 11, 2000 (65 FR 6916), we published a request for additional public comment on several specific regulatory changes included in the June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706), final rule, including the Permit Revocation Rule. Based on our review of the comments we received in response to the February 11, 2000, request for comments, we published a notice on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6483), that affirmed the provisions of the June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706), final rule, including the Permit Revocation Rule.
        The “No Surprises” Rule Litigation and the Order To Vacate the Permit Revocation Rule
        On February 23, 1998 (63 FR 8859), the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service jointly promulgated the so-called No Surprises Rule, which provides certainty to holders of incidental take permits by placing limits on the agencies' ability to require additional mitigation after an incidental take permit has been issued. The No Surprises Rule is codified by the Service at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) (endangered species) and 17.32(b)(5) (threatened species) and by the National Marine Fisheries Service at 50 CFR 222.307(g). For both agencies, the No Surprises Rule was added to pre-existing regulations pertaining to incidental take permits.

        In July 1998, a group of environmental plaintiffs challenged the No Surprises Rule in Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton, Civil Action No. 98-1873 (D. D.C.). After the Service promulgated the Permit Revocation Rule on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706), the government referred to that rule in its briefs in the No Surprises Rule case to demonstrate that the agencies retained the ability to revoke incidental take permits notwithstanding the assurances in the No Surprises Rule. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to challenge the Permit Revocation Rule.

        On December 11, 2003, the court ruled that the public notice and comment procedures followed by the Service when promulgating the Permit Revocation Rule were in violation of the APA. The court vacated and remanded the Permit Revocation Rule to the Service for further consideration consistent with section 553 of the APA. The court did not rule on the validity of the No Surprises Rule, but found that the Permit Revocation Rule is relevant to the court's review of the No Surprises Rule. The court, therefore, ordered the Service to consider the No Surprises Rule together with the Permit Revocation Rule in any new rulemaking proceedings concerning revocation of incidental take permits containing No Surprises assurances.

        We are taking two rulemaking actions in response to the court order. First, in the Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal Register is a final rule withdrawing the permit revocation regulations, 50 CFR 17.22(b)(8) and 17.32(b)(8), vacated by the court order. Second, in this notice we request public comments on our proposal to reestablish the permit revocation regulations the court vacated.
        Summary of Previously Received Comments
        The following are comments we previously received on the Permit Revocation Rule; we will address these and other relevant issues in our final decision regarding this proposal. We received numerous comments on the provisions addressing permit revocation. The comments ranged widely, but generally fell into two categories: The agency did not go far enough with the revocation provision and the agency went too far with the revocation provision. With respect to comments that the revocation provision did not go far enough, many of the commenters stated that they did not see any reason why the old provision in § 13.28(a) should be replaced with a standard they viewed as less protective. These commenters also stated that the revocation provision should have mandatory language like the word “shall” to indicate that revocation is not discretionary. Many commenters questioned why the Service should have to step in at public expense to remedy jeopardy situations before a permit can be revoked. Some questioned what the standard “in a timely fashion” means. One commenter suggested that the revocation provision should also contain a reference to adverse modification of critical habitat, while another commenter recommended that the word “jeopardy” be used instead of “appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival and recovery” because the commenter viewed “jeopardy” to be a higher standard.
        With respect to comments expressing concern that the Service has gone too far, a number of commenters stated that the revocation provision undermined the No Surprises Rule. These commenters strongly opposed any further expansion of the revocation provision and suggested further expansion would be contrary to congressional intent. A number of commenters requested that the Service reaffirm the principles of No Surprises and noted that revocation should be “an action of last resort.” Another commenter requested that we limit revocation to instances where the permittee is not in compliance with the permit or, at a minimum, add to the revocation provision a statement to indicate that the burden is on the agency to establish that the conditions for revocation exist.
        Request for Public Comments
        This notice seeks public comment on our proposal to reestablish the Permit Revocation Rule as originally promulgated in June 1999. We specifically invite public comment on the following issues:
        1. The proposal to reestablish the Permit Revocation Rule. This rule would allow the Service to revoke an incidental take permit as a last resort in the unexpected and unlikely situation in which continuation of the permitted activities would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a species covered by the permit and the Service is not able to remedy the situation through other means in a timely fashion.
        2. The interrelationship of the Permit Revocation Rule and the No Surprises Rule, including whether the revocation standard in the Permit Revocation Rule is appropriate in light of the regulatory assurances contained in the No Surprises Rule.
        3. Whether the revocation standard in 50 CFR 13.28(a)(5) or some other revocation standard would be more appropriate for incidental take permits with No Surprises assurances.
        Required Determinations
        Executive Order 12866
        Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
        (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

        (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.,) aid or reduce its clarity?
        (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
        (5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule?
        (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
        Regulatory Planning and Review
        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant proposed rule because it may raise novel legal or policy issues, and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below.
        (a) This proposed rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government.
        (b) This proposed rule is not expected to create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. These regulations would amend potentially conflicting permitting regulations established for a voluntary program, Habitat Conservation Planning, for non-Federal property owners and would not create inconsistencies with the actions of non-Federal agencies.
        (c) This regulation is not expected to significantly affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        (d) OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review. The proposed rule is a direct response to a previous legal challenge.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions), unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we certified to the Small Business Administration that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed changes clarify the circumstances under which an incidental take permit issued under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act might be subject to revocation. As of February 29, 2004, the Service has issued 327 incidental take permits, and none have required revocation. As identified in the preamble, the specific circumstances under which the proposed regulations would provide for revocation are expected to be extraordinarily rare.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

        This regulation will not be a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
        (a) This regulation would not produce an annual economic effect of $100 million.
        (b) This regulation would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
        (c) This regulation would not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is a significant action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.):

        (a) The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. No additional information will be required from a non-Federal entity solely as a result of the proposed rule. These regulations implement a voluntary program; no incremental costs are being imposed on non-Federal landowners.
        (b) These regulations will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630, these regulations do not have significant takings implications concerning taking of private property by the Federal Government. These regulations pertain to a voluntary program that does not require individuals to participate unless they volunteer to do so. Therefore, these regulations have no impact on personal property rights.
        Federalism
        These regulations will not have substantial direct effects on the States, in the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Service has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the Interior has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This rule would not impose any new requirements for collection of information associated with incidental take permits other than those already approved for incidental take permits under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        The Department of the Interior has determined that the issuance of the proposed rule is categorically excluded under the Department's NEPA procedures in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Indian Tribes
        In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act” (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); E.O. 13175; and the Department of the Interior's Manual at 512 DM 2, we understand that we must relate to recognized Federal Indian Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. However, these regulations pertain to voluntary agreements, Habitat Conservation Plans, in which Tribes and individuals are not required to participate unless they volunteer to do so. Therefore, these regulations may have effects on Tribal resources and Native American Tribes, but solely at their discretion, should those Tribes or individuals choose to participate in the voluntary program.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

          PART 17—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

          2. Amend § 17.22 by adding a new paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

            § 17.22
            Permits for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or for incidental taking.

            (b) * * *
            (8) Criteria for revocation. A permit issued under paragraph (b) of this section may not be revoked for any reason except those set forth in § 13.28(a)(1) through (4) of this subchapter or unless continuation of the permitted activity would be inconsistent with the criterion set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv) and the inconsistency has not been remedied in a timely fashion.

            3. Amend § 17.32 by adding a new paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

            § 17.32
            Permits—general.

            (b) * * *
            (8) Criteria for revocation. A permit issued under paragraph (b) of this section may not be revoked for any reason except those set forth in § 13.28(a)(1) through (4) of this subchapter or unless continuation of the permitted activity would be inconsistent with the criterion set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv) and the inconsistency has not been remedied in a timely fashion.

            Dated: April 12, 2004.
            Craig Manson,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-11741 Filed 5-24-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 051116304-5304-01; I.D. 110805A]
        RIN 0648-AT92
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Total Allowable Catch Amount for “Other Species” in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska

          AGENCY:

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 69 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).  Amendment 69, if approved, would amend the manner in which the total allowable catch (TAC) for the “other species” complex is annually determined in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).  The FMP amendment would allow the TAC amount for the “other species” complex to be set less than or equal to 5 percent of the sum of  groundfish targets species in the GOA.  This proposed rule would revise the maximum retainable amount (MRA) of  “other species” in the directed arrowtooth flounder fishery from 0 to 20 percent.  This action would allow conservation and management of species within the “other species” category and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by January 13, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:  Lori Durall.  Comments may be submitted by:
          • E-mail: 0648-AT92-PR-GOA69@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line the following document identifier: GOA 69 PR.  E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.
          • Mail:  P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802
          • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.

          Copies of Amendment 69 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for the amendment may be obtained from the same address or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.  The FMP is available from www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/goa/goa.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Pearson, 907-481-1780 or tom.pearson@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA are managed under the FMP.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.  General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 69 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2005 (FR citation), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through January 17, 2006.
        Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by January 17, 2006, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.  All comments received by that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
        Background
        Designation and management of the “other species” complex have evolved through a series of amendments to the GOA FMP.  The following section provides an overview of how the complex has been managed historically under the FMP, and the amendments that have modified the complex and its management.
        The original FMP, implemented in 1978, identified three separate species categories: (1) prohibited species; (2) specific species or species complexes; and (3) “other species.”  Under the original FMP, “other species” had a Maximum Sustained Yield/Optimum Yield (MSY/OY) of 16,200 mt based upon historic foreign catch.
        Amendment 5 to the FMP removed grenadiers from the “other species” complex and established them as their own category with a separate MSY/OY of 13,200 mt based upon the recorded average grenadier catch from 1967-1979.  Grenadiers were removed from the “other species” complex due to concerns that catches of grenadiers (specifically unforeseen incidental catches in the hook-and-line sablefish fishery) would exceed the MSY/OY for the “other species” complex and close directed fishing for target species.  Because the population of grenadiers was not included in the development of the OY for “other species”, the MSY/OY for the “other species” complex remained unchanged following the removal of grenadiers.
        Amendment 8 to the FMP was implemented in 1980 (45 FR 73486, November 5, 1980).  Under this amendment, the grenadiers category was renamed non-specified species.  All species caught that were not classified as target, prohibited or “other species” were reported to the non-specified category.  Amendment 8 was intended to alleviate operational problems from fishermen reporting non-specified species in the “other species” complex.  “Other species” were defined as species that have “only slight economic value and are not generally targeted upon, but which are either significant components of the ecosystem or have economic potential.”  The OY for the “other species” complex was established as 5 percent of the OYs for all target species.  The “other species” complex included sculpins, sharks, skates, eulachon, smelts, capelin, and octopi.  Squids were managed as a separate target fishery with a separate MSY and OY.  Under Amendment 8, the OY for the “other species” complex was modified to be managed Gulf-wide, rather than allocated by management area.
        Amendment 14 to the FMP was implemented November 18, 1985 (50 FR 43193).  This amendment set the OY for the “other species” complex to 22,460 mt.  Two years later, the FMP was amended by Amendment 15 (52 FR 7868, March 13, 1987 such that the TAC calculation for the “other species” complex was equal to 5 percent of the total TACs for all GOA target groundfish species.  This percentage was consistent with previous approaches for setting OY for the “other species” complex, and was determined to be ample to provide for the anticipated incidental catch of those species.
        Amendment 16 moved squids into the “other species” complex from the target species category (53 FR 7756, March 10, 1988).  Atka mackerel was combined into the “other species” complex due to low abundance, and the absence of a directed fishery for several years.  High landings in 1992 and a directed fishery in 1993 demonstrated Atka mackerel was a target species.  Amendment 31 moved Atka mackerel from the “other species” complex and established it as a target species (58 FR 54553, October 22, 1993).

        Amendment 39 defined a forage fish category in the FMP (63 FR 13798, March 23, 1998).  Important prey species were included in this category.  Regulations promulgated under Amendment 39 prohibited directed fishing and commercial processing of forage fish.  Retention, sale, barter, trade, or other commercial exchange were limited.  Eulachon, capelin, and smelts were moved from the “other species” complex to the forage fish category.  The full list of species included in the forage fish category is in the FMP (see ADDRESSES).

        In 2003, as a skate directed fishery expanded, conservation concerns developed.  As long as skates remained a part of the “other species” complex, NMFS could not manage skates as a distinct target category.  Skate catch was limited only by the “other species” complex TAC minus catch of the remaining species in the complex.  In 2004, Amendment 63 to the GOA FMP removed skates from the “other species” complex and placed them in a target category (69 FR 26313, May 12, 2004).  Currently, overfishing levels, acceptable biological catches, and TACs are specified for big skates, longnose skates, and the remaining skates in the Bathyraja sp. (or other skate) complex.  This amendment allowed for an appropriate sized directed fishery for skates based on the best available information on the stock, ensuring skate sustainability.
        The “other species” complex currently contains the following species groups:  squids, sculpins, sharks, and octopi.  The “other species” complex is open to directed fishing up to the TAC level for the complex, after allowing for incidental catch needs in other groundfish fisheries.  The current requirement to set the “other species” complex TAC to 5 percent of the combined groundfish TACs could present conservation issues.  Removing species from the “other species” complex has two effects.  First, the number of target categories are increased.  More target categories may increase the combined TAC in the GOA.  If the combined TAC is larger, the TAC for the “other species” complex will be larger because the “other species” TAC is equal to exactly 5 percent of the combined TAC.  Second, the number of species in the “other species” complex is reduced.  Fewer species in the complex and the larger TAC increase the chance that one or more species groups in the complex may experience excessive harvest, including up to the entire TAC for the “other species” complex.  The current process for calculating the “other species” TAC provides no flexibility.  NMFS cannot establish the TAC for the “other species” complex at an amount lower than 5 percent, if the best available information indicates a lower amount is the most prudent action.
        Retention of squids has increased by 13 times between 2003 and 2005.  During 2005, shoreside processors were offering increased prices for spiny dogfish sharks.  As indicated by skates, markets can develop quickly for species previously thought of as having little value.  In order to quickly respond to developing fisheries in the “other species” complex, NMFS would need the flexibility to establish the “other species” complex TAC at a value less than 5 percent of the combined GOA species TACs.  Setting the “other species” complex TAC to less than 5 percent of the combined GOA species TACs could prevent catch of one or more groups in the complex from disproportionately dominating the entire “other species” complex catch.  NMFS would be able to allow for a developing fishery on a group in the “other species” complex while limiting the potential for excessive catch.  The increased incidental catch of squids and the potential developing market for spiny dogfish sharks indicate that this proposed action is necessary and timely to allow for the “other species” complex TAC to be set at a level appropriate for sustainable harvest of sharks, squids, sculpins, and octopi groups.
        Amendment 69 would allow for sustainable management of any fishery targeting one or more species groups within the “other species” complex.  As part of the annual groundfish harvest specifications process, Amendment 69 to the FMP would allow a TAC amount for “other species” to be set less than or equal to 5 percent of the sum of TACs of the target species in the GOA.  The “other species” complex TAC could be set at an amount estimated to be sufficient to meet the annual incidental catch needs in other groundfish fisheries and could allow for directed fishing for “other species” to occur at sustainable levels.  It is not necessary to amend existing regulations to implement the change in the “other species” complex TAC calculation.  This calculation is described only in the FMP text and is not specified in the harvest specifications regulations at § 679.20.  Because the “other species” TAC calculation is specified only in the FMP, no regulatory amendment is required to change the method of calculating the “other species” TAC.  However, it is necessary to amend the harvest specification regulations in order to ensure conservation and management of “other species” incidental catch in groundfish fisheries, as described below.
        Proposed Regulatory Amendment
        To manage the incidental harvest of the “other species” complex with the implementation of Amendment 69, this proposed action would revise Table 10 of 50 CFR part 679 to raise the MRA for the “other species” complex from 0 to 20 percent in the arrowtooth flounder fishery in the GOA.  This revision is necessary to properly manage the retention of “other species” in the arrowtooth flounder fishery and to potentially reduce the amount of discards of fish in the “other species” complex.
        This action is intended to meet the conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to reduce the potential for overfishing the species groups in the “other species” complex and to efficiently use fishery resources by reducing potential discards.  This action would be an interim step towards the Council's development of a more comprehensive approach towards the management of “other species.”
        Classification
        NMFS has not yet determined whether the amendment that this proposed rule would implement 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.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA which describes any adverse impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on directly regulated small entities.  Because this action is closely linked to the annual harvest specifications, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES)  prepared for this action also analyzes the action to establish annual harvest specifications for the “other species” complex in the GOA.  The IRFA analyses two FMP  alternatives to revise the manner in which the annual TAC for the “other species” in the GOA is established, along with the status quo or no action alternative.  In addition, two suboptions to revise the MRAs for “other species” in the groundfish fisheries in the GOA are analyzed along with the status quo, or no action suboption.  A summary of the IRFA for this action follows:

        The proposed action for Amendment 69 revises the manner in which the annual TAC for the “other species” complex in the GOA is established and raises the MRA for “other species” from 0 to 20 percent in the arrowtooth flounder fishery.  As part of its annual groundfish harvest specification process, the Council would recommend a TAC amount for the “other species” complex at less than or equal to 5 percent of the sum of the groundfish TAC amounts.  The objective of this action is to give the Council greater flexibility in recommending a TAC amount for “other species” in order to better protect individual species in the “other species” complex from overfishing and to make a sustainable fishery for the “other species” complex more likely.
        The legal basis for this action is found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in the GOA groundfish FMP promulgated pursuant to that act.
        The IRFA for this action ascertained that in 2003, 803 small catcher vessels and 13 small catcher processors might be directly regulated by this action.  Most of these (655 catcher vessels and 9 small catcher processors) were hook-and-line vessels.  In addition, 137 catcher vessels and 1 catcher processor used pot gear, and 93 small catcher vessels and 3 small catcher processors used trawl gear.  All these vessels are considered “small entities” as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  In 2003, these vessels had average revenues of $190,000 from the federally managed groundfish fisheries.  Average revenues were $170,000 for catcher vessels and $1,530,000 for catcher processors.
        This action would allow the TAC for “other species” to be set at less than 5 percent of the sum of other groundfish TACs, thereby limiting potential future harvests of “other species” and gross revenues from these harvests in the short run.  In the long run, however, the biomass of “other species” would be given additional protection.  Actual impacts to small entities would depend on the actual TAC amount recommended for “other species” by the Council and approved by NMFS.  These impacts would be assessed in the IRFA for the TAC specification action.
        Nothing in the proposed action would result in changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
        The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
        The IRFA evaluated a no-action alternative, the preferred alternative and an alternative that would allow for only incidental catch of “other species.”  Under the no-action alternative, the TAC for the “other species” complex would remain at 5 percent of the sum of other groundfish TACs.  The “other species” complex 2006 TAC is 13,525 mt (70 FR 8958, February 24, 2005).  If this amount were harvested by targeting a single species in the “other species” complex it could drive down that species biomass and reduce its reproductive potential.  While revenues from the fishery would be higher in the short run, they would be lower in the longer run.  Thus, while this alternative may have imposed fewer short run restrictions on small fishing operations, it did not meet the objectives of providing protection to individual species within the “other species” complex in the GOA and thereby protecting the future of a sustainable fishery.  The incidental catch only alternative would not allow the Council to provide for a directed fishery for “other species.”  This alternative would prevent the Council's use of the best available information in determining the appropriate management for “other species.”  For example, if the best available information indicated that a directed fishery for “other species” could occur without harming its future sustainability, then achieving its optimum yield would be prevented by this alternative.  The preferred alternative, however, would allow the Council to decide whether to allow for a target fishery or for only incidental catch based on the latest stock assessment information.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

        Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: November 22, 2005.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          1.  The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et  seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et  seq.
            2.  Table 10 to part 679 is revised to read as follows:

          EP29NO05.005

          EP29NO05.006

          EP29NO05.007

          EP29NO05.008

          EP29NO05.009

      [FR Doc. 05-23465 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Food and Drug Administration
        21 CFR Part 112
        [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921]
        RIN 0910-ZA50
        Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E

          AGENCY:
          Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is proposing to extend, for covered produce other than sprouts, the dates for compliance with the agricultural water provisions in the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption rule. We are proposing to extend the compliance dates to address questions about the practical implementation of compliance with certain provisions and to consider how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives, in keeping with the Administration's policies.

          DATES:
          Submit either electronic or written comments on this proposed rule by November 13, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments on the extension of the compliance period as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of November 13, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

        Electronic Submissions
        Submit electronic comments in the following way:
        • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

        • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
        Written/Paper Submissions
        Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
        • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

        • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

          Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921 for “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

        • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

          Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1636.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        This proposed extension of compliance dates concerns one of the seven foundational rules that we have established in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as part of our implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub. L. 111-353): “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption” (the produce safety regulation, published in the Federal Register of November 27, 2015, 80 FR 74354) (https://www.fda.gov/fsma).

        In the preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety regulation, we stated that the produce safety regulation would be effective on January 26, 2016, and provided for compliance dates of 1 to 6 years from the effective date depending on farm size, commodity, and provision(s) (see table entitled “compliance dates” in the preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety regulation, 80 FR 74354 at 74357, as corrected in a technical amendment at 81 FR 26466, May 3, 2016). (Some of the compliance dates identified in the technical amendment fall on weekends (i.e., January 26, 2019, is a Saturday and January 26, 2020, is a Sunday) and should therefore be read as referring to the next business day (i.e., January 28, 2019, and January 27, 2020, respectively). We use the latter dates throughout this document.)
        For the majority of agricultural water provisions at subpart E (and for most of the other provisions in the rule), with respect to covered produce other than sprouts, we provided compliance periods of 4 years from the effective date of the rule for very small businesses, 3 years for small businesses, and 2 years for all other businesses. We provided an additional 2 years beyond those compliance periods for certain water quality requirements in § 112.44 and related provisions in §§ 112.45 and 112.46. See table 1.
        In a final rule, “The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act: Extension and Clarification of Compliance Dates for Certain Provisions of Four Implementing Rules” (81 FR 57784, August 24, 2016) we also extended the compliance date for certain “customer provisions” in the produce safety regulation (§ 112.2(b)(3)) and clarified the compliance dates for certain agricultural water testing provisions as originally established in the produce safety regulation.

          Table 1—As Stated in Produce Safety Regulation, Compliance Dates for Requirements in Subpart E (Agricultural Water) for Covered Activities Involving Covered Produce (Except Sprouts Subject to Subpart M)

            Compliance dates of 2-4 years applicable to the farm based on its size
            Extended compliance date of additional 2 years beyond the compliance date based on size of farm

            § 112.41
            § 112.44.

            § 112.42
            § 112.45(a) with respect to § 112.44(a) criterion.

            § 112.43
            § 112.45(b).

            § 112.45(a) with respect to safe and adequate standard
            § 112.46(b)(1) with respect to untreated ground water.

            § 112.46(a)
            § 112.46(b)(2) and (b)(3).

            § 112.46(b)(1) with respect to untreated surface water
            112.46(c).

            § 112.47

            § 112.48

            § 112.49

            § 112.50

        II. Proposed Extension of Subpart E Compliance Dates for Produce Other Than Sprouts
        FDA has received feedback from numerous stakeholders raising issues regarding the practicality of some of the agricultural water requirements in the produce safety regulation as applied to covered produce other than sprouts. Many of these concerns relate to the testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water, which are different for sprouts than they are for other types of covered produce. We are proposing this extension in light of the feedback we have received and under Executive Orders 13777, 13771, and 13563. Additional time would allow us to consider approaches to address these issues, as well as opportunities there may be to reduce the cost and enhance the flexibility of these requirements beyond those reflected in the final rule.
        As part of this proposed extension, we also propose to simplify the subpart E compliance period structure such that all the compliance dates for subpart E provisions as applied to non-sprout produce would occur at the same time, retaining date staggering based on farm size. Accordingly, covered farms would have 2 years beyond the previously published compliance dates for the water quality requirements in § 112.44 and related provisions in §§ 112.45 and 112.46, to comply with all of subpart E. Put another way, we propose to extend the compliance dates for provisions in the first column of table 1 by 4 years, and propose to extend the compliance dates for provisions in the second column of table 1 by 2 years, so that the compliance dates for non-sprout covered produce for all provisions of subpart E would be those in table 2.

          Table 2—Proposed Compliance Dates for Requirements in Subpart E for Covered Activities Involving Covered Produce (Except Sprouts Subject to Subpart M)

            Size of covered farm
            Proposed time periods starting from the effective date of the November 27, 2015, produce safety final rule (January 26, 2016)
            Compliance period
            Compliance date

            Very Small Business
            8 years
            January 26, 2024.

            Small Business
            7 years
            January 26, 2023.

            All Other Businesses
            6 years
            January 26, 2022.

        We believe the simpler compliance date structure would alleviate confusion, and because we are proposing it as part of a proposal to provide additional time for compliance with all of the provisions, we expect it to alleviate burden. We do not anticipate that the change would result in any practical or logistical compliance challenges. We request comment on whether this change to the compliance date structure would be helpful.
        This proposed rule is limited in scope to extending the compliance dates for covered produce other than sprouts. The proposed rule does not address the underlying requirements in subpart E, but only the compliance dates for those requirements (for covered produce other than sprouts). We will continue to work with stakeholders on the issues raised regarding the agricultural water requirements.
        Our goal is to complete this rulemaking as quickly as possible. However, we are aware that many farms have been working well in advance of their compliance dates to come into compliance. As we continue to work with stakeholders on issues raised regarding the agricultural water requirements, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion for covered produce other than sprouts relative to the agricultural water provisions in subpart E of the produce safety regulation. This means that while we are considering these issues, we do not intend to enforce the requirements in subpart E of the regulation for covered produce other than sprouts. Thus, by announcing we intend to exercise enforcement discretion for covered produce other than sprouts relative to the agricultural water provisions in subpart E, farms may choose to continue with their current water testing programs or allocate their resources differently to avoid incurring additional costs based on our proposal to extend the agricultural water compliance dates. And, as explained above, when we finalize compliance dates, we intend to continue to work with stakeholders to address agricultural water questions and with farms to prepare for compliance.
        This proposed rule also would not change the compliance dates for sprouts. In the final produce safety regulation, we provided staggered compliance periods based on farm size for covered activities involving sprouts. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for very small businesses is January 28, 2019. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for small businesses is January 26, 2018. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for all other businesses is January 26, 2017. Because sprouts present a unique safety risk, the final produce safety regulation established sprout-specific requirements on multiple topics, including agricultural water. The agricultural water requirements for sprouts are different from the agricultural water requirements for other produce commodities (compare §§ 112.44(a)(1) and 112.44(b)). Moreover, based on the information available to us, many sprout farms use municipal water for growing activities; and under the produce safety regulation, covered farms are not required to test water from a public supply when certain conditions are met (see 21 CFR 112.46(a)(1) and (2)). We also established earlier compliance dates for sprouts than for other covered produce, and the first compliance date for covered sprout farms (January 26, 2017) has already passed. We have not received any significant feedback from sprout farms that subpart E has posed particular challenges. Accordingly, we are proposing to take no action with regard to compliance dates for activities involving sprouts and thus the compliance dates for covered farms with respect to sprouts are the original compliance dates, including for the agricultural water provisions in Subpart E.
        Table 3 summarizes the compliance dates for the produce safety regulation as they would be if this proposed rule is finalized. Time periods start from effective date of the produce safety rule (January 26, 2016) except as otherwise specified.

          EP13SE17.001

        III. Economic Analysis of Impacts

        We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 states the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs and burdens, and harmonizing rules. We conclude that this proposed rule would not increase compliance costs and would instead reduce compliance costs by delaying certain compliance dates. Moreover, it would serve an important purpose of providing us an opportunity to consider how to reduce burdens on the public. We conclude that this proposed rule is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
        This rule would extend, for non-sprout covered produce, the compliance date for all of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after the relevant farm's compliance date for all other provisions of the produce safety regulation (which varies based on establishment size). The estimated costs and benefits accrued in any given year of compliance with the produce safety regulation, relative to the first year of compliance, would not change. However, because the compliance dates for certain provisions would be extended, the discounted value of both total costs and total benefits would decrease.
        There would be a reduction in costs (i.e., cost savings) associated with extending, for non-sprout covered produce, the compliance date for all of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after the relevant farm's compliance date for the rest of the produce safety regulation. With respect to their non-sprout covered produce, covered farms would have 4 years from the compliance date for the other provisions of produce safety regulation to comply with the provisions in subpart E. Thus, while all initial start-up costs and recurring costs would remain the same as estimated in the final regulatory impact analysis for the produce safety regulation (Ref. 1), the annualized total costs, discounted at 3 percent over 10 years, would decrease by about 3 percent from $404 million to $392 million, resulting in a savings of $12 million. No additional costs would be incurred by state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector as a result of this proposed rule.

        There would be a reduction in benefits associated with extending the compliance dates as described previously. Consumers eating non-sprout covered produce would not enjoy the potential health benefits (i.e., reduced risk of illness) provided by the provisions of subpart E until 2 to 4 years (depending on the specific provision) later than originally established in the produce safety regulation. Thus, the annualized total benefits to consumers, discounted at 3 percent over 10 years, would decrease by $108 million from $1.033 billion to $925 million. Estimated changes in benefits and costs as a result of this proposed extension are summarized in the following table.

          Table 4—Summary of the Changes in Benefits and Costs as a Result of This Proposed Rule, Annualized Over 10 Years, in Millions of 2016 Dollars

            Costs toindustry under 2015 final rule

            Costs toindustry with the proposed
              compliance
              extension

            Benefits ofreduced risk of illness under 2015 final rule

            Benefits ofreduced risk of illness with the proposed
              compliance
              extension

            Annualized 3%
            $404
            $392
            $1,033
            $925

            Annualized 7%
            382
            370
            983
            874

            Net Present Value 3%
            3,443
            3,340
            8,811
            7,886

            Net Present Value 7%
            2,681
            2,598
            6,901
            6,143

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities when “the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking.” (5 U.S.C. 601(2)). We have analyzed this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and determined that, because it would only extend certain compliance dates for agricultural water provisions in the produce safety regulation, it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. We have determined that this proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
        Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

        For interested persons, the detailed preliminary regulatory impact analysis is available in the docket for this rule (Ref. 2) at https://www.regulations.gov, and at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

        IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact
        We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(j) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
        V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
        This proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
        VI. Federalism

        We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
        VII. Executive Order 13175
        We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have tribal implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
        VIII. References

        The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

          1. FDA, “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.” November 2015. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/ucm472310.htm.

          2. FDA, “Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E; Proposed Rule,” 2017. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/.

          Dated: September 8, 2017.
          Leslie Kux,
          Associate Commissioner for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2017-19434 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 204 and 252
        RIN 0750-AF98
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol (DFARS Case 2004-D003)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, 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 add a contract clause requiring a contractor to notify DoD if the contractor is required to report its activities under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol. The clause would be included in contracts for research and development or major defense acquisition programs involving fissionable materials, other radiological source materials, or technologies directly related to nuclear power production.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 17, 2008, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2004-D003, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2004-D003 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: 703-602-7887.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol (U.S.-IAEA AP), the United States is required to declare a wide range of public and private nuclear-related activities to the IAEA and potentially provide access to IAEA inspectors for verification purposes. The Department of Commerce published a proposed rule at 73 FR 43568 on July 25, 2008, to implement the U.S.-IAEA AP.
        The U.S.-IAEA AP permits the United States unilaterally to declare exclusions from inspection requirements for activities with direct national security significance. This proposed rule contains a contract clause requiring a DoD contractor to notify the applicable DoD program manager if the contractor is required to report its activities under the U.S.-IAEA AP. Upon such a notification, DoD will determine if access may be granted to IAEA inspectors, or if a national security exclusion should be applied.
        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 proposed 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 proposed rule applies only to those DoD contractors involved in certain nuclear-related activities. The proposed rule provides for exceptions to inspection requirements that might otherwise apply to such contractors, if DoD determines that an exception is necessary in the interest of national security. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2004-D003.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed rule contains a new information collection requirement. In compliance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

          Title: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol.

          Type of Request: New requirement.

          Number of Respondents: 300.

          Responses per Respondent: 1.

          Annual Responses: 300.

          Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

          Annual Burden Hours: 300.

          Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to provide for protection of information or activities with national security significance. DoD program managers will use the information to determine if IAEA inspectors may be granted access to a contractor's facility, or if a national security exclusion should be applied.

          Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

          Frequency: On occasion.

          Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
        Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Comments can be received from 30 to 60 days after the date of this notice, but comments to OMB will be most useful if received by OMB within 30 days after the date of this notice.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204 and 252
          Government procurement.

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

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 204 and 252 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204 and 252 continues to read as follows:

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

          PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
          2. Sections 204.470 through 204.470-3 are added to read as follows:

            204.470
            U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol.

            204.470-1
            General.
            Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol (U.S.-IAEA AP), the United States is required to declare a wide range of public and private nuclear-related activities to the IAEA and potentially provide access to IAEA inspectors for verification purposes.

            204.470-2
            National security exclusion.
            (a) The U.S.-IAEA AP permits the United States unilaterally to declare exclusions from inspection requirements for activities, or locations or information associated with such activities, with direct national security significance.
            (b) In order to ensure that all relevant activities are reviewed for direct national security significance, both current and former activities, and associated locations or information, are to be considered for applicability for a national security exclusion.
            (c) If a DoD program manager receives notification from a contractor that the contractor is required to report its activities in accordance with the U.S.-IAEA AP, the program manager will—
            (1) Conduct a security assessment to determine if, and by what means, access may be granted to the IAEA; or
            (2) Provide written justification to the component or agency treaty office for a national security exclusion, in accordance with DoD Instruction 2060 XX, Application of the National Security Exclusion to U.S.-IAEA Safeguards.

            204.470-3
            Contract clause.
            Use the clause at 252.204-7XXX, Contractor Notification of Requirement to Report Activities Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol, in solicitations and contracts for research and development or major defense acquisition programs involving—
            (a) Any fissionable materials (e.g., uranium, plutonium, neptunium, thorium, americium);
            (b) Other radiological source materials; or
            (c) Technologies directly related to nuclear power production, including nuclear or radiological waste materials.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          3. Section 252.204-7XXX is added to read as follows:

            252.204-7XXX
            Contractor Notification of Requirement to Report Activities Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol.
            As prescribed in 204.470-3, use the following clause:
            CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT TO REPORT ACTIVITIES UNDER THE U.S.-INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL (XXX 2008)

            (a) If the Contractor is required to report its activities in accordance with Department of Commerce regulations (15 CFR part 781 et seq.) or Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations (10 CFR part 75) in order to implement the declarations required by the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol (U.S.-IAEA AP), the Contractor shall—
            (1) Immediately provide written notification to the following DoD Program Manager:
            [Contracting Officer to insert Program Manager's name, mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number, and facsimile number];
            (2) Include in the notification—
            (i) Where the DoD contract activities or information are located relative to the activities or information to be declared to the Department of Commerce or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
            (ii) If or when any current or former DoD contract activities and the activities to be declared to the Department of Commerce or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been or will be co-located or located close enough to one another to result in disclosure of the DoD activities during an IAEA inspection or visit; and
            (3) Provide a copy of the notification to the Contracting Officer.
            (b) After receipt of a notification submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this clause, the DoD Program Manager will—
            (1) Conduct a security assessment to determine if and by what means access may be granted to the IAEA; or
            (2) Provide written justification to the component or agency treaty office for a national security exclusion, in accordance with DoD Instruction 2060 XX, Application of the National Security Exclusion to U.S.-IAEA Safeguards. DoD will notify the Contractor if a national security exclusion is applied.
            (c) If the DoD Program Manager determines that a security assessment is required—
            (1) DoD will, at a minimum—
            (i) Notify the Contractor that DoD officials intend to conduct an assessment of vulnerabilities to IAEA inspections or visits;
            (ii) Notify the Contractor of the time at which the assessment will be conducted, at least 30 days prior to the assessment;
            (iii) Provide the Contractor with advance notice of the credentials of the DoD officials who will conduct the assessment; and
            (iv) To the maximum extent practicable, conduct the assessment in a manner that does not impede or delay operations at the Contractor's facility; and
            (2) The Contractor shall provide access to the site and shall cooperate with DoD officials in the assessment of vulnerabilities to IAEA inspections or visits.
            (d) Following a security assessment of the Contractor's facility, DoD officials will notify the Contractor as to—
            (1) Whether the Contractor's facility has any vulnerabilities where potentially declarable activities under the U.S.-IAEA AP are taking place;
            (2) Whether additional security measures are needed; and
            (3) Whether DoD will apply a national security exclusion.
            (e) If DoD applies a national security exclusion, the Contractor shall not grant access to IAEA inspectors.
            (f) If DoD does not apply a national security exclusion, the Contractor shall apply managed access to prevent disclosure of program activities, locations, or information in the U.S. declaration.
            (g) The Contractor shall incorporate the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (g), in all subcontracts that are subject to the provisions of the U.S.-IAEA AP.

            (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. E8-19097 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 000927275-0275-01; I.D. 082800F]
        RIN 0648-AO31
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 12

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing a rule to implement portions of Amendment 12 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared Amendment 12 to provide procedures for developing rebuilding plans for overfished species, for setting guidelines for contents of rebuilding plans, and for sending rebuilding plans to NMFS for review and approval/disapproval. Amendment 12 would also declare all Pacific coast groundfish to be fully utilized by domestic harvesters and processors. This action would remove references to foreign and joint venture fishing in the groundfish regulations, and is intended to update the FMP and its implementing regulations to reflect the current status of the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by November 20, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Donna Darm,, Acting Administrator, Northwest Region, (Regional Administrator) NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115; or Rebecca Lent, Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Copies of Amendment 12 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201. Send comments regarding any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule to William Stelle, Jr. or Rebecca Lent.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          William Robinson at: phone, 206-526-6140; fax, 206-526-6736, and email, bill.robinson@noaa.gov Svein Fougner at: phone, 562-980-4000; fax, 562-980-4047; and email, svein.fougner@noaa.gov

            Electronic Access: This Federal Registerdocument is also accessible via the internet at the website of the Office of the Federal Register: <<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces140.html.>>

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS is proposing this rule to implement the portions of Amendment 12 that declare the West Coast groundfish resource fully utilized by domestic harvesting and processing entities. Minor regulatory changes would be needed to make the regulations at 50 CFR part 660 consistent with Amendment 12. This proposed rule is based on the Council’s recommendations, under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The background and rationale for the Council's recommendations are summarized here; further details appear in the EA/RIR prepared by the Council for Amendment 12.
        Background
        In September 1998, the Council adopted Amendment 11 to the FMP to make the FMP consistent with revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Among other things, Amendment 11 set control rules to define rates of “overfishing” and set defined levels at which managed stocks are considered “overfished.” Amendment 11 was approved and incorporated into the FMP in March 1999.
        While implementing Amendment 11 provisions for rebuilding overfished stocks, the Council determined that it needed to set procedures within the groundfish FMP for developing overfished species rebuilding plans and for providing NMFS with the opportunity to review and approve/disapprove those plans. Amendment 12 provides a process by which the Council will develop overfished species rebuilding plans during its annual specifications and management measures process.
        During the Council’s two-meeting process for setting annual specifications and management measures (usually September and November,) the Council would make overfished species rebuilding plans available for public review, and would incorporate measures to implement those plans within the annual specifications and management measures. Rebuilding plan contents are defined in the FMP and rely upon the Council’s annual stock assessment and review process. Once the Council approves a new rebuilding plan, it would submit that plan for NMFS review and approval/ disapproval, generally at the same time that it submits its annual specifications package for review and approval/ disapproval. This process would ensure that rebuilding efforts are incorporated into fishery management measures as quickly and efficiently as practicable, and that they are consistent with management measures for other groundfish species.
        Procedural matters developed in Amendment 12 for overfished species rebuilding plans provide the Council with direction for future activities, are not regulatory in nature, and so do not result in any change to regulations. However, Amendment 12 also announces that the Pacific Coast groundfish resource is fully utilized by domestic harvesting and processing interests and provides an opportunity for NMFS to update its regulations to recognize this fully utilized status.

        Foreign Fisheries and Pacific Coast Underutilized Groundfish Species
        When the FMP was first implemented in 1982, most of the vessels were foreign and joint venture vessels and these vessels were primarily targeting Pacific whiting. In 1983, about 60 percent of the whiting optimum yield (OY) was reserved for domestic harvest, and about 3 percent of the OY was reserved for domestic processing. “Americanization” happened slowly for the Pacific whiting resource; the whiting OY was not fully utilized by domestic harvesters until 1989, and not fully utilized by domestic processors until 1991. In addition to whiting, there were minor joint venture processing opportunities for shortbelly rockfish and jack mackerel. Those species were considered fully utilized by the domestic fleet by 1992.
        In 1991, Amendment 6 to the FMP created a limited entry program and specifically addressed domestic underutilization of the groundfish resource with “designated species B” permits. These permits were made available to fishing vessels that had not qualified for limited entry “A” permits, to encourage those vessels to fish specifically for Pacific whiting, jack mackerel, and shortbelly rockfish. By the time that the limited entry permit program was implemented in 1994, foreign harvest and processing of the three underutilized species were no longer an issue.
        Although the West Coast groundfish fishery has been fully Americanized for almost a decade, the Council had not amended the FMP to reflect the full and expected long-term domestic utilization of the resource until Amendment 12. Amendment 12 still leaves open the possibility of future foreign harvest of West Coast groundfish should domestic utilization decline, but requires an FMP amendment to re-open the fisheries to foreign access. The primary effect of declaring the West Coast groundfish resource fully utilized by domestic fisheries would be to modestly reduce NMFS’ and Council’s workload associated with the annual specifications and management measures process.
        Regulatory changes to implement Amendment 12 would simply remove references within the regulations at 50 CFR 660 to foreign and joint venture fishing. These changes would have neither biological nor socio-economic effects on the environment.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined whether Amendment 12 that this rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The full effect of this proposed rule would be to remove outdated regulatory language at 50 CFR 660 that refers to foreign and joint venture fishing. There have been no foreign or joint venture fisheries for West Coast groundfish since 1992. These regulatory changes would have no effect on any U.S. businesses, small or otherwise. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.

        The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations. To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects 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 3, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

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

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

          2. In § 660.302, the definitions for “Reserve” and “Specification” are revised to read as follows:

            § 660.302
            Definitions.

            Reserve means a portion of the harvest guideline or quota set aside at the beginning of the year to allow for uncertainties in preseason estimates.

            Specification is a numerical or descriptive designation of a management objective, including, but not limited to: ABC; optimum yield; harvest guideline; quota; limited entry or open access allocation; a set aside or allocation for a recreational or treaty Indian fishery; an apportionment of the above to an area, gear, season, fishery, or other subdivision.

          3. In § 660.303, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

            § 660.303
            Reporting and recordkeeping.
            (a) This subpart recognizes that catch and effort data necessary for implementing the PCGFMP are collected by the States of Washington, Oregon, and California under existing state data collection requirements. Telephone surveys of the domestic industry may be conducted by NMFS to determine amounts of whiting that may be available for reallocation under 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(4(v). No Federal reports are required of fishermen or processors, so long as the data collection and reporting systems operated by state agencies continue to provide NMFS with statistical information adequate for management.

      [FR Doc. 00-25777 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S