        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 030908223-3223-01; I.D. 081403B]
        RIN 0648-AP57
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Amendment 13 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 13 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This proposed rule would establish:   A new surfclam overfishing definition; multi-year fishing quotas; a mandatory vessel monitoring system (VMS), when such a system is economically viable; the ability to suspend or adjust the surfclam minimum size limit through a framework adjustment; and an analysis of fishing gear impacts on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for surfclams and ocean quahogs.  The primary purpose of this proposed action is to rectify the disapproved surfclam overfishing definition and the EFH analysis and rationale contained in Amendment 12 in order to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and to simplify the regulatory requirements of the FMP.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number, (See ADDRESSES), on or before 5 p.m., local time, on October 27, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Amendment 13 to Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
          Copies of the FMP, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan A. Murphy, Supervisory Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9252, fax 978-281-9135, Susan.A.Murphy@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Amendment 12 to the FMP was prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to bring the FMP into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.  On April 28, 1999, the Council was notified that NMFS partially approved Amendment 12.  Specifically, two Amendment 12 measures were disapproved, the surfclam overfishing definition and the analysis and rationale for the status quo alternative for addressing fishing gear impacts to EFH.  To rectify these disapprovals, the Council prepared, and NMFS published, a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register, officially beginning the Council's scoping process for Amendment 13 (66 FR 13694, March 7, 2001).  The Council held a scoping hearing on March 21, 2001, and accepted scoping comments on the amendment during the period March 7 through April 6, 2001.  In addition to the surfclam overfishing definition and EFH alternatives, other issues identified for inclusion in the EIS were multi-year quotas, a mandatory VMS requirement and a permanent suspension of the surfclam minimum size limit.  The Council identified a range of alternatives for each of these five issues and approved the alternatives in a public hearing document at its May, 2002 meeting.  A Notice of Availability (NOA) on the DSEIS was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2002 (67 FR 55838), with a comment period ending October 15, 2002.  There were a series of three public hearings held (one each in the states of Maine, New Jersey and Delaware).  After consideration of all public comments, the Council chose the following alternatives at its January, 2003 meeting and voted to submit the Amendment 13 document, including the draft final supplemental environmental impact statement to NMFS.  The Amendment 13 measures contained in this action propose multi-year fishing quotas and the ability to suspend or adjust the surfclam minimum size limit through a framework adjustment.  The analysis of fishing gear impacts on EFH for surfclams and ocean quahogs, a new surfclam overfishing definition, and a mandatory VMS are not accompanied by regulatory text because either they are non regulatory in nature (fishing gear impacts on EFH and the new overfishing definition) or implementation is deferred (a mandatory VMS requirement).  However, information on these alternatives is presented in the preamble.
        Surfclam Overfishing Definition
        The surfclam overfishing definition contained in Amendment 12 was disapproved because it was based on the sustainability of that portion of the surfclam stock located in the northern New Jersey area.  Although 80 percent of the surfclam fishery has taken place off northern New Jersey over the past decade, the Amendment 12 surfclam overfishing definition did not represent the entire resource, as required by National Standard 3.

        The surfclam overfishing definition recommended by the Council is based on the advice of the 30th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 30, April 2000), which incorporated the results of a research survey that took place during the summer of 1999.  In addition, the proposed overfishing definition applies to the entire resource, versus focusing on the northern New Jersey area component of this stock.  The proposed surfclam overfishing definition is as follows:   Biomass target (Btarget) = 1/2 of current biomass (as a proxy for the biomass level at maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy)); biomass threshold (Bthreshold) = 1/2 the biomass target; fishing mortality threshold (Fthreshold) = fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy), where the current proxy for Fmsy is the natural mortality rate for surfclams (M); and the fishing mortality target (Ftarget) would always be set less than the Fthreshold and would be equivalent to the fishing mortality rate (F) associated with the quota selected by the Council.
        Fishing Gear Impacts on EFH
        The Amendment 12 no action alternative for addressing fishing gear impacts to EFH for surfclams and ocean quahogs was disapproved because the rationale and analysis for selecting this preferred alternative was insufficient.  To address this insufficiency, the Council evaluated nine alternatives to minimize fishing gear impacts to EFH, most of which focus on closed areas.  The relatively recent “Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the Northeastern United States” (Workshop, October 2001) concluded that the effects of hydraulic clam dredges were limited to sandy substrates, since this type of gear is not used on muddy or gravel substrates.  The Workshop panel also agreed that hydraulic clam dredges have important habitat effects, but that only a small area is affected by this type of gear.  In summary, the Workshop panel concluded that because the surfclam fishery is primarily prosecuted in sandy habitats, its effect is limited to potentially large, but localized impacts to biological and physical structure.  Furthermore, because the recovery time is relatively short for this high energy environment, the impacts can be considered temporary.  In addition, because these impacts potentially affect a relatively small portion (approximately 100 square nautical miles) of the overall large uniform area of high energy sand along the continental shelf, they can be considered minimal.  The Workshop panel also indicated that other measures, such as reductions in effort or gear modifications, are not practicable.  Thus, based on information from the Workshop, NMFS proposes that no action be taken at this time to mitigate fishing gear impacts on EFH.
        Multi-year Quotas
        This proposed rule would replace the current annual specification process with a process that would allow the Council to establish specifications to be in effect for up to three fishing years, provided that an annual evaluation of the surfclam and ocean quahog status is undertaken.  This multi-year specification process would allow the Council and NMFS to be more efficient by streamlining the regulatory process, and would provide the industry with greater regulatory consistency and predictability.  The intent of this provision is to make the 3-year maximum quota setting process coincide with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's clam survey and subsequent stock assessment, which occur approximately every 3 years.  This would provide the Council with the most recent scientific information available in setting the specifications for these two species.  However, the maximum three-year specification process is not meant to curtail the Council from setting specifications during the interim years if information obtained during the annual review indicates that the surfclam and ocean quahog specifications warrant a change, e.g., to comply fully with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Mandatory VMS
        Amendment 13, if approved, would authorize NMFS to implement a mandatory VMS requirement based on analysis provided by the Council.  At that time, the Council would submit to NMFS the applicable paperwork to conform with the Paperwork Reduction Act, and submit a full economic analysis pertaining to this new requirement.  Once these Council submissions are complete, NMFS will publish a proposed rule.   The Council intends that such a program would be implemented through three phases as follows:  (1) VMS notification to replace the existing surfclam/ocean quahog call-in system; (2) electronic vessel reporting that would replace the existing vessel logbook; and (3) collection of scientific information on a tow-by-tow basis.  In addition, the Council could decide to monitor closed areas to better aid enforcement.  However, this would be done independently of the other three phases.
        Frameworkable Measures

        Finally, this proposed rule would add to the list of frameworkable management measures the ability to suspend or adjust the surfclam minimum size limit.  Currently, NMFS conducts an annual analysis to determine if discards or survey data indicate that 30 percent of the surfclams are smaller then 4.75 in (12.06 cm).  If it is determined that 30 percent of the surfclams are not smaller than 4.75 in (12.06 cm), NMFS publishes a notice in the Federal Register to suspend the surfclam minimum size limit.  This suspension has been done every year since the implementation of the individual transferable quota program in 1990.  However, due to concerns expressed by some industry members, as well as Council concern that it may be more difficult to implement a change rather than to suspend a current provision, the Council voted to maintain the no action alternative and add to the list of frameworkable management measures the ability to suspend or to adjust the surfclam minimum size limit.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that the Amendment, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Additionally, the Council in cooperation with NMFS prepared a supplement to the IRFA.  The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A summary of the analysis follows:

        A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives and legal basis of this proposed rule are contained in the SUMMARY and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this proposed rule and are not repeated here.  There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance costs resulting from this action.  It would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        All of the affected businesses (fishing vessels) are considered small entities under the standards described by the Small Business Administration because they have annual returns (revenues) that do not exceed $3.5 million annually.
        The economic impacts of actions were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches to the extent possible.  When appropriate data was lacking, or the action was administrative in nature, a qualitative approach was employed. Effects on profitability associated with the proposed management measures should be evaluated by looking at the impact the proposed measures would have on individual vessel costs and revenues.  However, in the absence of cost data for individual vessels engaged in these fisheries, changes in gross revenues are used as a proxy for profitability.
        In 2003, there were 1590 vessels that held permits in the surf clam fishery and 1602 that held permits in the ocean quahog fishery. Of these vessels, 1590 held both the ocean quahog and surf clam permit simultaneously.  The proposed action could affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit for either species.  However, the commercial use of the permit is limited to vessels fishing under an individual fishing quota or fishing in the Maine mahogany quahog fisery.  In 2001, there were 51 vessels that landed either surfclams (21 vessels), ocean quahogs (16 vessels), or both (14 vessels).  There were 31 vessels in 2001 that fished under the Federal limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit for Maine ocean quahogs.
        Management measures contained in this proposed rule would establish multi-year quotas and add the suspension of the surfclam minimum size limit and adjustment of the minimum size to the list of frameworkable measures under the FMP.
        None of the proposed management measures in this rule would result in a substantial change in revenues or profitability of vessels comprising these fisheries.  Although additional alternatives were considered for these management measures, the preferred alternative would minimize economic impacts to the greatest extent possible.
        The proposal to revise the overfishing definition for surfclams does not alter the optimum yield of the fishery, a basis for determining annual quotas, and does not directly impact gross revenues.  Therefore, no change to gross revenues is expected from this revision.  However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared at the times when quotas or other management measures that control landings are proposed.  The Council considered three alternative overfishing definitions, none of which would meet the requirements of National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As in the case of the preferred alternative, none of these alternatives would directly affect the profitability of individual vessels.
        The proposal to establish multi-year quotas and frameworkable minimum size limits and adjustments for surfclams are administrative and will not directly impact gross revenues.  However, the Council will be required to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for each quota set by the Council and for each surfclam minimum size limit adjustment, if applicable.
        The Council considered two alternatives to the multi-year quota measure including the status quo and an alternative that would set multi-year quotas without annual review.  The Council also considered two alternatives to the minimum size limits and adjustments including the status quo and an alternative to adjust minimum sizes when the multi-year decisions occur.  All alternatives are purely administrative in nature.  However, as explained above, any changes to annual quotas or adjustments to surfclam minimum size that could result from any alternatives considered would require, subject to the preparation of a proposed rule, preparation of regulatory flexibility analyses at that time.
        The Council is planning to establish a vessel monitoring program at a later point in time since the implementation of a system is dependent upon the determination by the Regional Administrator of an economically viable monitoring system.  If and when the Regional Administrator determines that an economically viable monitoring system is achievable, the Council must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that fully examines the compliance costs associated with that system.  A mandatory VMS requirement would be implemented through proposed and final rulemaking by a regulatory amendment.
        The Council proposes no change to existing management measures to address fishing gear impacts on EFH at this time.  Therefore, there are no impacts on vessel gross revenues resulting from this aspect of Amendment 13.  However, the Council analyzed potential closures of three areas as alternatives to the no action measure including a closing of the Georges Bank Area, the Southern New England East Area, and the Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for Tilefish.  For Georges Bank, there would be no economic impact to vessels since this area has been closed to fishing for surfclams and ocean quahogs for over ten years.  Accordingly, no landings have been recorded from that area during the closure time.  For Southern New England, the Council concluded that there would be minimally negative economic impacts to surf clam vessels.  However, there could be substantially negative economic impacts to ocean quahog vessels. A closure in the Southern New England area would most likely affect surf clam and ocean quahog vessels fishing out of Massachusetts and Rhode Island since increased fuel costs needed to steam to another fishable area coupled with reduced gross revenue could reduce vessel profitability.  The Council estimated that this closure would reduce gross revenues for quahog vessels by $1,065 per trip and for surfclam vessels by $2 per trip.  The Council determined that the closure of the Tilefish HAPC could result in the largest negative impact to quahog vessels, with a loss in gross revenues of $2,637 per trip and a loss in profitability to surfclam vessels of $71 per trip.  However, economic impacts from the closure of Tilefish HAPC are likely to be grossly overestimated relative to the actual area that would be specified in any regulations.  The impacts are more a function of creating complete 10-minute squares for closures and attempting to minimize the jagged nature of the 250-ft (76.2-m) bathymetric contour.  Based purely on sediment preference, it is unlikely ocean quahogs and tilefish would coexist in concentrated areas.

        The analysis in the IRFA indicates that there are no significant alternatives considered that would minimize adverse economic impacts or increase economic benefits relative to the proposed management measures contained in this proposed rule.

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

          Dated:   September 17, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2.  Section 648.71 is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.71
          Catch quotas.
          (a) Establishing quotas. Beginning in 2005, the amount of surfclams or ocean quahogs that may be caught annually by fishing vessels subject to these regulations will be specified for a three-year period by the Regional Administrator on or about December 1, 2004.  The initial 3-year specification will be based on the most recent available survey and stock assessments for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs.  Subsequent 3-year specifications of the annual quotas will be accomplished on or about December 1 of the third year of the quota period unless the quotas are modified in the interim pursuant to § 648.71(b).  The amount of surfclams available for harvest annually must be specified within the range of 1.85 to 3.4 million bu (98.5 to 181 million L) per year.  The amount of ocean quahogs available for harvest annually must be specified within the range of 4 to 6 million bu (213 to 319.4 million L).
          (1) Quota reports. On an annual basis, MAFMC staff will produce an Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog annual quota recommendation paper to the MAFMC based on the latest available stock assessment report prepared by NMFS, data reported by harvesters and processors, and other relevant data as well as the information contained in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) thru (vi) of this section.  Based on that report, and at least once prior to August 15 of the year in which a three year annual quota specification expires, the MAFMC, following an opportunity for public comment, will recommend to the Regional Administrator annual quotas and estimates of DAH and DAP within the ranges specified for a three year period.  In selecting the annual quotas, the MAFMC shall consider the current stock assessments, catch reports, and other relevant information concerning:
          (i) Exploitable and spawning biomass relative to the OY.
           (ii) Fishing mortality rates relative to the OY.
          (iii) Magnitude of incoming recruitment.
          (iv) Projected effort and corresponding catches.
          (v) Geographical distribution of the catch relative to the geographical distribution of the resource.
          (vi) Status of areas previously closed to surfclam fishing that are to be opened during the year and areas likely to be closed to fishing during the year.
          (2) Public review. Based on the recommendation of the MAFMC, the Regional Administrator shall publish proposed surfclam and ocean quahog quotas in the Federal Register.  Comments on the proposed annual quotas may be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days after publication.  The Assistant Administrator shall consider all comments, determine the appropriate annual quotas, and publish the annual quotas in the Federal Register on or about December 1 of each year.  The quota shall be set at that amount that is most consistent with the objectives of the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP. The Regional Administrator may set quotas at quantities different from the MAFMC's recommendations only if he/she can demonstrate that the MAFMC's recommendations violate the national standards of the Magnuson Act and the objectives of the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP and other applicable law.
          (b) Interim quota modifications. Based upon information presented in the quota reports described in paragraph (a)(1), the MAFMC may recommend to the Regional Administrator a modification to the annual quotas that have been specified for a 3-year period and any estimate of DAH or DAP made in conjunction with such specifications within the ranges specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.  Based upon the Council's recommendation, the Regional Administrator may propose surfclam and or ocean quahog quotas that differ from the annual quotas specified for the current 3-year period.  Such modification shall be in effect for a period of 3 years from the year in which it is first implemented unless further modified.  Any interim modification shall follow the same procedures for establishing the annual quotas that are specified for a 3-year period.

          (c) The previous year's annual quotas for surfclams and ocean quahogs and three-year specifications will remain effective unless revised pursuant to this section.  NMFS will issue notification in the Federal Register if the previous year's specifications will not be changed.

        3.  In § 648.77, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.77
          Framework adjustments to management measures.
          (a) * * *
          (1) Adjustment process. The Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings.  The Council must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting, and prior to and at the second Council meeting.  The Council's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories:   The overfishing definition (both the threshold and target levels), description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH), habitat areas of particular concern, set aside quota for scientific research, vessel tracking system, optimum yield range, and suspension or adjustment of the surfclam minimum size limit.

      [FR Doc. 03-24250 Filed 9-24-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 150902807-5949-01]
        RIN 0648-BE99
        International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Vessel Register Required Information, International Maritime Organization Numbering Scheme

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement a resolution adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) by requiring U.S. vessels, fishing for tuna and tuna-like species with a capacity equal to or greater than 100 gross resister tons (GRT), to have an International Maritime Organization (IMO) number. The IMO numbers will be included with information the United States sends to the IATTC for vessels authorized to fish in the IATTC Convention Area for tuna and tuna-like species, and will enable more effective tracking of vessels that may be engaging in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by November 27, 2015. A public hearing will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. PST, on November 12, 2015, in Long Beach, CA.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule and supporting documents, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification and Regulatory Impact Review, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0129, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0129, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Attn: Chris Fanning, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0129” in the comments.
          • Public hearing: The public is welcome to attend a public hearing and offer comments on this proposed rule from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. PST, on November 12, 2015, at 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. The public may also participate in the public hearing via conference line: 1-888-790-6181, passcode 47596.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Chris Fanning, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4198.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS is issuing a proposed rule under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended (TCA), to implement the new regional vessel register (RVR) requirements in Resolution C-14-01 (Resolution (Amended) on a Regional Vessel Register) adopted by the IATTC at its June 2014 annual meeting. U.S. vessels that have been authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area of the eastern Pacific Ocean must be included on the RVR. NMFS adds authorized vessels to the RVR by submitting vessel information to the Secretariat of the IATTC. The Convention Area includes the waters bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50 °N. and 50 °S. parallels, and the 150 °W. meridian. The proposed rule would require that U.S. fishing vessels of 100 GRT (or 100 gross tonnage (GT)) or greater operating in the IATTC Convention Area obtain IMO numbers.
        An IMO number is a unique vessel identifier that is permanently associated with the vessel hull, even if the vessel name changes or the vessel is reflagged to another nation. IMO numbers enable more effective tracking of vessels that may be engaging in IUU fishing. An estimated 120 U.S. vessels would be subject to this rule, of which approximately 90 percent already have an IMO number.

        Resolution C-14-01 requires each member of the IATTC, including the United States, to maintain a record of its fishing vessels authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area and to share the information in its record with the IATTC periodically for purposes of maintaining the RVR. In 2014, the IATTC decided to require an additional piece of information in members' records for fishing vessels of 100 GRT (or 100 gross tonnage (GT)) or greater: Either the IMO number or Lloyd's Register number. An IMO number, also known as an IMO ship identification number, is the number issued for a ship or vessel under the ship identification number scheme adopted by the IMO. As used in C-14-01, “Lloyd's Register number,” or “LR number,” has the same meaning as an IMO number except that an LR number refers to the number issued for a vessel not required to have an IMO number under IMO agreements. Accordingly, C-14-01 now requires IATTC members to ensure that IMO numbers or Lloyd's Register numbers are issued for such vessels. The administrator of the IMO ship identification number scheme issues both types of numbers using the same numbering scheme. Hereafter, “IMO number” is used to refer to both IMO numbers and Lloyd's Register numbers. IHS Maritime, located in Surrey, England, currently issues IMO numbers via their Web site at: http://www.imonumbers.lrfairplay.com/default.aspx.

        For each of the subject fishing vessels, the proposed rule would require that the owner of the fishing vessel either ensure that an IMO number has been issued for the vessel or apply to NMFS for an exemption from the requirement. Resolution C-14-01 (at footnote 1) allows for an exemption from the IMO number requirement in extraordinary circumstances if the vessel owner has followed all appropriate procedures to obtain a number. In the event that a fishing vessel owner, after following the instructions given by the designated manager of the IMO ship identification number scheme, is unable to ensure that an IMO number is issued for the fishing vessel, the fishing vessel owner may request an exemption from the requirement from the West Coast Regional Administrator. Upon receipt of a request for an exemption, the West Coast Regional Administrator will assist the fishing vessel owner in requesting an IMO number. If the West Coast Regional Administrator determines that the fishing vessel owner has followed all appropriate procedures and yet is unable to obtain an IMO number for the fishing vessel, he or she will issue an exemption from the requirements for the vessel and its owner, and notify the owner of the exemption. NMFS notes that IHS Maritime is a private third party, and it is conceivable that an eligible vessel may not be able to complete the necessary steps and supply the required information, resulting in a denied vessel number request.
        To minimize the burden on affected U.S. businesses, NMFS is not proposing to require that vessel owners report the IMO numbers associated with their vessel to NMFS. NMFS will collect that information via data available from the United States Coast Guard and IHS Maritime directly.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the TCA and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The small entities to which the proposed action would apply are all U.S. commercial fishing vessels that may target tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area. As of August 2015, there are 1,798 Pacific Highly Migratory Species permits. Of these, 118 vessels are 100 GRT or greater and 104 of the vessels have already been issued an IMO number. Thus, the proposed action would initially require 14 vessels to obtain IMO numbers. For these 14 vessels, the average annual revenue per vessel from all finfish fishing activities since 2010 has been $1.3 million, and less than $20.5 million when considering both an individual vessel or per vessel average. Complying with the IMO number requirement in this proposed action requires no out-of-pocket expenses because applications are free. The 30 minutes estimated to apply for an IMO number would not result in a significant opportunity cost to the fisherman considering it is a one-time occurrence for the life of the vessel hull. The rule is not expected to change fishery operations. Accordingly, the impact of this rule on the affected vessel owners' and operators' income is expected to be de minimis.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control numbers 0648-0387. A request for revision to account for the additional information that would be required pursuant this rule is under OMB review. Public reporting burden for obtaining an IMO number, or for making an IMO exemption request are each estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285).

        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
          Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Vessels, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: October 21, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

            Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

        2. In § 300.22, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

          § 300.22
          Eastern Pacific fisheries recordkeeping and written reports.

          (b) * * *
          (3) Vessel information. (i) Information on each commercial fishing vessel or CPFV authorized to use purse seine, longline, drift gillnet, harpoon, troll, rod and reel, or pole and line fishing gear to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the Convention Area for sale shall be collected by the Regional Administrator to conform to IATTC resolutions governing the Vessel Register. This information initially includes, but is not limited to, the vessel name and registration number; the name and business address of the owner(s) and managing owner(s); a photograph of the vessel with the registration number legible; previous vessel name(s) and previous flag (if known and if any); port of registry; International Radio Call Sign; vessel length, beam, and moulded depth; gross tonnage, fish hold capacity in cubic meters, and carrying capacity in metric tons and cubic meters; engine horsepower; date and place where built; and type of fishing method or methods used. The required information shall be collected as part of existing information collections as described in this and other parts of the CFR.
          (ii) IMO numbers. For the purpose of this section, an “IMO number” is the unique six or seven digit number issued for a vessel under the ship identification number scheme adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and managed by the entity identified by the IMO (currently IHS Maritime) and is also known as a Lloyd's Register number.
          (iii) Requirement for IMO number. The owner of a fishing vessel of the United States used for commercial fishing for tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area shall ensure that an IMO number has been issued for the vessel if the vessel's Certificate of Documentation issued under 46 CFR part 67 indicates that the vessel's total internal volume is 100 gross register tons or greater. A vessel owner may request that an IMO number be issued for a vessel by following the instructions given by the administrator of the IMO ship identification number scheme; those instructions are currently available on the Web site of IHS Maritime.
          (iv) Request for exemption. In the event that a fishing vessel owner, after following the instructions given by the designated manager of the IMO ship identification number scheme, is unable to ensure that an IMO number is issued for the fishing vessel, the fishing vessel owner may request an exemption from the requirement from the West Coast Regional Administrator. The request must be sent by mail to NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, and must include the vessel's name, the vessel's official number, a description of the steps taken to request an IMO number, and a description of any responses from the administrator of the IMO ship identification number scheme.

          (v) Exemption process. Upon receipt of a request for an exemption under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section, the West Coast Regional Administrator will, to the extent he or she determines appropriate, assist the fishing vessel owner in requesting an IMO number. If the West Coast Regional Administrator determines that the fishing vessel owner has followed all appropriate procedures and yet is unable to obtain an IMO number for the fishing vessel, he or she will issue an exemption from the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section for the vessel and its owner and notify the owner of the exemption. The West Coast Regional Administrator may limit the duration of the exemption. The West Coast Regional Administrator may rescind an exemption at any time. If an exemption is rescinded, the fishing vessel owner must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section within 30 days of being notified of the rescission. If the ownership of a fishing vessel changes, an exemption issued to the former fishing vessel owner becomes void.

      [FR Doc. 2015-27258 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1127]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          On September 13, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. On December 10, 2012, a correction to that original notice was published in the Federal Register. This notice provides corrections to that initial table and the correction notice, to be used in lieu of the information published at 75 FR 55515 and 77 FR 73394. The table provided here represents the flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and modified elevations, and communities affected for Mercer County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions). Specifically, it addresses the following flooding sources: Baker Run, Little Shenango River, Munnell Run, Neshannock Creek, Otter Creek, Sawmill Run, Shenango River, and Wolf Creek.

          DATES:
          Comments are to be submitted on or before July 15, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1127, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
        Correction

        In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 55515 in the September 13, 2010, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. Corrections to that table were subsequently published at 77 FR 73394 in the December 10, 2012, issue of the Federal Register under the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The corrected table, entitled “Mercer County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)” addressed the following flooding sources: Baker Run, Little Shenango River, Munnell Run, Neshannock Creek, Otter Creek, Sawmill Run, Shenango River, and Wolf Creek. That table contained inaccurate information as to the location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, and/or communities affected for the flooding source Shenango River. In addition, several of the map repository addresses and the community names of the City of Hermitage and the Borough of Wheatland included in the notice were incorrect. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.
        Correction
        In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010-20966, beginning on page 55527 in the issue of September 13, 2010, make the following correction. On pages 55522-55523, correct the Mercer County, Pennsylvania table as follows:

            Flooding source(s)
            Location of referenced elevation **
            * Elevation in feet (NGVD)
              + Elevation in feet
              (NAVD)
              # Depth in feet above ground
              ⁁ Elevation in meters
              (MSL)

            Effective
            Modified
            Communities affected

              Mercer County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)

            Baker Run
            Approximately 55 feet upstream of Highland Road
            None
            +1114
            City of Sharon.

            Approximately 30 feet downstream of Richmond Drive
            None
            +1117

            Little Shenango River
            Approximately 0.94 mile downstream of the confluence with Little Shenango River Tributary 1
            None
            +968
            Township of Sugar Grove.

            Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of the confluence with Little Shenango River Tributary 1
            None
            +968

            Munnell Run
            Approximately 0.31 mile upstream of Home Street
            None
            +1125
            Township of Findley.

            Approximately 0.21 mile downstream of Franklin Street
            None
            +1131

            Neshannock Creek
            Approximately 425 feet downstream of the intersection of Plantation Drive and Cypress Lane
            None
            +1093
            Township of Findley.

            Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the intersection of Schaffer Road and Grove City Road
            None
            +1095

            Otter Creek
            Approximately 0.28 mile upstream of the confluence with Munnell Run
            None
            +1099
            Township of Findley.

            Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Munnell Run
            None
            +1099

            Sawmill Run
            Approximately 0.35 mile upstream of the confluence with Sawmill Run Tributary 1
            None
            +1164
            Township of Sandy Lake.

            Approximately 0.46 mile upstream of the confluence with Sawmill Run Tributary 1
            None
            +1165

            Sawmill Run
            Approximately 0.23 mile downstream of Franklin Street (just below Maple Street)
            None
            +1167
            Borough of Stoneboro.

            Approximately 305 feet upstream of Franklin Street
            None
            +1167

            Shenango River
            Approximately 690 feet upstream of the confluence with Big Run No. 1
            None
            +930
            Borough of Greenville, Township of West Salem.

            Approximately 295 feet upstream of the intersection of Clinton Street and Canal Street
            None
            +943

            Shenango River
            Approximately 275 feet upstream of the confluence with Shenango River Tributary 3
            None
            +835
            City of Hermitage.

            Approximately 490 feet downstream of the confluence with Little Yankee Run
            None
            +845

            Just downstream of Clark Street
            None
            +856

            Approximately 820 feet upstream of the confluence with Big Run No. 2
            None
            +859

            Shenango River
            Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of I-80
            +832
            +833
            Township of Shenango.

            Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of I-80
            +832
            +833

            Shenango River
            Approximately 645 feet downstream of Sieg Hill Road
            None
            +833
            Borough of Wheatland.

            Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Sieg Hill Road
            None
            +834

            Shenango River
            Approximately 0.34 mile upstream of the confluence with the Little Shenango River
            None
            +949
            Township of West Salem.

            Approximately 200 feet downstream of Porter Road
            None
            +951

            Wolf Creek
            Approximately 0.21 mile upstream of the confluence with Barmore Run
            None
            +1220
            Township of Pine.

            Approximately 0.34 mile downstream of the intersection of Craig Street and Garden Avenue
            None
            +1226

            Approximately 0.2 mile downstream of the intersection of Craig Street and Garden Avenue
            None
            +1226

            Approximately 0.38 mile downstream of State Route 58 (Main Street)
            None
            +1226

            Approximately 0.22 mile downstream of the confluence with Black Run
            None
            +1245

            Approximately 0.21 mile downstream of the confluence with Black Run
            None
            +1245

            * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

            + North American Vertical Datum.

            # Depth in feet above ground.

            ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

              ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

            Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

              ADDRESSES

              Borough of Greenville

            Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 125 Main Street, Greenville, PA 16125.

              Borough of Stoneboro

            Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 59 Lake Street, Stoneboro, PA 16153.

              Borough of Wheatland

            Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 71 Broadway Avenue, Wheatland, PA 16161.

              City of Hermitage

            Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 800 North Hermitage Road, Hermitage, PA 16148.

              City of Sharon

            Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 155 West Connelly Boulevard, Sharon, PA 16146.

              Township of Findley

            Maps are available for inspection at the Findley Township Building, 369 McClelland Road, Mercer, PA 16137.

              Township of Pine

            Maps are available for inspection at the Pine Township Building, 545 Barkeyville Road, Grove City, PA 16127.

              Township of Sandy Lake

            Maps are available for inspection at the Township Building, 3086 Sandy Lake-Grove City Road, Sandy Lake, PA 16145.

              Township of Shenango

            Maps are available for inspection at the Shenango Township Building, 3439 Hubbard-West Middlesex Road, West Middlesex, PA 16159.

              Township of Sugar Grove

            Maps are available for inspection at the Sugar Grove Township Building, 359 Groover Road, Greenville, PA 16125.

              Township of West Salem

            Maps are available for inspection at the West Salem Township Building, 610 Vernan Road, Greenville, PA 16125

          (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)

          Roy E. Wright,
          Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2013-08045 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Railroad Administration
        49 CFR Part 271
        [Docket No. FRA-2009-0038]
        RIN 2130-AC11
        Risk Reduction Program; Public Hearing and Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of public hearing and reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On February 27, 2015, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require certain railroads to develop a Risk Reduction Program (RRP). FRA is announcing a public hearing to provide interested persons an opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposal. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires the development and implementation of railroad safety risk reduction programs. Risk reduction is a comprehensive, system-oriented approach to safety that: (1) Determines an operation's level of risk by identifying and analyzing applicable hazards; and (2) involves the development of plans to mitigate that risk. Each RRP is statutorily required to be supported by a risk analysis and a Risk Reduction Program Plan (RRPP), which must include a Technology Implementation Plan and a Fatigue Management Plan. FRA is also reopening the comment period for this proceeding to allow time for interested parties to submit comments after the public hearing.

          DATES:
          A public hearing will be held on August 27, 2015, in Washington, DC and will commence at 9 a.m. The comment period for the proposed rule published on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10950) is reopened. Comments must be received by September 10, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held at the Marriott Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Risk Reduction Program Division, Office of Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-493-6224; email: Miriam.Kloeppel@dot.gov; or Elizabeth Gross, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-493-1342; email: Elizabeth.Gross@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Interested parties are invited to present oral statements and to offer information and views at the hearing. The hearing will be informal and will be conducted by a representative FRA designates under FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding. Therefore, there will be no cross examination of persons presenting statements or offering evidence. An FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing. After all initial statements are completed, those persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given the opportunity to do so in the same order in which the initial statements were made. FRA will announce additional procedures necessary to conduct of the hearing at the hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to receive oral comments in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that requested public comment on a potential risk reduction rulemaking. See 80 FR 10950, February 27, 2015. FRA will add a transcript of the discussions to the public docket in this proceeding.

          Public Participation Procedures. Any persons wishing to make a statement at the hearing should notify Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Risk Reduction Program Division, by telephone, email, or in writing, at least five business days before the date of the hearing and submit three copies of the oral statement that he or she intends to make at the proceeding. The notification should identify the party the person represents, the particular subject(s) the person plans to address, and the time requested. The notification should also provide the participant's mailing address and other contact information. FRA reserves the right to limit participation in the hearing of persons who fail to provide such notification. FRA also reserves the right to limit the duration of presentations if necessary to afford all persons with the opportunity to speak. Ms. Kloeppel's contact information is as follows: Staff Director, Risk Reduction Program Division, Office of Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-493-6224; email: Miriam.Kloeppel@dot.gov.

        For information on facilities or services for persons with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the hearing, contact FRA Program Analyst, Kenton Kilgore; by telephone, email, or in writing; at least five business days before the date of the hearing. Mr. Kilgore's contact information is as follows: FRA, Office of Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 493-6286; Kenton.Kilgore@dot.gov.

          Reopening of Comment Period. A public hearing is scheduled after the close of the comment period specifically provided for in the notice of proposed rulemaking. To accommodate the public hearing and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit comments in response to views or information provided at the public hearing, FRA is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule published on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10950), comments must be received by September 10, 2015.

          Issued in Washington, DC.
          Robert C. Lauby,
          Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.

      [FR Doc. 2015-18396 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [CA 270-0366b; FRL-7272-5]
        Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) emissions from stationary internal combustion (IC) engines rated at more than 50 brake horsepower (bhp). We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by October 15, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
          You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:

          California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
          El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 2850 Fairlane Court, Building C, Placerville, CA 95667.

          A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Charnjit Bhullar, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3960.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This proposal addresses the following local rule: EDCAPCD 233. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
        We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: August 20, 2002.
          Keith Takata,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 02-23254 Filed 9-12-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        RIN 0648-XC751
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Proposed Revision of Species-Wide Listing

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of availability of monitoring plan and opening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, in collaboration with Federal and state partners, have drafted a monitoring plan (MP) for the distinct population segments (DPSs) of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) that we did not propose to list as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), in our proposed revision of the species-wide listing. This document announces the availability of the draft MP and opens a 30-day public comment period on it.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 18, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Marta Nammack, National ESA Listing Coordinator, NMFS Headquarters. You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2015-0035 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Hand-delivery: National ESA Listing Coordinator, Protected Resources Office, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13536, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          • Mail: NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13536, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          The draft MP, along with the proposed revision of the humpback whale species-wide listing (80 FR 22304; April 21, 2015) and the Biological Review Team's Status Review Report (Bettridge et al., 2015) upon which the proposed revision relies upon can be found on the NMFS Web site at: http://nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Marta Nammack, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD (301) 427-8469.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        On April 21, 2015, we published a proposal to divide the globally listed endangered humpback whale into 14 DPSs, remove the current species-level listing, and in its place list 2 DPSs as endangered and 2 DPSs as threatened. The remaining 10 DPSs were not proposed for listing because we determined that they are not threatened or endangered under the ESA.
        Section 4(g)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS: “. . . implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor effectively for not less than five years the status of all species which have recovered to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act [the ESA] are no longer necessary and which, in accordance with the provisions of this section, have been removed from either of the lists published under subsection (c).” General guidance for monitoring plan development is provided by recommendations jointly developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS (USFWS and NMFS 2008). This guidance, called the “Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Guidance,” clarified that: “The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure the status does not deteriorate, and if a substantial decline in the species . . . or an increase in threats is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that re-proposing it as a threatened or endangered species is not needed.” Although our determination that certain DPSs of humpback whale no longer qualify for listing is not technically a “delisting,” for the reasons explained in the proposed listing rule, we find that it is appropriate to monitor the status of the populations that will no longer be listed if the proposed rule is finalized. This is consistent with the intent of section 4(g)(1) of the Act. 16 U.S.C. 1533(g)(1). The Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan guidance thus guides us in our development of a monitoring plan for those humpback whale DPSs.
        Pursuant to ESA section 4(g)(1), we have drafted a MP for the humpback whale DPSs that we did not propose to list as threatened or endangered.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We are notifying the public of the availability of a draft MP and providing the public an opportunity to submit comments on the draft MP for 30 days. The comment period shall be limited to 30 days because the statutory deadline for our final listing determination on the proposed rule is April 21, 2016, and we must finalize the MP by this date, too. We will consider all comments we receive during the comment period and incorporate suggestions, as appropriate, before finalizing the MP. Please submit any comments to the ADDRESSES listed above.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

           Dated: March 14, 2016.
          Donna S. Wieting,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-06116 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 390 and 396
        [Docket No. FMCSA-98-3656]
        RIN 2126-AA38
        General Requirements; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Intermodal Container Chassis and Trailers

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The FMCSA is extending the comment period while it continues to explore the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking (Reg Neg) concerning maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers. The FMCSA has hired a convenor to speak to interested parties about the idea of a Reg Neg. The American Association of Railroads (AAR) has requested an extension of time to give a working group additional time to determine if a private-sector solution can be developed. The FMCSA is granting the AAR's request.

          DATES:
          Please submit your comments by April 10, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Please mail or hand deliver comments about this notice to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251; or submit electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. Please include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document in your comments. You can copy or examine all comments received at the above street address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and on-line at http://dms.dot.gov. If you want notification of receipt of comments please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.

          Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). This statement is also available at http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division (MC-PSV), Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 29, 2002, the FMCSA published a notice that it is studying the feasibility of using the Reg Neg process to develop a rulemaking action concerning the maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers.
        On January 13, 2003, counsel for the AAR filed a request for an extension of the comment period to allow additional time for filing comments after a planned January 22 meeting of the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) and the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA).
        The IANA/OCEMA working group has been engaged in developing a private-sector solution to the assignment of responsibility for maintaining intermodal chassis and trailers. The outcome of the IANA/OCEMA discussions could well influence the FMCSA's decision to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking activity. Although IANA and OCEMA do not invite the FMCSA to its meetings, the agency believes that its working group is making important progress, and that additional meetings taking place in early 2003 may produce a private-sector solution acceptable to IANA, OCEMA, AAR, and other parties involved in the provision and maintenance of intermodal equipment.
        On January 30, 2003, the AAR requested the agency refrain from instituting a negotiated rulemaking proceeding until after April 1, 2003, to provide the working group additional time to determine if a private-sector solution can be developed.
        Based on this information, the FMCSA grants the AAR's request to extend the comment period. The FMCSA is extending the comment period an additional 45 days, until April 10, 2003. This extension will also allow the agency's contracted convenor to gather additional information and provide a more comprehensive report to assist the agency in deciding whether it should institute a negotiated rulemaking proceeding.

        The FMCSA will continue to provide any comments it receives in reaction to the November 29, 2002, notice to the convenor and will file the comments in docket FMCSA-98-3656. If you want to submit comments to this notice directly to the docket, use the addresses above under the heading ADDRESSES.

        All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date shown above will be considered and will be available for examination in the FMCSA Docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the FMCSA Docket identified above and will be considered to the extent practicable, but the FMCSA may issue a convenor's report anytime after the close of the comment period. In addition to late comments, the FMCSA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.
        If you would like to file a request for an additional extension of time to comment in accordance with 49 CFR 389.19, please submit it to the address in § 389.31.

          Issued on: February 13, 2003.
          Pamela M. Pelcovits,
          Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.

      [FR Doc. 03-4228 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P