        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042; MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
        RIN 1018-AW90
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Tumbling Creek Cavesnail

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on June 23, 2010, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the items listed above. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will consider public comments we receive on or before February 11, 2011. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul McKenzie, Endangered Species Coordinator, Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Dr.; Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; telephone (573) 234-2132; facsimile (573) 234-2181. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific data available and will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party during this reopened comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35751), including the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        • The amount and distribution of Tumbling Creek cavesnail habitat,
        • What areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential to the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and
        • What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
        (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible effects on the proposed critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.

        (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions), and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that exhibit these impacts.
        (5) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
        (6) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or clarifying the primary constituent elements and the resulting physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
        (7) How the proposed critical habitat boundaries could be refined to more closely circumscribe the landscapes identified as essential.
        (8) Information on the potential effects of climate change on the Tumbling Creek cavesnail and its habitat.
        (9) Any foreseeable impacts on energy supplies, distribution, and use resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on electricity production, and the benefits of including or excluding any particular areas that exhibit these impacts.
        (10) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
        (11) Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and any regulatory changes that likely may occur if we designate proposed critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
        (12) Information on the accuracy of our methodology in the DEA for distinguishing baseline and incremental costs, and the assumptions underlying the methodology.
        (13) Information on whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
        (14) Information on whether the proposed designation of critical habitat will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas or small businesses, including small businesses in the land development sector in Taney County.
        (15) Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail.
        (16) Economic data on the incremental costs of designating a particular area as critical habitat.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (75 FR 35751) during the initial comment period from June 23, 2010, to August 23, 2010, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required determinations by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hard copy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive (and have received), as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042), or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

        You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and DEA by mail from the Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042), or on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered.

        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Tumbling Creek cavesnail, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35751). Additional information on the Tumbling Creek cavesnail may also be found in the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52879). These documents are available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered.

        On December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66803), we published an emergency rule to list the Tumbling Creek cavesnail, due to water degradation and a precipitous decline in the cavesnail populations. The species was subsequently listed as endangered on August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52879). At the time, critical habitat was not designated in order to allow the Service to concentrate its resources on immediate protections needed for the conservation of the species. On August 11, 2008, the Institute for Wildlife Protection and Crystal Grace Rutherford filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior for our failure to timely designate critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail (Institute for Wildlife Protection et al. v. Kempthorne, (Case No. CV-07-01202-CMP)). In a court-approved settlement agreement, we agreed to submit to the Federal Register a prudency determination, and if the designation was found to be prudent, a proposed designation of critical habitat, by June 30, 2010, and a final designation by June 30, 2011. On June 23, 2010, we proposed to designate 25 acres of Tumbling Creek and associated springs as critical habitat.
        The Tumbling Creek cavesnail is a small, white, blind, aquatic snail, restricted to a single cave stream in Tumbling Creek Cave in Taney County, southwestern Missouri. Significant declines in the snail's population have been documented since 1996. The Tumbling Creek cavesnail is likely threatened by habitat degradation through diminished water quality from upstream locations within the unprotected or improperly managed areas within the cave's delineated recharge zone. The species may also be threatened with competition from limpets or from changes in the cave's normal hydrological cycles due to recent droughts.
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Possible Exclusions From Critical Habitat and Draft Economic Analysis

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation (DEA), which is available for review and comment (see
          ADDRESSES section).

        The intent of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (for example, under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated and may include costs incurred in the future. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since we listed the species, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, “Framework for the Analysis,” of the DEA.
        The current DEA estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail by identifying the potential resulting incremental costs. The DEA analyzed economic impacts of Tumbling Creek cavesnail conservation efforts on the following activities: Water management and other activities that may affect water quality such as road construction and maintenance; oil, gas, and utility easements; forest and pasture management; alteration of septic systems; and effluent discharges. It also assessed possible indirect impacts to economic activities as the result of possible applications of other State and local laws and regulatory uncertainty or delay. The DEA considers future baseline and incremental impacts over the next 20 years (2011 to 2030).
        The DEA estimates that minimal economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat. The main reason for this conclusion is that the private landowners of all surface critical habitat areas and the Tumbling Creek Cave Foundation, which owns lands within much of the cave's recharge area, have been undertaking extensive restoration and conservation efforts for the benefit of the cavesnail. Those lands have recently been enrolled in a voluntary conservation program that encourages the landowners to undertake and continue additional conservation activities. These efforts are expected to continue after critical habitat designation.

        An additional reason that minimal economic impacts are likely to result from critical habitat designation is that, while cavesnails may not always be detected through surveys within critical habitat every year, the Service assumes the species is present within the entire area proposed for designation. Thus, we anticipate that Action agencies will initiate consultation regarding the cavesnail regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. Activities taking place outside of the proposed designation but within the recharge area for the cave may affect the cavesnail. These projects may include road construction projects, U.S. Forest Service activities, or management changes at Bull Shoals reservoir. These types of projects are already subject to section 7 consultation under the jeopardy standard; therefore, the only incremental costs are those resulting from the additional administrative costs by the Service and action agency to include an adverse modification finding within the Biological Opinion and Biological Assessment as part of a formal consultation. As a result, the total incremental costs associated with this rule are estimated to be $4,420 annually over the next 20 years, assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
        The DEA also discusses the potential benefits associated with the designation of critical habitat. The primary intended benefit of critical habitat is to support the conservation of endangered and threatened species, such as the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. However, economic benefits are not quantified or monetized in the DEA. As described in the DEA, designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to result in additional conservation efforts for the cavesnail. As a result, no changes in economic activity or land management are expected to result from critical habitat designation.

        The DEA considered both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, small entities, and the energy industry. We can use this information to assess whether the effects of the proposed designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposed designation of critical habitat, and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or the economic analysis to incorporate or address information we receive during this public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our proposed rule dated June 23, 2010 (75 FR 35751), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). Based on the DEA data, we are also affirming our required determinations made in the proposed rule concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), 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). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of a final rulemaking.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the Tumbling Creek cavesnail. If the proposed critical habitat designation is finalized, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.

        In the DEA of the proposed designation of critical habitat, we evaluated the potential economic effects resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat. Although the DEA forecasts approximately $50,100 in incremental impacts over the next 20 years, these impacts are expected to be borne by Federal and State agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Missouri Department of Transportation. Such agencies are not considered small entities.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the reasons discussed above, and based on currently available information, we certify that if promulgated, the proposed designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
        Executive Order 13211 requires an agency to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. We implement this executive order using the Office of Management and Budget's guidance which outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in chapter 3, the DEA finds that this proposed critical habitat designation is not expected to have any impacts on the energy industry. As a result, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Service makes the following findings:
        (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local or Tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) as a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        Critical habitat designation does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action that may affect designated critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
        (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek cavesnail, we do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental impacts expected to result from the designation of critical habitat are limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification in section 7 consultation. In total, these impacts are estimated at $50,100 in present value terms over the next 20 years, or $4,420 on an annualized basis (discounted at seven percent). Consequently, we do not believe critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and in this document is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0042 or from the Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
        Authors

        The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: December 30, 2010.
          Will Shafroth,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2011-468 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 130717633-3633-01]
        RIN 0648-XC772
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement the annual catch limit (ACL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch target (ACT) and associated annual reference points for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. This rule is proposed according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed 2013-2014 ACL for Pacific mackerel is 52,358 metric tons (mt). The proposed ACT, which will be the directed fishing harvest target, is 39,268 mt. If the fishery attains the ACT, the directed fishery will close, reserving the difference between the ACL and ACT (which is 13,089 mt) as a set aside for incidental landings in other CPS fisheries and other sources of mortality. This rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific mackerel stock off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 18, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0135 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0135, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
          • Fax: (562) 980-4047.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. 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.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will 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 or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the report “Pacific Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for USA Management in the 2011-12 Fishing Year” which was updated for this fishing season using a catch-only projection estimate may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific mackerel is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), where the biomass and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with the calculated overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL) and annual catch target (ACT) recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2013/2014 ACL, ACT and other annual catch reference points, including OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass, for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the annual specification framework in the FMP. For the 2013/2014 fishing season the ACL is set equal to the result of the ABC calculation. This formula is:

        ABC = Biomass * Buffer * FMSY * Distribution with the parameters described as follows:

        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific mackerel for the 2013-2014 management season is 272,932 mt.
        2. Buffer. Used to addresses uncertainty in the OFL. For the 2013-2014 fishing season the buffer value is 0.913496. This is based on the Council's recommendation of a P* of 0.45 and the SSC recommended sigma of 0.72. The sigma for this year is double that used for previous years due to a higher level of uncertainty in the biomass estimate.
        3. FMSY. The fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is set to 0.30.
        4. Distribution. The average portion (currently 70%) of the total Pacific mackerel biomass that is estimated to be in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast.
        At the June 2013 Council meeting, the Council recommended management measures for the Pacific mackerel fishery. These management measures and catch specifications are based on the control rules established in the CPS FMP and a biomass estimate of 272,932 mt (the result of a full stock assessment that was completed in 2011 and updated based on a projection estimate for 2013). This biomass estimate was reviewed and approved by the SSC as the best available science for use in management. Based on recommendations from the Council's SSC and other advisory bodies, the Council recommended and NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) is proposing, an OFL of 57,316 mt, an ABC of 52,358 mt, an ACL 52,358 and an ACT of 39,268 mt for the 2013-2014 Pacific mackerel fishing season. The Pacific mackerel fishing season runs from July 1 to June 30 of the following year.
        Amendment 13 (“ACL” amendment) to the CPS FMP established a framework that sets the ACL equal to the calculated ABC (reduced from OFL for scientific uncertainty) or the result of the harvest guideline (HG) equation (maximum quota prior to Amendment 13), whichever value is less. This is the first time in the two years since implementation of Amendment 13 that the ACL (maximum directed fishing quota) is based on the ABC as opposed to the HG; which for 2013 was calculated to be 53,494 mt.

        If the ACT is attained, the directed fishery will close, and the difference between the ACL and ACT (13,089 mt) will be reserved as a set aside for incidental landings in other CPS fisheries and other sources of mortality. In that event, incidental harvest measures will be in place for the remainder of the fishing year, including a 45 percent incidental catch allowance when Pacific mackerel are landed with other CPS. In other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel, except that up to 1 mt of Pacific mackerel could be landed without landing any other CPS. Upon the fishery attaining the ACL/ABC (52,358 mt), no vessels in CPS fisheries may retain Pacific mackerel. The purpose of the incidental set-aside and allowance of an incidental fishery is to allow for the restricted incidental landings of Pacific mackerel in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, when the directed fishery is closed to reduce potential discard of Pacific mackerel and allow for continued prosecution of other important CPS fisheries.

        The NMFS Southwest Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any closure to either directed or incidental fishing. Additionally, to ensure the regulated community is informed of any closure NMFS will also make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.

        Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Pacific Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock Assessment for USA Management in the 2011-12 Fishing Year” (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the reasons as follows:
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2013-2014 annual specifications for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an OFL, ABC, and ACL for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the harvest control rules in the FMP. These specific harvest control rules are applied to the current stock biomass estimate to derive these annual catch limits, which is used to manage the commercial take of Pacific mackerel.
        On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $ 4.0 to 19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $ 4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million. 78 FR 37398, 37400 (See Table 1). NMFS conducted its analysis for this action in light of the new size standards
        As stated above, the U.S. Small Business Administration now defines small businesses engaged in finfish fishing as those vessels with annual revenues of or below $19 million. Under the former, lower size standards, all entities subject to this action in previous years were considered small entities, and under the new standards they all would continue to be considered small.
        The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS finfish fleet. Pacific mackerel harvest is one component of CPS fisheries off the U.S. West Coast, which primarily includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy and market squid. Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 degrees N. latitude; Point Arena, California) of the fishery. Fifty-eight vessels are currently permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2012 for the West Coast CPS finfish fleet was well below $19 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner.
        The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific mackerel ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific mackerel ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was limited or unavailable. For the 2012-2013 fishing year the maximum directed fishing quota was 40,514 mt and was divided into a directed fishery (or ACT) of 30,386 mt and an incidental fishery of 10,128 mt. Approximately 5,488 mt of this HG was harvested in 2012-2013 fishing season with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $1.1 million. Using these figures, the average 2012-2013 ex-vessel price per mt of Pacific mackerel was approximately $200.
        The proposed ACL (maximum fishing level) for the 2013-2014 Pacific mackerel fishing season is 52,358 mt, with a directed fishing harvest target or ACT of 39,268 mt. This season's directed fishing target is approximately 23% greater than the previous year. If the fleet were to take the entire 2013-2014 ACT, and assuming a coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $220 (average of 2011 and 2012 ex-vessel), the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $8.6 million. However, this result will depend greatly on market forces within the fishery, and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleet and the fleets' ability to find schools of Pacific mackerel. The annual average U.S. Pacific mackerel harvest from 2002 to 2012 is approximately 4,300 mt, and over those last 10 years has not exceeded 8,000 mt. As a result, it is unlikely that the ACT proposed in this rule will limit the potential profitability to the fleet from catching Pacific mackerel. Accordingly, vessels' profits are not expected to be altered as a result of this rule as it relates to recent catches in the fishery and the previous season's regulation.
        Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
        There are no reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements required by this proposed rule. Additionally, no other Federal rules duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: September 11, 2013.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Performing the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-22731 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [Docket: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0433; FRL-9214-8]
        Determination of Attainment for PM10: Eagle River PM10 Nonattainment Area, Alaska

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposed to determine that the Eagle River nonattainment area in Alaska attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10) as of December 31, 1994.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 18, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0433, by any of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

          • E-mail: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.

          • Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone number: (206) 553-6121, e-mail address: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment determination as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.
        If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

          Dated: October 7, 2010.
          Dennis J. McLerran,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2010-26257 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 050708184-5184-01; I.D. 070105B]
        RIN 0648-AT50
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish and Summer Flounder Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend the regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Atlantic bluefish fishery and the FMP for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. This rule would make administrative changes that would allow NMFS to consider and process state commercial quota transfer requests that address late-season circumstances that necessitate a state quota transfer and that occur through December 31 (the end of the fishing year for the bluefish and summer flounder fisheries). The intent of this action is solely to provide the flexibility to address unpredictable late-season events (such as severe weather or port obstruction) that may result in safety concerns in the commercial bluefish and summer flounder fisheries.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: BF-SFtransfer@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Comments on Bluefish and Summer Flounder State Quota Transfer Amendment.”
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Bluefish and Summer Flounder State Quota Transfer Amendment.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9279, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The bluefish and summer flounder fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Regulations implementing the Atlantic Bluefish FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. Regulations implementing the summer flounder portion of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and G. The regulations regarding quota transfers and combinations for the bluefish and summer flounder fisheries are found at §§ 648.160 and 648.100, respectively. For each fishery, the FMPs establish state allocations of the commercial quotas, and current Federal regulations outline a process by which a state may request written approval from the Regional Administrator to transfer all or part of its annual commercial quota to one or more other states. Two or more states may request approval from the Regional Administrator to combine their commercial quotas, or part of their quotas, into an overall regional quota. As established initially through implementation of Amendment 1 to the Bluefish FMP (65 FR 45844, July 26, 2000) and Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder FMP (58 FR 65937, December 17, 1993), the transfer of quota or the combination of quotas, if approved, is valid only for the calendar year for which the request was made and is effective upon the filing by NMFS of a notice of the approval of the transfer or combination with the Office of the Federal Register. Because the regulations stipulate that quota transfers and/or combinations are effective upon filing of a notice of approval with the Office of the Federal Register, NMFS is precluded from making quota transfers and/or combinations that file with the Office of the Federal Register in January of a given year, retroactively effective for the previous fishing year.

        At its March 2005 meeting, the Council raised a concern regarding the current NMFS policy of considering only quota transfer requests submitted by December 15 of each year. NMFS established this policy to ensure that a notice announcing the quota transfer could be filed with the Office of the Federal Register by the end of the year for which the request is made. However, the Council is concerned that unforeseen circumstances such as severe weather or physical obstruction may prevent vessels from returning safely to their intended port of landing and that this situation has arisen and may continue to arise during the second half of December in any given year. End-of-year transfers of quota allow vessels to land in another state without causing overharvest of that state's fishing year quota, provided that both states agree to the transfer. At its May 2005 meeting, the Council passed a motion requesting that NMFS remove the text regarding time of effectiveness from the state commercial quota transfer regulations for both the bluefish and summer flounder fisheries at §§ 648.160(f)(2) and 648.100(d)(4), respectively. NMFS agrees that this administrative change in the regulations would facilitate the consideration and processing of state quota transfer requests to address unpredictable late-season events and consequent safety issues in these fisheries. This proposed rule would eliminate the references to time of effectiveness in the bluefish and summer flounder quota transfer and combination regulations. With these changes, quota transfer requests addressing unforeseen conditions in either fishery that arise late in the fishing year could be approved, even if the transfer request is made early in the subsequent fishing year. Any quota transfer would continue to be valid only for the calendar year for which the request is made, and would therefore have no impact on the resource or the mortality objectives of the FMPs.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic bluefish FMP and the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        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 proposed rule is administrative in nature and merely would eliminate the specification that bluefish and summer flounder quota transfer or combination requests will be effective upon filing of a notice of approval with the Office of the Federal Register. This would allow NMFS to consider and process state quota transfer requests that address late-season circumstances that necessitate a state quota transfer and that occur through December 31 (the end of the fishing year for the bluefish and summer flounder fisheries), even if the notice announcing the transfer were filed with the Office of the Federal Register after the start of the subsequent fishing year. A quota transfer would continue to be valid only for the calendar year (and fishing year) for which the request is made. This rule would not alter the results of the Regulatory Flexibility Analyses prepared annually to address economic impacts to individual vessels resulting from the specification of annual quotas in these fisheries. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. The proposed action would provide flexibility to mitigate safety concerns and would impose no burden on small entities.

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

          Dated: July 20, 2005.
          James W. Balsiger
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.100, revise paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

          § 648.100
          Catch quotas and other restrictions.

          (d) * * *
          (4) The transfer of quota or the combination of quotas will be valid only for the calendar year for which the request was made.

        3. In § 648.160, revise paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:

          § 648.160
          Catch quotas and other restrictions.

          (f) * * *
          (2) The transfer of quota or the combination of quotas will be valid only for the calendar year for which the request was made.

      [FR Doc. 05-14725 Filed 7-25-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 60
        [FRL-7039-3]
        Amendments for Testing and Monitoring Provisions; Removal of a Provision for Opacity Monitoring

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the EPA, are proposing to remove an amendment published as part of a final rule entitled “Amendments for Testing and Monitoring Provisions” on October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61744). We are proposing to remove this provision because it inadvertently established substantive new requirements for facilities that are subject to the New Source Performance Standards requiring the installation of continuous opacity monitors on effluent streams, although the amendments were explicitly intended to be minor in nature and not substantive. We do not consider this amendment controversial and expect no adverse comments, so we are also publishing it as a direct final rule without prior proposal in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register Publication. We have set forth a detailed rationale for this proposal in the direct final rule.   We will take no further action unless, within the time allowed (see DATES), we receive adverse comments about the proposal or direct final rule, or we receive a request for a public hearing on the proposal. If we receive no adverse comments, we contemplate no further action on this proposal. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. People interested in commenting on the direct final rule should do so at this time.

          DATES:

          Comments. We will accept comments regarding the proposed amendment on or before September 26, 2001. We will arrange a public hearing concerning the accompanying proposed rule if we receive a request for one by September 11, 2001. If someone requests a hearing it will be held on October 11, 2001 beginning at 10 a.m. For more information about submittal of comments and requesting a public hearing, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in this preamble.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments. Interested parties having comments on this action may submit these comments in writing (original and two copies, if possible) to Docket No. A-97-12 at the following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Room 1500, Washington, DC 20460.
          We request that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to the contact person listed in the following paragraph of this preamble. If someone requests a hearing, the hearing will be held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Foston Curtis, Environmental Protection Agency, Office Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 919/541-1063, e-mail: curtis.foston@epa.gov, facsimile 919/541-1039.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Docket: A docket containing supporting information used in developing this proposed rule amendment is available for public inspection and copying at our docket office located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). You are encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials or schedule an appointment by phoning the Air Docket Office at (202) 260-7548. Refer to Docket No. A-97-12. The Docket Office may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.

          Outline: The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

          I. Background
          II. Authority
          III. Administrative Requirements

          A. Executive Order 12866: “Significant Regulatory Action Determination''

          B. Regulatory Flexibility
          C. Paperwork Reduction Act
          D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
          E. Docket
          F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
          G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
          H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
          I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
          J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

        I. Background
        On October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61744), we published a notice of final rulemaking to adopt a number of changes to the test methods listed in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. As the preamble to the final rule explained, these changes were largely intended to be minor, nonsubstantive revisions and represented, in effect, a “housekeeping” effort to correct typographical and technical errors, and eliminate obsolete or no longer applicable material. In addition, we promulgated Performance Specification 15, which contains criteria for certifying continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that use fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and we changed the outline of the test methods and CEMS performance specifications already listed in parts 60, 61, and 63 to fit a new format recommended by the Environmental Monitoring Management Council. The editorial changes and technical corrections were intended to update the rules and help maintain their original intent.
        The amendment made to § 60.13(g) which is affected by today's action applies to facilities that are subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and are required to install continuous opacity monitors on effluent streams. Specifically, the amendment provides that when the effluents from two or more affected facilities subject to the same opacity standard are combined into a single stack, and if opacity is monitored on each stream, a combiner system comprised of opacity and flow monitoring systems must be installed. In this case, gas flow rates from the individual streams must be known to correct the measured opacity to the exit stack dimensions and therefore must be measured. By contrast, preamended § 60.13(g) only implied, but did not explicitly require, that flow measurements from the individual streams were necessary. The intent of the amendment was to explicitly require such flow measurements and to identify what we perceived to be the most commonly used method of doing that (namely, the use of flow monitors). However, during the public comment period, some members of the utility industry objected to our specifying flow monitors as the only option and suggested that other indicators of flow rate they had traditionally employed (e.g., unit load, fan motor ampere readings, damper settings, etc.) should continue to be allowed. Because we did not anticipate the industry having to make substantive changes from its current practices to implement the amendments, we promulgated the amended § 60.13(g) without fully responding to the industry's comments in the preamble to the final rule. After further consideration, we have concluded that the amendment constitutes a substantive change in the original rule since it requires applicable subject facilities to install flow monitors instead of allowing them to continue to use flow indicator methods. Moreover, we did not raise the question of adequacy of such methods in the previous rulemaking and no commenter has presented information indicating that they do not provide adequate measurements of flow rates for the purposes of the NSPS monitoring requirements. This removal of the amendment will reinstate the old § 60.13(g) provision which allowed subject facilities to use flow measuring techniques besides flow monitors.
        II. Authority
        The statutory authority for this action is 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602.
        III. Administrative Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866: “Significant Regulatory Action Determination”
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
        (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
        Because this rule merely proposes to remove an amendment to, and reinstate the prior provisions of 40 CFR 60.13(g), we have determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the comment period should be 60 days. However, in consideration of the very limited and remedial scope of this amendment, we consider 30 days to be sufficient in providing a meaningful public comment period, if requested, for this rulemaking.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires us to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. We have determined that removing the 40 CFR 60.13(g) amendment will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary in connection with this action.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        Because this action does not include or create any information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., does not apply.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before we promulgate a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. That plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
        This action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
        E. Docket
        The docket includes an organized and complete file of all the information upon which we relied in taking this direct final action. The docketing system is intended to allow you to identify and locate documents readily so that you can participate effectively in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket, except for certain interagency documents, will serve as the record for judicial review. (See CAA section 307(d)(7)(A).)
        F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 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.”
        Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        This action does not have federalism implications. The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's action does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. This action does not impose any new or additional enforceable duties on these entities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This removal action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the action does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.
        H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
        This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (March 7, 1996), we are required to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) which are adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where we do not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, the NTTAA requires us to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. This action does not involve technical standards. The purpose of today's action is to remove portions of a rule, reinstating previous provisions, and not to impose new substantive requirements or to adopt new technical standards. Consequently, the requirements of NTTAA do not apply.

        J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors.

          Dated: August 14, 2001.
          Christine Todd Whitman,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 01-21441 Filed 8-24-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 174 and 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0088; FRL-8792-01-OCSPP]
        Receipt of Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (July 2021)

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notices of filing of petitions and request for comment.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the Agency's receipt of initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, online at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA/DC and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on the EPA/DC and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
        • Crop production (NAICS code 111).
        • Animal production (NAICS code 112).
        • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
        • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

        3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.
        II. What action is the agency taking?
        EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

        Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these petitions are available at http://www.regulations.gov.

        As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
        Notice of Filing—Amended Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPs)

          IN-11547. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0383). CH Biotech R&D Co., Ltd. (601 Kettering Drive, Ontario, CA 91761) requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of L-Glutamic Acid (LGA); (2S)-2-Aminopentanedioic Acid (CAS Reg. No. 56-86-0) when used as an inert ingredient (nutrient) in pesticide formulations applied on crops pre-harvest according to 40 CFR part 180.920, at a limit of not more than 6% by weight in pesticide formulations. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
        New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

          IN-11506. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0364). Exponent, Inc. (1150 Connecticut Ave, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036) on behalf of Lamberti USA, Incorporated (P.O. Box 1000 Hungerford, TX 77448) requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fatty acids, tall-oil, esters with triethanolamine, ethoxylated (CAS Reg. No. 68605-38-9) and fatty acids, C8-18 and C18-unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol ether with triethanolamine (3:1) (CAS Reg. No. 2464873-19-4) when used as inert ingredients (surfactants) in pesticide formulations applied on crops pre- and post-harvest according to 40 CFR part 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
        New Tolerances For Non-Inerts

          PP 0F8863 & 0E8866. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0191). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC 410 Swing Road Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole in or on: Avocado at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); Caneberry subgroup 13-07A, at 3.0 ppm; Corn, field, grain at 0.015 ppm; Corn, field, stover at 10.0 ppm; Corn, field, forage at 3.0 ppm; Grain, aspirated fractions at 0.7 ppm; Corn, field, milled byproducts at 0.3 ppm; Corn, field, refined oil at 0.02 ppm; Corn, field, gluten meal at 0.05 ppm; Corn, pop, forage at 3.0 ppm; Corn, pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; Corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm; Corn, sweet, cannery waste at 0.03 ppm; Corn, sweet, ear at 0.01 ppm; Corn, sweet, forage at 15 ppm; Corn, sweet, stover at 15 ppm; Peanut, nutmeat at 0.01 ppm; Peanut hay at 20 ppm. The gas chromatography equipped with a nitrogen-phosphorous detector is used to measure and evaluate the chemical 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole. Contact: RD.

          Authority:
           21 U.S.C. 346a.

          Dated: July 21, 2021.
          Delores Barber,
          Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Program Support.

      [FR Doc. 2021-16333 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA No. 01-683; MM Docket No. 01-67, RM-10084]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Abingdon and Canton, IL

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition filed by Abingdon Broadcasters proposing the allotment of Channel 252A at Abingdon, Illinois, as that community's first local FM service. The coordinates for Channel 252A at Abingdon are 40-42-28 and 90-19-47. There is a site restriction 12.3 kilometers (7.7 miles) southeast of the community. To accommodate Channel 252A at Abingdon, we shall also propose the substitution of Channel 277A for vacant Channel 252A at Canton, Illinois. The coordinates for Channel 277A at Canton are 40-28-27 and 90-03-01. There is a site restriction 9.4 kilometers (5.8 miles) south of the community.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 7, 2001, and reply comments on or before May 22, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: John F. Garziglia, Pepper & Corazzini, LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-67, adopted March 7, 2001, and released March 16, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Illinois, is amended by adding Abingdon, Channel 252A, and by removing Channel 252A and adding Channel 277A at Canton.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-7611 Filed 3-27-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 070717348-7766-02]
        RIN 0648-AV60
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Annual Catch Limits; National Standard Guidelines

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS extends the public comment period on the proposed rule to revise National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines, including guidance on how to comply with new annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measures (AM) requirements for ending overfishing of fisheries managed by federal fishery management plans. NMFS has received various requests to extend the comment period for the proposed rule beyond its current 90-day comment period. The extension of the comment period for another two weeks is intended to ensure that NMFS provides adequate time for various stakeholders and members of the public to comment on the proposed guidance on ACLs and AMs and other proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines. The comment period ending date is extended from September 8, 2008, to September 22, 2008.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV60, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov;
          • Fax: 301-713-1193, Attn: Mark Millikin;
          • Mail: Mark R. Millikin, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13357, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (mark outside of envelope “Comments on Annual Catch Limits proposed rule”);

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will be generally 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.

          Copies of the Regulatory Impact review (RIR)/Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (RFAA) for this proposed rule are available from Mark R. Millikin at the address listed above. The RIR/RFAA document is also available via the internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/catchlimits.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mark R. Millikin, Senior Fishery Management Specialist, 301-713-2341.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A proposed rule that covers NMFS' proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines, including guidance on ACLs and AMs was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32526), with a comment period ending date of September 8, 2008. After receiving several requests to extend the comment period, NMFS has decided to extend it for another two weeks through September 22, 2008.
        This action extends the comment period for a proposed rule that the Office of Management and Budget determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated: August 8, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-18756 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S