Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-05-23 · PROPOSED RULES · Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Program: Submission of Information; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule, 30001 E8-11555 NOTICES Req · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

23,991 words·~109 min read·/register/2008/05/23/08-1287

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-05-23.xml --- 73 101 Friday, May 23, 2008 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Program: Submission of Information; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule, 30001 E8-11555 NOTICES Request for Referendum: Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Program, 30040-30042 E8-11554 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Risk Analysis Evaluating the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Status of Surrey County, England, 30002-30003 E8-11659 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30042-30043 E8-11616 Permit for Reshipment of Swine From Slaughtering Facilities, 30043-30044 E8-11650 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Census Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30047-30048 E8-11581 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control:
Associations of Vaccine Adverse Events and Human Genetic Variations— Request for Proposal Number
(RFP)2008-R-VAC01, 30105 E8-11589 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Provider Reimbursement Determinations and Appeals, 30190-30267 E8-11227 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30105-30107 E8-11386 E8-11397 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Joint Commission for Continued Deeming Authority for Critical Access Hospitals, 30107-30109 E8-10776 Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs: Continuing Approval of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) as a CLIA Accreditation Organization, 30109-30111 E8-10769 Meetings: Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (June 26, 2008), 30111-30112 E8-10778 State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP): Retrospective Adjustment for Additional Allotments to Eliminate Fiscal Year, 30112-30128 E8-11612 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Portland Rose Festival Fireworks Display, 29987 E8-11549 PROPOSED RULES Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes, 30014-30029 E8-11343 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-11596 30046-30047 E8-11597 E8-11598 Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List: Deletion, 30045 E8-11608 Procurement List; Additions, 30045-30046 E8-11607 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings: Energy Markets Advisory Committee, 30093-30094 E8-11668 Defense Defense Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Correction, 30188 Z8-11129 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Phosphate Mine— Continuation near Aurora, in Beaufort County, NC, 30094-30095 E8-11585 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Utah: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions, 29987-29989 E8-11648 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of California, 30029-30030 E8-11605 NOTICES Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Budgets in Submitted Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan: San Diego County, CA, 30098 E8-11604 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 30098-30100 E8-11614 E8-11664 Massachusetts Marine Sanitation Device Standard—Receipt of Petition, 30100-30101 E8-11613 Meetings: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Lead Review Panel, 30101-30102 E8-11606 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 30102-30103 E8-11610 Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, 30103-30104 E8-11609 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 747 100, 747 100B, 747 100B SUD, 747 200B, 747 200C, 747 200F, 747 300, 747 400, 747 400D, 747 400F, and 747SR Series Airplanes, 30003-30005 E8-11565 Boeing Model 747SP Series Airplanes, 30007-30009 E8-11567 Boeing Model 767 Airplanes, 30009-30014 E8-11591 Bombardier Model DHC 8 400, -401 and -402 Airplanes, 30005-30007 E8-11566 NOTICES Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received, 30186 E8-11665 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 30168 E8-11545 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 30104 E8-11595 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Application for an Incidental Take Permit for Residential Construction: Charlotte County, FL, 30139 E8-11587 Lower Florida Keys Refuges: Monroe County, FL, 30139-30143 E8-11617 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Plan revision for Shoshone National Forest, WY, 30044-30045 E8-11499 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30143-30144 E8-11588 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See National Institutes of Health PROPOSED RULES State Long-Term Care Partnership Program: Reporting Requirements for Insurers, 30030-30038 E8-11559 NOTICES Meetings: Secretarys Advisory Committee on Re-designation of Head Start Grantees, 30104-30105 E8-11552 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Project Design and Cost Standards for the Section 202 and Section 811 Programs, 29983-29985 E8-11619 NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 30136 E8-11320 Public Housing Admissions/Occupancy Policies and Procedures, 30136-30137 E8-11551 Public Housing Inventory Removal Application, 30137-30138 E8-11640 Research Plan for a Study of Rents and Rent Flexibility, 30138-30139 E8-11639 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land Acquisitions: Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 30144-30146 E8-11636 Office of Federal Acknowledgment; Guidance and Direction Regarding Internal Procedures, 30146-30148 E8-11603 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Establishment of the Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee, 30048-30049 E8-11638 Meetings: Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee, 30049 E8-11635 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Geological Survey See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office International International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30049-30051 E8-11582 E8-11600 Consolidated Decision on Applications, for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes: University of Dayton Research Institute, et al., 30051 E8-11624 Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 30051-30052 E8-11622 Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 30052-30053 E8-11618 Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order; Correction: Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 30053-30054 E8-11623 Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 30054-30059 E8-11620 Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 30059-30060 E8-11625 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations: Unified Communications Systems, Products Used With Such Systems, And Components, 30161-30163 E8-11578 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 30163 E8-11657 Justice Justice Department See Prisons Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30163-30165 E8-11641 E8-11642 E8-11643 Lodging of Consent Decree, 30165-30166 E8-11575 Lodging of Second Consent Decree, 30166 E8-11584 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection, 30148 E8-11586 Environmental Impact Statement; Availability: Lincoln County Land Act Groundwater Development and Utility Right-of-Way Project, 30148-30149 E8-11480 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska Supplemental Final Integrated Activity Plan, 30149-30150 E8-11478 Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: West Fry Wind Energy LLC, California Desert District, 30150-30151 E8-11602 Merit Merit Systems Protection Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30167-30168 E8-11611 Mine Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Request for Technical Input; Standards in Trade Workshops, 30060 E8-11627 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 30129 E8-11497 Center for Scientific Review, 30129-30132 E8-11491 E8-11492 E8-11493 E8-11495 E8-11496 E8-11562 Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group, 30132 E8-11564 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 30132-30133 E8-11487 E8-11488 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 30133 E8-11490 Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, 30133-30134 E8-11498 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction, 29989-29990 E8-11538 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 29979-29983 E8-11539 Yellowfin Sole by Vessels Participating in the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 30000 08-1287 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing, 29990-30000 E8-11601 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries in the Western Pacific: Precious Corals Fisheries; Black Coral Quota and Gold Coral Moratorium, 30038-30039 E8-11536 NOTICES Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP)—FY 2009 Competition, 30060-30063 E8-11677 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit, 30063-30064 E8-11524 Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities: Shallow Hazard and Site Clearance Surveys in the Chukchi Sea (2008), 30064-30073 E8-11537 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 30073-30074 E8-11579 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 30074-30076 E8-11580 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean (June-July 2008), 30076-30093 E8-11546 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 30151 E8-11543 Intent to Repatriate a Cultural Item: The Nelson Gallery Foundation, Kansas City, MO, 30151-30152 E8-11576 Inventory Completion: Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK; Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; and Museum of the Aleutians, Unalask, 30152 E8-11573 Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, 30152-30153 E8-11570 Oregon State University Department of Anthropology, Corvallis, OR, 30153-30156 E8-11568 E8-11590 E8-11592 San Francisco State University, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco, CA, 30156-30158 E8-11569 Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 30158-30159 E8-11571 National Register of Historic Places: Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 30159 E8-11556 Repatriate Cultural Items: Seton Hall University Museum, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, 30159-30160 E8-11572 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 30168-30169 E8-11553 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, 30095-30098 E8-11652 E8-11662 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 30169 08-1295 Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurances (FY 2007); Dissemination of Information, 30169-30173 E8-11666 Pension Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Bylaws of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 29985-29987 E8-11667 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* A Day of Solidarity With the Cuban People (Proc. 8258), 29977-29978 08-1296 Prisons Prisons Bureau NOTICES Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact: Proposed Federal Correctional Institution; Hazelton, WV, 30166-30167 E8-11123 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 30173-30174 E8-11522 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 30174-30176 E8-11529 Fixed Income Clearing Corp.; Correction, 30188 Z8-10725 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 30176-30178 E8-11523 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 30178-30179 E8-11550 NYSE Arca, Inc., 30179-30182 E8-11530 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 30183-30184 E8-11531 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declaration: Alabama, 30184 E8-11547 Alaska, 30184 E8-11557 Disaster Declarations: New Mexico, 30184-30185 E8-11548 Meetings: National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board, 30185 E8-11558 State State Department NOTICES Renewal of Advisory Committee on International Law Charter, 30185 E8-11626 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Black Mesa and Kayenta Coal Mines, Coal Slurry Preparation Plant and Pipeline, and Coconino Aquifer Water-Supply System, AZ and NV, 30160-30161 E8-11265 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemption: Union Pacific Railroad Co., Calhoun and Webster Counties, IA, 30186-30187 E8-11513 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Surface Transportation Board MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-11574 30134-30135 E8-11577 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Accreditation and Approval as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory: Intertek USA, Inc., 30135 E8-11630 Accreditation as a Commercial Laboratory: Intertek USA, Inc., 30135-30136 E8-11632 Approval as a Commercial Gauger: Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 30136 E8-11628 U.S. Institute of Peace United States Institute of Peace NOTICES Meetings, 30187 E8-11544 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 30190-30267 E8-11227 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 101 Friday, May 23, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 902 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 070718364-8478-03] RIN 0648-AV19 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues final regulations implementing Amendment 25 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
(FMP)and a provision of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Coast Guard Act) to amend the Crab Rationalization Program. Amendment 25 to the FMP satisfies the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 requirement for the Secretary of Commerce to amend the FMP to authorize conversion of catcher vessel owner quota shares and processor quota shares to newly created converted catcher processor owner quota shares. The Secretary approved Amendment 25 on April 12, 2007. The Coast Guard Act mandates that the Secretary issue processing quota shares to Blue Dutch, LLC, under specific conditions. This action is necessary to implement Amendment 25 and the Coast Guard Act. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coast Guard Act, the FMP, and other applicable law. DATES: Effective June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 25 and the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR)for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 or from the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228, or Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
(BSAI)are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Crab Rationalization Program (Program) The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801) amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to mandate that the Secretary of Commerce implement the Program as recommended by the Council. On March 2, 2005, NMFS published a final rule to implement the Program (70 FR 10174). To implement the Program, NMFS initially issued processing quota shares (PQS), catcher vessel owner quota shares (CVO QS), and catcher processor owner quota shares (CPO QS) to eligible applicants. NMFS issued PQS and QS for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI. In 2006, NMFS initially issued Bristol Bay red king crab ( *Paralithodes camtschaticus* ) and snow crab ( *Chionoecetes opilio* ) PQS to the Blue Dutch, LLC, under the requirements of section 417 of the Coast Guard Act. CVO QS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege that authorizes the holder to receive an annual allocation to harvest a specific percentage of the total allowable catch
(TAC)from a fishery. The annual allocations of TACs, in pounds, are referred to as individual fishing quotas (IFQs). PQS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a specific portion of the annual TAC from a fishery. An annual allocation of PQS is referred to as individual processing quotas
(IPQs)and is expressed in pounds of crab. Harvesters holding CVO IFQ must deliver a portion of their IFQ to processors with the same amount of IPQ available. For most crab fisheries, CVO QS and PQS are designated for specific geographic regions. Crab harvested with regionally designated CVO QS is required to be delivered to a processor in the designated region. Likewise, a processor with regionally designated PQS is required to accept delivery of and process crab in the designated region. Two regional designations were created for the snow crab and Bristol Bay red king crab fisheries. The North Region consists of all areas in the Bering Sea north of 56°20′ N. latitude. The South Region is all other areas. The regional designation of CVO QS and PQS preserves the historic geographic distribution of landings in the fisheries. CPO QS represents an exclusive but revocable privilege to harvest a percentage of the TAC and process that crab onboard. Under the Program, CPO QS does not have regional designations and is not required to be delivered to a processor holding available IPQ. Coast Guard Act Section 417 of the Coast Guard Act (Pub. L. 109-241) contains a provision mandating the Secretary of Commerce to issue PQS for the Bristol Bay red king crab and the Bering Sea snow crab fisheries to Blue Dutch, LLC, under two specific conditions. First, NMFS must issue Blue Dutch PQS equal to 0.75 percent of the total number of PQS units. NMFS issued an initial administrative determination on July 31, 2006, to issue Blue Dutch 3,015,229 units of Bristol Bay red king crab PQS and 7,516,253 units of snow crab PQS. NMFS assigned a regional designation to the PQS units issued to Blue Dutch according to the procedures established in the regulations at 50 CFR 680.40(b)(2)(iv). Second, NMFS must issue IPQ for that PQS whenever the TAC for that fishery is more than 2 percent higher than the most recent TAC in effect for that fishery prior to September 15, 2005. Accordingly, NMFS determined that it will issue Bristol Bay red king crab IPQ to Blue Dutch when the TAC for that fishery is greater than 15,732,480 lb (7,136.1 mt). NMFS will issue snow crab IPQ to Blue Dutch when the TAC for that fishery is greater than 21,350,640 lb (9,684.5 mt). This final rule specifies in regulations the statutory thresholds for annually issuing IPQ to Blue Dutch and prohibits the transfer of the PQS units issued under the provisions of the Coast Guard Act. Amendment 25 Section 122(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA, Pub. L. 109-479) requires the Secretary of Commerce, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of that act, to amend the FMP to modify the Program to authorize conversion of North CVO QS and North PQS to newly created converted CPO QS. Amendment 25 to the FMP complies with MSRA by amending the FMP to include the statutory language from section 122(a) that authorizes an eligible entity and its affiliates to combine North PQS and North CVO QS and exchange these shares for newly created converted CPO QS. NMFS published the notice of availability for Amendment 25 on February 5, 2007 (72 FR 5255), with a public comment period that closed on April 6, 2007. NMFS received one public comment on Amendment 25. The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 25 on April 12, 2007. NMFS published the proposed rule for this action on February 15, 2008 (73 FR 8838), with a public comment period that closed on March 17, 2008. NMFS received no public comments on the proposed rule. To implement Amendment 25, this final rule authorizes two types of quota share conversions and defines the entities eligible to make those conversions. First, an eligible entity holding PQS, along with its affiliates, can combine its North CVO QS for Bristol Bay red king crab or snow crab with its North PQS for that fishery and exchange these shares for converted CPO QS on an annual basis. Entities can do this under the following two conditions:
(1)If NMFS initially issued the entity both CPO QS and PQS under the Program, and that PQS, in combination with the PQS of its affiliates, is less than 7 percent of the total PQS pool for that year; or
(2)if NMFS initially issued the entity CPO QS under the Program and PQS under the Coast Guard Act. An eligible entity would be limited to converting only the PQS that it, along with its affiliates, was initially issued by NMFS. Second, an eligible entity holding CVO QS, along with its affiliates, can combine its North PQS for Bristol Bay red king crab or snow crab with its North CVO QS for that fishery and exchange these shares for converted CPO QS on an annual basis. The only entity that can do this would be an entity to which NMFS initially issued CPO QS and PQS under the Program, and that PQS, in combination with the PQS of its affiliates, is more than 7 percent of the total PQS pool for that year. This eligible entity is limited to converting only the CVO QS that it, along with its affiliates, was initially issued by NMFS. According to the NMFS Official Record, three individual entities are eligible for these new provisions. Yardarm Knot, Inc., and Blue Dutch, LLC, would be eligible for the first type of conversion. Trident Seafoods, Inc., would be eligible for the second type of conversion. These entities may elect on an annual basis whether to receive converted CPO QS and the amount of North CVO QS and North PQS they wish to convert by completing the annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ permit and submitting that application along with the annual application for crab IFQ/IPQ permit. NMFS must receive the applications by August 1 for that crab fishing year. Entities applying for a converted CPO QS permit and resulting CPO IFQ will be required to provide information on any person who is affiliated, as the term “affiliation” is defined at § 680.2, to that entity and indicate the amount of PQS and CVO QS in either the Bristol Bay red king crab or snow crab QS fishery with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS. The MSRA does not specifically define which fisheries are subject to this provision. However, under this final rule, converted CPO QS will be created for only the snow crab and Bristol Bay red king crab fisheries because these were the only fisheries for which the eligible entities were initially issued North PQS and North CVO QS. The final rule specifies a number of provisions for converted CPO QS/IFQ to conform with section 122(a) of the MSRA and the Program's implementing regulations. Converted CPO QS and the resulting CPO IFQ would not be transferable. This restriction on transfers is consistent with the MSRA eligibility standards for which entities are eligible to receive converted CPO QS. However, the final rule provides that CPO IFQ derived from converted CPO QS may be issued to a cooperative. The final rule specifies that
(1)eligible entities would receive one unit of North CPO QS in exchange for one unit of North CVO QS and 0.9 units of North PQS and
(2)the amount of IFQ derived from the converted CPO QS issued to each entity could not exceed one million pounds per fishery during any calendar year. Additionally, the final rule would implement the area of validity described in section 122(a)(4) of the MSRA by requiring that any crab harvested under a CPO IFQ permit derived from converted CPO QS must be offloaded in the North Region. Converting PQS and CVO QS to converted CPO QS will allow entities to harvest and process crab onboard a catcher processor. Conversion may reduce each eligible entity's operating costs associated with purchasing crab, processing crab on land or at a stationary floating crab processor, and complying with the Program's arbitration system. NMFS can not predict the amount of converted CPO QS that would be annually issued because the participants annually elect to exercise this provision and need not request conversion of all CVO QS and PQS held. Sections 122(b) and
(c)of the MSRA include additional requirements for fees and off-loading for converted CPO QS; however, the statute does not require the Secretary of Commerce to implement these requirements and therefore they are not part of Amendment 25 and will not be implemented by Federal rulemaking. Section 122(b) of the MSRA requires the holder of converted CPO QS to pay a fee of five percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvested with those shares to any local governmental entities in the North Region, if the PQS used to produce the converted CPO QS was originally derived from the processing activities that occurred in a community under the jurisdiction of those local governmental entities. Section 122(c) of the MSRA allows the State of Alaska to collect from the holder of the converted CPO QS a fee of one percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvested with those shares. Additionally, section 122(c) of the MSRA specifies that crab harvested with converted CPO QS shall be off-loaded in those communities receiving the local governmental entity's fee revenue. Section 122(d) of the MSRA also provides that, as part of its periodic review of the Program, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council may review the effects on communities in the North Region of allowing the conversion to CPO QS. Under this section, if the Council determines that Amendment 25 adversely affects the communities, the Council may recommend to the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary may approve, changes to the Program necessary to mitigate those adverse effects. The MSRA does not require the Secretary of Commerce to implement this requirement and therefore it is not part of Amendment 25 and will not be implemented by Federal rulemaking. Section 122(e) of the MSRA requires an additional FMP amendment and rulemaking to modify the use caps for processing North Region snow crab. Under this section, custom processing arrangements do not count against any use cap for the processing of snow crab in the North Region by a shore-based crab processor. NMFS issued an enforcement policy on January 19, 2007, that provides guidance to the industry on NMFS' enforcement and interpretation of this section, which is effective until superseded by future rulemaking. At its December meeting, the Council adopted Amendment 27 to the FMP that would implement this MSRA provision. NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule for Amendment 27 in the spring of 2008. Changes from the Proposed Rule NMFS made a few changes to the proposed regulatory text in this final rule to clarify regulatory language or correct minor mistakes in the proposed rule. NMFS modified the regulations describing the information that is required to be submitted in the annual application for a converted CPO QS/IFQ permit. These changes provide additional clarity to the public and do not substantively modify the information that is required to be submitted. First, NMFS modified regulations in § 680.4(n)(2)(iii)(B) to clarify the phrase “that person” referred to in this paragraph refers to “the affiliate” of either Entity A or B. This change provides clarity to the affiliate of Entity A of B in the application. Second, NMFS modified regulations in § 680.4(n)(2)(iv)(C) to clarify that in the annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ permit the amount of CVO QS that may be designated for conversion to CPO QS must have been initially issued to the affiliate of Entity C. This change is consistent with regulations in § 680.40(c)(5)(vi)(C) and section 122(a) of the MSRA that clearly limit the amount of CVO QS that may be assigned for conversion to CPO QS to the amount of CVO QS initially issued to Entity C and any affiliates of Entity C. This change provides clarity to the affiliate of Entity C in the application. Third, NMFS modified regulations in § 680.4(n)(2)(iv)(C) to clarify the phrase “that person” referred to in this paragraph refers to “the affiliate” of Entity C. This change provides clarity to the affiliate of Entity C in the application. Other minor editorial changes were made throughout the rule that NMFS determine have no substantive effect. Classification The Acting Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that the FMP Amendment 25 is necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI crab fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Social Impact Assessment was prepared for the Program that describes the management background, the purpose and need for the Program, the management alternatives, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts (see ADDRESSES ). With this final rule, NMFS is continuing to implement the Program. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared. A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The Regulatory Impact Review describes the potential size, distribution, and magnitude of the economic impacts that this action may be expected to have. Copies of the RIR prepared for this rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Small Entity Compliance Guide NMFS has posted a small entity compliance guide on the Internet at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/crfaq.htm* to satisfy the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which requires a plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this rule. Contact NMFS to request a hard copy of the guide (see ADDRESSES ). Collection-of-Information This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)and which has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-0576. Public reporting burden for annual application for converted CPO QS and CPO IFQ permit is estimated to average 30 minutes or 0.5 hours per individual response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 902 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 50 CFR Part 680 Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: May 16 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 680 as follows: TITLE 15—[AMENDED] CHAPTER IX PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows: Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph
(b)under the entry “50 CFR”: a. Remove the entry for “680.4”; and b. Add new entries for “680.4(a), (b)(2), and
(c)through (m)”, “680.4(b)(1)”, and “680.4(b)(3) and (n)” in alphanumeric order to read as follows: § 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(b)* * * CFR part or section where the information collection requirement is located Current OMB control number (all numbers begin with 0648-) * * * * * * * *50 CFR* * * * * * * * 680.4(a), (b)(2), and
(c)through
(m)-0514 680.4(b)(1) -0514, -0576 680.4(b)(3) and
(n)-0576 * * * * * * * TITLE 50—[AMENDED] CHAPTER VI PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 680 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479. 4. In § 680.2, add the definition of “Converted CPO QS” in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 680.2 Definitions. *Converted CPO QS* means CPO QS for the BBR and BSS crab QS fisheries that is issued to the entities defined in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) based on the procedures established in § 680.40(c)(5). 5. In § 680.4, revise paragraph (b)(1) and add paragraphs (b)(3) and
(n)to read as follows: § 680.4 Permits.
(b)* * *
(1)Crab QS is issued by the Regional Administrator to persons who qualify for an initial allocation under § 680.40 or receive QS by transfer under § 680.41. Once issued, a crab QS permit is valid until modified under paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section, or by transfer under § 680.41; or until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to § 679.43 of this chapter or under 15 CFR part 904. To qualify for a crab QS permit, the applicant must be a U.S. citizen.
(3)A converted CPO QS permit is valid until the end of the crab fishing year for which the permit is issued.
(n)*Contents of annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ permit.* (1)(i) A complete application must be received by NMFS no later than August 1 of the crab fishing year for which a person or crab harvesting cooperative is applying to receive converted CPO QS and the IFQ derived from that converted CPO QS. If a complete application is not received by NMFS by this date, that person or crab harvesting cooperative will not receive converted CPO QS and the IFQ derived from that converted CPO QS for that crab fishing year.
(ii)To receive converted CPO QS/IFQ this application must be accompanied by a timely and complete application for crab IFQ/IPQ described at paragraph
(f)of this section or a timely and complete application for a crab harvesting cooperative IFQ permit described at paragraph
(m)of this section.
(2)For the application to be considered complete, all fees required by NMFS must be paid, and any EDR required under § 680.6 must be submitted to the DCA. In addition, the applicant must include the following information (see paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through
(v)of this section):
(i)*Entity identification.* Indicate the entity (Entity A, B, or C) described in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii) through (c)(5)(iv) for which you are applying to receive converted CPO QS.
(ii)*Applicant information.* Enter applicant's name and NMFS Person ID; applicant's permanent business mailing address and any temporary mailing address the applicant wishes to use; and applicant's business telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address.
(A)For Entity A or B: ( *1* ) Identify the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS; and ( *2* ) Identify the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to you by NMFS with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(B)For Entity C: ( *1* ) Identify the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to you by NMFS with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS; and ( *2* ) Identify the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(iii)*Affiliate information for Entities A and B.*
(A)For Entities A and B described in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii) and (c)(5)(iii), indicate the permanent business mailing address and any temporary mailing address, business telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of any person who is affiliated with you based on information provided in an annual application for IFQ/IPQ that is approved by the Regional Administrator for that crab fishing year
(B)Indicate the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to that person with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(C)Indicate the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a North Region designation held by the affiliate for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(iv)*Affiliate information for Entity C.*
(A)For Entity C described in § 680.40(c)(5)(iv), indicate the permanent business mailing address and any temporary mailing address, business telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of any person who is affiliated with you based on information provided in an annual application for IFQ/IPQ that is approved by the Regional Administrator for that crab fishing year.
(B)Indicate the amount of PQS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(C)Indicate the amount of CVO QS in either the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery initially issued to the affiliate with a North Region designation for issuance as converted CPO QS.
(v)*Certification of applicant and affiliates.* The applicant and any persons who are affiliated with the applicant and named on the application must sign and date the application certifying that all information is true, correct, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. If the application is completed by an authorized representative, proof of authorization must accompany the application. 6. In § 680.7, add paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows: § 680.7 Prohibitions.
(c)* * *
(6)For any person who is not an entity defined in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) to:
(i)Hold converted CPO QS.
(ii)Use the CPO IFQ derived from that converted CPO QS outside of a crab harvesting cooperative. 7. In § 680.40, add paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), (e)(3), and (j)(4) to read as follows: § 680.40 Quota Share (QS), Processor QS (PQS), Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), and Individual Processor Quota
(IPQ)issuance.
(c)* * *
(5)*Issuance of converted CPO QS.*
(i)For each crab fishing year, the Regional Administrator may issue converted CPO QS for the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery with a North Region designation to an entity described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) of this section if NMFS has approved an application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year.
(ii)Entity A is comprised only of Yardarm Knot, Inc. (NMFS ID # 675).
(iii)Entity B is comprised only of Blue Dutch, LLC (NMFS ID # 3163).
(iv)Entity C is comprised only of Trident Seafoods, Inc. (NMFS ID # 8184).
(v)NMFS will issue Entity A, B, or C, described in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii) through (c)(5)(iv) of this section, one unit of converted CPO for each unit of CVO QS and 0.9 units of PQS indicated in an approved application for converted CPO QS/IFQ.
(vi)For each crab fishing year, the Regional Administrator will not issue CPO QS for the BBR or BSS crab QS fishery:
(A)To Entity A described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section that is greater than the amount of converted CPO QS that may be derived from the amount of PQS units with a North Region designation initially issued by NMFS to Yardarm Knot, Inc. (NMFS ID # 675), and any affiliates of Yardarm Knot, Inc., as listed on an annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year;
(B)To Entity B described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section that is greater than the amount of converted CPO QS that may be derived from the amount of PQS units with a North Region designation initially issued by NMFS to Blue Dutch, LLC, (NMFS ID # 3163) under paragraph (e)(3) of this section and any affiliates of Blue Dutch, LLC, as listed on an annual application for annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year; and
(C)To Entity C described in paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section that is greater than the amount of converted CPO QS that may be derived from the amount of CVO QS units with a North Region designation initially issued by NMFS to Trident Seafoods, Inc. (NMFS ID # 8184), and any affiliates of Trident Seafoods, Inc., as listed on an annual application for converted CPO QS/IFQ for that crab fishing year;
(vii)CPO IFQ derived from converted CPO QS may be issued to a crab harvesting cooperative only if the entity described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv) of this section holding the converted CPO QS is a member of that crab harvesting cooperative.
(6)*Offloading requirements for CPO IFQ derived from converted CPO QS.* Any crab harvested under a CPO IFQ permit derived from converted CPO QS must be offloaded in the Bering Sea subarea north of 56°20′ N. lat.
(e)* * *
(3)*PQS issued to Blue Dutch, LLC.*
(i)Pursuant to Public Law 109-241, NMFS issued 3,015,229 units of PQS for the BBR crab QS fishery and 7,516,253 units of PQS for the BSS crab QS fishery.
(ii)PQS units issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section were assigned a regional designation according to the procedures established in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iii)PQS units issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section may not be transferred to any other person.
(j)* * *
(4)*IPQ issued to Blue Dutch, LLC* —(i) *BBR IPQ.* For each crab fishing year that the total allowable catch for BBR CR crab is greater than 15,732,480 lb (7,136.2 mt), NMFS will issue IPQ for the 3,015,229 units of PQS issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, pursuant to Public Law 109-241.
(ii)*BSS IPQ.* For each crab fishing year that the total allowable catch for BSS CR crab is greater than 21,350,640 lb (9,684.6 mt), NMFS will issue IPQ for the 7,516,253 units of PQS issued to Blue Dutch, LLC, pursuant to Public Law 109-241. 8. In § 680.41: a. Paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) through (c)(1)(vi) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) through (c)(1)(viii), respectively. b. New paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (c)(1)(v) are added. c. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) is revised. The additions and revision read as follows: § 680.41 Transfer of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Quota type Eligible person Eligibility requirements
(i)PQS not issued under § 680.40(e)(3)(i) Any person None. * * * * * * *
(iv)Converted CPO QS N/A Converted CPO QS may not be transferred.
(v)CPO IFQ derived from Converted CPO QS N/A CPO IFQ derived from Converted CPO may not be transferred. * * * * * * * 9. In § 680.42, paragraph (a)(5) is revised, and paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows: § 680.42 Limitations on use of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.
(a)* * *
(5)IFQ that is used by a crab harvesting cooperative is not subject to the use caps in this paragraph
(a)except as provided for in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
(7)In a calendar year, an entity as described in § 680.40(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), or (c)(5)(iv), may not use more than 1,000,000 lb (453.6 mt) of IFQ derived from converted CPO QS in the BBR or BSS crab QS fisheries. [FR Doc. E8-11539 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 891 [Docket No. FR-5097-F-02] RIN 2502-AI48 Project Design and Cost Standards for the Section 202 and Section 811 Programs AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule revises HUD's regulations that govern the project design and cost standards for HUD's section 202 supportive housing for the Elderly and section 811 Persons with Disabilities programs. This rule allows project sponsors to use HUD funds for dishwashers in individual supportive housing units for the elderly and in independent living projects for persons with disabilities. The current regulation excludes dishwashers from the list of permitted project amenities. By providing access to dishwashers, a standard amenity in today's housing market, HUD endeavors to maintain the quality of life for elderly and disabled residents, and, further, the use of dishwashers will help promote healthy living conditions, and assist independent living. This rule will also clarify the applicability of the project design and cost standards to section 811 group homes. This final rule follows publication of an August 15, 2007, proposed rule on which HUD received one comment, which was fully supportive of the rule. HUD is adopting the August 15, 2007, proposed rule without change. DATES: *Effective date: June 23, 2008* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Jefferson, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6154, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone number
(202)708-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at
(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 15, 2007, at 72 FR 45868, HUD published a proposed rule for public comment to amend the Department's regulations governing project design and cost standards for HUD's section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and section 811 Persons with Disabilities programs. Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended by section 801 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701q), and section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), authorize HUD to establish programs to provide assistance to expand the supply of housing with supportive services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. HUD's regulations that establish the section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program (section 202 program) and HUD's section 811 Supportive Housing for persons with disabilities program (section 811 program) are codified in 24 CFR Part 891. Section 891.120 establishes the project design and cost standards for section 202 and section 811 projects. Projects must be modest in design and certain amenities are not eligible for HUD capital advance or project rental assistance contract
(PRAC)funds. Dishwashers and washers and dryers are among the amenities for which HUD funding is restricted under the regulation; section 202 and section 811 project sponsors may include these amenities, but are not permitted to use HUD funds for their purchase or the continued operating costs associated with any ineligible amenity. HUD acknowledges that many items once considered excess amenities, including dishwashers, are now considered standard in today's housing market and that, in addition, their presence in housing units for the elderly and persons with disabilities would increase the quality of life, promote healthy living conditions, and assist independent living. The current regulation does not address section 811 group homes specifically, therefore an ambiguity exists regarding what amenities are allowed in section 811 housing pursuant to § 891.120(c). HUD recognizes that the installation of washers and dryers in group homes intended for persons with disabilities would increase the supportive nature of that housing, and that HUD funding would likely encourage the availability of these appliances to benefit and enhance section 811 programs. II. This Final Rule This final rule follows the publication of an August 15, 2007, proposed rule. The public comment period on the proposed rule closed on October 15, 2007. HUD received one public comment on the proposed rule. This commenter supported the intent of the final rule, stating that because the people assisted by these programs are either elderly or have some type of disability, “* * * it is very favorable to have amenities such as a dishwasher in their homes because it will help them * * * further, it will assist independent living for these people.” HUD is issuing this final rule without change from the proposed rule. III. Findings and Certifications Environmental Impact This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency 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. The regulatory change does not revise or establish new binding requirements on project sponsors or owners. Rather, this final rule updates HUD's regulations to authorize the use of section 202 and section 811 funds for an amenity now standard in today's housing market. the change will assist the elderly and persons with disabilities to live independently. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandate on state, local, or tribal government, or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA. Federalism Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments nor preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)The CFDA number for the Section 202 program is 14.157 and the CFDA number for the section 811 program is 14.181. List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 891 Aged, Grant programs-housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs-housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR Part 891 to read as follows: PART 891—SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 891 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013. 2. Revise § 891.120(c) to read as follows: § 891.120 Project design and cost standards.
(c)*Restrictions on amenities* . Projects must be modest in design. In individual units in supportive housing for the elderly and in independent living facilities for persons with disabilities, amenities not eligible for HUD funding include individual unit balconies and decks, atriums, bowling alleys, swimming pools, saunas, Jacuzzis, trash compactors, washers and dryers. However, HUD funding is eligible to pay for washers and dryers in group homes for persons with disabilities. Sponsors may include certain excess amenities, but must pay for them from sources other than the section 202 or 811 capital advance. They must also pay for the continuing operating costs associated with any excess amenities from sources other than the section 202 or 811 project rental assistance contract. Dated: May 15, 2008. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. E8-11619 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4002 Bylaws of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This is a final rule to amend the bylaws of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. DATES: Effective June 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith R. Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4400. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC)administers the pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 4002(b)(3) of ERISA gives PBGC power “to adopt, amend, and repeal, by the board of directors, bylaws * * *.” Section 4002(f) of ERISA provides that “[T]he board of directors may alter, supplement, or repeal any existing bylaw * * * and may adopt additional bylaws * * * from time to time as may be necessary.” PBGC's bylaws are set forth in 29 CFR Part 4002. PBGC's Board of Directors has amended the bylaws. This rule replaces the old bylaws with the new bylaws. Compliance With Rulemaking Guidelines As a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, this rule is exempt from notice and public comment requirements. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603, 604. PBGC has determined that this rule is not a ”significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended. List of Subjects in Part 4002 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies). Accordingly, 29 CFR part 4002 is revised to read as follows: PART 4002—BYLAWS OF THE PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Sec. 4002.1 Name. 4002.2 Offices. 4002.3 Board of Directors, Chair, and Representatives of Board Members. 4002.4 Quorum. 4002.5 Meetings. 4002.6 Place of meetings; use of conference call communications equipment. 4002.7 Voting without a meeting. 4002.8 Conflicts of interest. 4002.9 Director of the Corporation and Senior Officers. 4002.10 Emergency Procedures. 4002.11 Seal. 4002.12 Amendments. Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1302(f). § 4002.1 Name. The name of the Corporation is the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. § 4002.2 Offices. The principal office of the Corporation is in the Metropolitan area of the City of Washington, District of Columbia. The Corporation may have additional offices at such other places as the Board of Directors may deem necessary or desirable to the conduct of its business. § 4002.3 Board of Directors, Chair, and Representatives of Board Members. (a)(1) The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors which is composed of the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed by the Corporation for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as Members of the Board. A person at the time of a meeting of the Board of Directors who is serving in an acting capacity as Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of Commerce shall serve as a Member of the Board of Directors with the same authority and effect as the designated Secretary.
(2)The Secretary of Labor shall be the Chair of the Board of Directors and shall call and preside over all Board meetings, and shall, on behalf of the Board, review and approve the Corporation's budget. The Inspector General of the Corporation shall report to the Board through the Chair.
(3)The Board of Directors is responsible for establishing and overseeing the policies of the Corporation. The Board may delegate powers to the Director of the Corporation except that the following powers of the Board may not be delegated to the Director of the Corporation:
(i)Voting on an amendment to these bylaws;
(ii)Approval of the Annual Management Report (AMR), which includes the annual financial statements, management's discussion and analysis, annual performance report, and reports of the independent auditor;
(iii)Approval of the Annual Report, which includes the AMR, the Chairman's message, and certain statutory reporting requirements;
(iv)Approval of the Corporation's Investment Policy Statement;
(v)Approval of the issuance of any notes or debt instruments to the Secretary of the Treasury under Section 4005(c) of ERISA;
(vi)Approval of all final nonprocedural regulations prior to publication in the **Federal Register** , except for amendments that establish new interest rates and factors under Parts 4044 (Appendices C and D) and 4281 of this chapter, which may be approved by the Director of the Corporation;
(vii)Approval of all reports or recommendations to the Congress required by Title IV of ERISA;
(viii)Approval of any policy matter that would have a significant impact on the pension insurance program or its stakeholders; and
(ix)Review of reports from the Corporation's Inspector General that the Inspector General deems appropriate to deliver to the Board.
(4)The Board shall review the Corporation's Investment Policy Statement at least every two years and approve the Investment Policy Statement at least every four years. (b)(1) Each Board Member shall designate in writing an official, not below the level of Assistant Secretary, to serve as the Board Member's Representative. Such designation shall be effective until revoked or until a date or event specified therein. A Board Representative may act for all purposes under these bylaws, except that an action of a Board Representative on a Board Member's behalf with respect to the powers described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) through
(v)of this section, shall be valid only upon ratification in writing by the Board Member. Any Board Representative may refer for Board action any matter under consideration by the Board Representatives.
(2)A Board Member may designate in writing an official, not below the level of Assistant Secretary, to serve as the Board Member's Alternate Representative at a meeting. An Alternate Representative may act for all purposes at that meeting, except that the Alternate Representative's actions shall be valid only upon ratification in writing by either the Board Member or the Board Representative. Any action of the Alternate Representative involving the powers described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) through
(v)of this section or any matter that has been referred to the Board under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be ratified in writing by the Board Member.
(3)For purposes of this section, ratification shall include approval of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors.
(c)Final procedural regulations and all proposed regulations shall be approved by the Director of the Corporation prior to publication in the **Federal Register** ; however, all final procedural regulations and all proposed regulations shall first be reviewed for comment by each Board Representative, except for amendments that establish new interest rates and factors under Parts 4044 (Appendices C and D) and 4281 of this chapter. A Board Representative may, within 21 days of receiving a final procedural regulation or proposed regulation for review, request that it be referred to the Board Representatives for approval. § 4002.4 Quorum. A majority of the Board Members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Any act of a majority of the Members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the Board. § 4002.5 Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held as often as required to provide appropriate oversight and guidance to the Corporation and at such times as the Chair shall select. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be called by the Chair on the request of any other Board Member. Reasonable notice of any meetings shall be given to each Board Member. The General Counsel of the Corporation shall serve as Secretary to the Board of Directors and keep its minutes. As soon as practicable after each meeting, a draft of the minutes of such meeting shall be distributed to each Member of the Board for approval. § 4002.6 Place of meetings; use of conference call communications equipment. Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at the principal office of the Corporation unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors or the Chair. Any Member may participate in a meeting of the Board of Directors through the use of conference call telephone or similar communications equipment, by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can speak to and hear each other. Any Board Member so participating in a meeting shall be deemed present for all purposes. Actions taken by the Board of Directors at meetings conducted through the use of such equipment, including the votes of each Member, shall be recorded in the usual manner in the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors. § 4002.7 Voting without a meeting. A resolution of the Board of Directors signed by each of the Board Members or each of the Board Representatives shall have the same effect as if agreed to at a meeting and shall be kept in the Corporate Minutes Book. A resolution for an action taken on any matter for which a Board Member has been disqualified under § 4002.8 may be signed by the Board Representative of the disqualified Board Member. § 4002.8 Conflict of interest. Any Board Member may disqualify himself or herself from participation in a Board action on any matter if the Board Member may have or may appear to have a conflict of interest. The Board Member shall notify the other Board Members of a disqualification. The disqualified Member's Board Representative, acting independently of that Member, may vote on the matter in the Member's place. The disqualified Board Member need not and may not ratify any action taken on the matter giving rise to his or her disqualification. § 4002.9 Director of the Corporation and Senior Officers.
(a)*Director of the Corporation.* The Corporation shall be administered by a Director appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Subject to policies established by the Board, the Director shall have responsibility for the Corporation's management, including its personnel, organization and budget practices, and shall carry out the Corporation's functions under Title IV of ERISA. The Director shall submit the Corporation's budget to the Chair of the Board for review and approval.
(b)There shall be the following senior officers of the Corporation, reporting directly to the Director:
(1)Deputy Directors for Policy and Operations, who shall be first and second assistant, respectively;
(2)General Counsel, who shall serve as Secretary to the Board;
(3)Chief Financial Officer;
(4)Chief Information Officer;
(5)Chief Management Officer;
(6)Chief Operating Officer; and
(7)Chief Insurance Program Officer.
(c)Subject to prior approval of the Board, the Director may establish such additional or other senior officers as necessary. Before making an appointment to a senior officer position, the Director shall consult with the Board. § 4002.10 Emergency procedures.
(a)An emergency exists if a quorum of the Corporation's Board cannot readily be assembled or act through written contact because of the declaration of a government-wide emergency. These emergency procedures shall remain in effect during the emergency and upon the termination of the emergency shall cease to be operative unless and until another emergency occurs. The emergency procedures shall operate in conjunction with the PBGC Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP Plan”) of the current year, and any government-wide COOP protocols in effect.
(b)During an emergency, the business of the PBGC shall continue to be managed in accordance with its COOP Plan. The functions of the Board of Directors will be carried out by those Members of the Board of Directors in office at the time the emergency arises, or by persons designated by the agencies' COOP plans to act in place of the Board Members, who are available to act during the emergency. If no such persons are available, then the authority of the Board shall be transferred to the Board Representatives who are available. If no Board Representatives are available, then the Director of the Corporation shall perform essential Board functions.
(c)During an emergency, meetings of the Board may be called by any available Member of the Board. The notice thereof shall specify the time and place of the meeting. To the extent possible, notice shall be given in accordance with these bylaws. Notice shall be given to those Board Members whom it is feasible to reach at the time of the emergency, and notice may be given at a time less than 24 hours before the meeting if deemed necessary by the person giving notice. § 4002.11 Seal. The seal of the Corporation shall be in such form as may be approved from time to time by the Board. § 4002.12 Amendments. These bylaws may be amended or new bylaws adopted by unanimous vote of the Board. Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of May, 2008. Charles E.F. Millard, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Issued on the date set forth above pursuant to Resolution 2008-09 of the Board of Directors authorizing adoption of the revised Bylaws contained in this final rule. Judith R. Starr, Secretary, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-11667 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [USCG-2008-0375] Portland Rose Festival Fireworks Display AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the “Portland Rose Festival Fireworks Display safety zone on the Willamette River”; from 8:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on May 30, 2008. This action is necessary to provide a safe display for the public and to keep them clear of the fall out area of the fireworks. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port. DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1315(a)(2) will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on May 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BM2 Joshua Lehner, Sector Portland Waterways Management at
(503)247-4015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Portland Rose Festival fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.1315(a)(2) on May 30, 2008 from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1315, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the COTP. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1315(a)(2) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the **Federal Register** , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and a marine information broadcast. If the COTP determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area. Dated: May 7, 2008. F.G. Myer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Portland. [FR Doc. E8-11549 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2006-0127; FRL-8569-9] Utah: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)to authorize states to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the federal program. Utah has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under RCRA. EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and is authorizing Utah's changes through this final action. DATES: This final authorization will become effective on May 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Daly, Solid and Hazardous Waste Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202,
(303)312-6416, *daly.carl@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. Utah initially received Final Authorization on October 10, 1984, effective October 24, 1984 (49 FR 39683) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Utah received authorization for revisions to its program on February 21, 1989 (54 FR 7417), effective March 7, 1989; May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23648) and August 6, 1991 (56 FR 37291), both effective July 22, 1991; May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20770), effective July 14, 1992; February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8232) and May 5, 1993 (58 FR 26689), both effective April 13, 1993; October 14, 1994 (59 FR 52084), effective December 13, 1994; May 20, 1997 (62 FR 27501), effective July 21, 1997; January 13, 1999 (64 FR 02144), effective March 15, 1999; October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61109), effective January 16, 2001; May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30599), effective July 7, 2002; and June 11, 2003 (68 FR 34829), effective June 11, 2003. On September 30, 2003, Utah submitted a complete program revision application, seeking authorization of additional changes to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On March 7, 2008, EPA published both an immediate final rule (73 FR 12277) granting Utah final authorization for these revisions to its federally authorized hazardous waste program, along with a companion proposed rule announcing EPA's proposal to grant such a final authorization (73 FR 12340). EPA announced in both notices that the immediate final rule and the proposed rule were subject to a thirty-day public comment period. The public comment period ended on April 7, 2008. Further, EPA stated in both notices that if it received adverse comments on its intent to authorize Utah's program revisions that it would
(1)withdraw the immediate final rule;
(2)proceed with the proposed rule as the basis for the receipt and evaluation of such comments, and
(3)subsequently publish a final determination responding to such comments and announce its final decision as to whether or not to authorize Utah's program revisions. EPA did receive two adverse comments during the public comment period, and on April 23, 2008, EPA published a notice withdrawing the immediate final rule (73 FR 21843). Today's action responds to the comments EPA received and publishes EPA's final determination granting Utah final authorization of its program revisions. Further background on EPA's immediate final rule and its tentative determination to grant authorization to Utah for its program revisions appears in the aforementioned **Federal Register** notices. The issues raised by the commenters are summarized and responded to in section B below. B. What Were the Comments and Responses to EPA's Proposal? During the public comment period relevant and adverse comments were received from two sources. The comments did not address specific concerns with EPA's approval of the 14 additional RCRA regulatory provisions in Utah's authorized hazardous waste program; rather the comments were general in nature: Opposition to Utah accepting additional hazardous wastes and an allegation that Utah's DSHW provides misleading information to the public. In response to the first commenter who stated that he does “not want Utah to take more hazardous waste than it already has,” EPA notes that authorization of the additional RCRA regulatory provisions specified in the immediate final rule should not impact the amount or type of hazardous waste imported into Utah. The state has already adopted these regulatory provisions into the Utah Hazardous Waste Management Rules at R-315. In addition, the types and quantity of hazardous waste accepted at Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) in Utah are controlled by their respective RCRA permits issued by the State of Utah, and this authorization will not directly impact the conditions and restrictions in these RCRA permits. The commenter also states that bringing “low-level radioactive waste into the United States for disposal or storage” sets a bad precedent and that “radioactive waste from Italy * * * should not be accepted in any form or degree.” EPA notes that, in general, this authorization of additional RCRA regulatory provisions does not address radioactive waste. The one regulatory provision approved in this authorization that is related to radioactive waste is the Treatment Variance for Radioactively Contaminated Batteries. This provision, promulgated as a federal regulation on October 7, 2002, requires radioactively contaminated batteries determined to also be hazardous waste because of the heavy metal content of cadmium, mercury, or silver, to be treated with macro-encapsulation and then disposed of in a permitted disposal facility. Prior to this provision, radioactively contaminated batteries were required to be thermally treated or manually segregated to recover the heavy metals. EPA determined that these treatment standards were technically inappropriate for radioactively contaminated cadmium, mercury, and silver batteries. Our review has determined that Utah has adopted an equivalent rule to the federal hazardous waste regulation, specified in 40 CFR 268.40. Therefore, we have determined that there is no basis to deny authorization approval based on these comments. In response to the second commenter, who expressed concerns regarding the integrity of Utah's DSHW and raised allegations that the DSHW provides misleading information to the public, EPA has no documentation that indicates the Utah DSHW has provided misleading information to the public related to the hazardous waste authorization process. The DSHW has followed the process specified in 40 CFR 271.20 to provide public notice prior to submitting an application for authorization to EPA. In addition, EPA conducts annual reviews of the DSHW's hazardous waste program. The last review was completed at the end of 2007. These reviews evaluate the DSHW's hazardous waste program using 19 program criteria organized under four key program areas: Program management, pollution prevention and hazardous waste minimization, safe waste management, and corrective action. EPA's program management review of the DSHW includes the following criteria: Adoption and authorization of federal rules, resources and skill mix, training program, data timeliness, accuracy and completeness, and records management. EPA notes that, for 2007, Utah met or exceeded the standards for all 19 program criteria. Therefore, we have determined that there is no basis to deny authorization approval based on these comments. C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule? Based on EPA's response to public comments, the Agency has determined that approval of Utah's RCRA program revisions should proceed. EPA has made a final determination that Utah's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Utah final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Utah has responsibility for permitting TSDFs within its borders, except in Indian country as that term is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151, and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Utah, including issuing permits, until Utah is authorized to do so. For further background on the scope and effect of today's action to approve Utah's RCRA program revisions, please refer to the preambles of EPA's March 7, 2008 proposed and immediate final rules at 73 FR 12340 and 73 FR 12277, respectively. D. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and, therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes state requirements as part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. 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. Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective May 23, 2008. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Incorporation-by-reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). Dated: May 12, 2008. Carol Rushin, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E8-11648 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 060525140-6221-02] RIN 0648-XI05 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; trip limit reduction. SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic to 300 lb (136 kg) per trip in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic golden tilefish resource. DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, May 27, 2008, through December 31, 2008, unless changed by further notification in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britni Tokotch, telephone 727-824-5305, fax 727-824-5308, e-mail *Britni.Tokotch@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Under 50 CFR 622.44(c)(2), NMFS is required to reduce the trip limit in the commercial fishery for golden tilefish from 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) to 300 lb (136 kg) per trip when 75 percent of the fishing year quota is met, by filing a notification to that effect in the **Federal Register** . Based on current statistics, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available commercial quota of 295,000 lb (133,810 kg), gutted weight, for golden tilefish will be reached on or before May 20, 2008. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial golden tilefish trip limit to 300 lb (136 kg) in the South Atlantic EEZ from 12:01 a.m., local time, on May 20, 2008, until the quota is reached and the fishery closes or 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2009, whichever occurs first. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the fishery because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota. For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 19, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-11538 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070717341-8549-02] RIN 0648-AV41 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement recreational management measures for the 2008 summer flounder and scup fisheries and to notify the public that the recreational management measures for the black sea bass fisheries remain the same as in 2007. The actions of this final rule are necessary to comply with regulations implementing the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)as well as to ensure compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The intent of these measures is to prevent overfishing of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass resources. DATES: Effective June 23, 2008, except for the amendment to § 648.107(a) introductory text, which is effective May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees and of the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)consists of the IRFA, public comments and responses contained in this final rule, and the summary of impacts and alternatives contained in this final rule. Copies of the small entity compliance guide and supplemental economic analysis document are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281-9104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 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. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying annual recreational management measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The states manage these fisheries within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish. The 2008 coastwide recreational harvest limits, after deduction of research set-aside (RSA), are 6,215,800 lb (2,819 mt) for summer flounder, 1,830,920 lb (830 mt) for scup, and 2,108,447 lb (956 mt) for black sea bass. The 2008 quota specifications, inclusive of the recreational harvest limits, were previously determined to be consistent with the 2008 target fishing mortality rate
(F)for summer flounder and the target exploitation rates for scup and black sea bass. The proposed rule to implement annual Federal recreational measures for the 2008 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries was published on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15111), and contained management measures (minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to keep annual recreational landings from exceeding the specified harvest limits. 2008 Recreational Management Measures Additional discussion on the development of the recreational management measures appeared in the preamble of the proposed rule and is not repeated here. All minimum fish sizes discussed below are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person. Summer Flounder Management Measures Based on the recommendation of the Commission, the Regional Administrator finds that the recreational summer flounder fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2008 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. According to the regulation at § 648.107(a)(1), vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and landing summer flounder in a state with an approved conservation equivalency program shall not be subject to the more restrictive Federal measures, and shall instead be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Section 648.107(a) has been amended accordingly. The management measures will vary according to the state of landing, as specified in the following table. Table 1 - 2008 State Recreational Management Measures for Summer Flounder. State Minimum Fish Size inches cm Possession Limit (number of fish) Fishing Season MA 17.5 44.45 5 June 10 through August 15 RI 20.0 50.80 7 January 1 through December 31 CT 19.5 49.53 5 May 24 through September 1 NY 20.5 52.07 4 May 15 through September 1 NJ 18.0 45.72 8 May 24 through September 7 DE 19.5 49.45 4 January 1 through December 31 MD 1 17.5 44.45 3 January 1 through December 31 VA 19.0 48.26 5 January 1 through July 20, and July 31 through December 31 NC 2 15.5 39.37 8 January 1 through December 31 1 *Chesapeake Bay, MD* - a 16.5-in (41.91-cm) minimum fish size, a 1-fish possession limit, and a fishing season of January 1 through December 31 applies. 2 *Pamlico Sound* , NC No person may possess flounder less than 14 in (35.56 cm) total length taken from internal waters for recreational purposes west of a line beginning at a point on Point of Marsh in Carteret County at 35° 04.6166'N lat. 76° 27.8000'W long., then running northeasterly to a point at Bluff Point in Hyde County at 35° 19.7000'N lat. 76° 09.8500'W long. In Core and Clubfoot creeks, the Highway 101 Bridge constitutes the boundary north of which flounder must be at least 14 in total length. *Albemarle Sound, NC* No person may possess flounder less than 14 in (35.56 cm) total length taken from internal waters for recreational purposes west of a line beginning at a point 35° 57.3950'N lat. 76° 00.8166'W long. on Long Shoal Point; running easterly to a point 35° 56.7316'N lat. 75° 59.3000' W long. near Marker ″5″ in Alligator River; running northeasterly along the Intracoastal Waterway to a point 36° 09.3033'N lat. 75° 53.4916'W long. near Marker ″171″ at the mouth of North River; running northwesterly to a point 36° 09.9093'N lat. 75° 54.6601'W long. on Camden Point. *Browns Inlet South, NC* No person may possess flounder less than 14 in (35.56 cm) total length in internal and Atlantic Ocean fishing waters for recreational purposes west and south of a line beginning at a point 34° 37.0000'N lat. 77° 15.000'W long.; running southeasterly to a point 34° 32.0000'N lat. 77° 10.0000'W long. Scup Management Measures This rule implements the scup measures contained in the March 21, 2008, proposed rule. Table 2 contains the coastwide Federal measures for scup for 2008. Table 2- 2008 Scup Recreational Management Measures Fishery Minimum Fish Size inches cm Possession Limit Fishing Season Scup 10.5 26.67 15 fish January 1 through February 28, and October 1 through October 31 As has occurred in the past 6 years, the scup fishery in state waters will be managed under a regional conservation equivalency system developed through the Commission. Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for conservation equivalency, and states may adopt their own unique measures, the Federal and state recreational scup management measures will differ for 2008. Black Sea Bass Management Measures Table 3 contains the coastwide Federal measures black sea bass in effect for 2007 and codified. The 2008 measures are unchanged from those at 50 CFR part 648 subpart I, and are presented in Table 3. Table 3- 2008 Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures Fishery Minimum Fish Size inches cm Possession Limit Fishing Season Black Sea Bass 12 30.5 25 fish January 1 through December 31 Comments and Responses Eleven comments were received regarding the proposed recreational management measures (73 FR 15111, March 21, 2008). One individual submitted several comments regarding several species such as mackerel, red hake, and marlin which are not addressed by this rulemaking. In addition, several minor comments, whose relevance to the recreational management measures could not be ascertained, were submitted. A number of issues raised by commenters pertained to past actions already promulgated by NMFS, such as the establishment of the 2008 summer flounder Total Allowable Landings
(TAL)and scup rebuilding plan. These are not responded to in this section. When possible, the concepts relayed in the comments have been consolidated and responded to in turn. *Comment 1:* Some of the comments received allege that state-by-state conservation equivalency violates National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that conservation and management actions to be based upon the best available scientific information. The argument presented by the commenters is that the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical Survey (MRFSS) used to develop state-by-state conservation equivalency measures has inadequate resolution for state-level monitoring and management. These commenters cite the 2006 NOAA-commissioned National Academy of Sciences independent review of MRFSS that stated monitoring fisheries at a state level is a finer stratification than intended originally for the data collected and that the existing sampling strata may be too coarse a resolution to generate estimates that are adequate for management requirements. Further, these commenters cite a quotation from the National Academy of Science review committee chair wherein it was stated that MRFSS is better suited to monitor and manage on larger spatial scales rather than on smaller spatial scales. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that managing the summer flounder recreational fishery using state-by-state conservation equivalency is a violation of National Standard 2. NMFS has been aware of limitations in the MRFSS design and data for some time. It is, in fact, why the National Academy of Science peer-review was commissioned by NOAA. While the review did, as expected, point out numerous areas for improvement of the MRFSS sampling design, nowhere did the National Academy of Science reviewers indicate that use of the MRFSS data at smaller spatial scales (i.e., state-by-state) was an inappropriate use of the data. Moreover, the National Academy of Science review indicated that the level of precision available from MRFSS may require the modification of management objectives or management tools. This reason, along with poor performance of conservation equivalency in recent years, led NMFS to send letters early in the 2008 recreational management measures development process strongly encouraging both the Commission and the Council to improve their analysis of how potential recreational management measures are evaluated. In addition, NMFS encouraged states to take a more precautionary approach to both improve conservation equivalency's performance and to offset uncertainty in the assessment of potential measures effectiveness. In response, the Commission's Technical Committee evaluated a number of additional factors that may influence the effectiveness of state-by-state conservation equivalency before recommending the performance-based adjustment factor intended to improve conservation equivalency in 2008. NMFS contends that the information provided by MRFSS, along with additional information provided by individual states and fishery independent surveys, is sufficient and appropriate to manage the recreational summer flounder fishery on a state-by-state basis. NMFS is continuing to move forward with implementing the recommendations of the National Academy of Science regarding MRFSS as well as developing and implementing a national saltwater angler registry, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006. NMFS does not disagree that the use of current MRFSS methodology and data has moved well beyond their originally intended purpose. The changes under development, when fully implemented, are expected to incorporate many of the National Academy of Science's recommendations and substantially improve the precision and utility of the recreational fishery information available for fisheries management. In the interim, while new measures are developed and implemented, the MRFSS supplied data remain the only available information for recreational fisheries management at any spatial scale. The use of MRFSS data was challenged, along with other aspects of the agency's actions, in 2006 in the case *United Boatmen, et al.,* v. * Gutierrez 1 * , the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), wherein the defendants alleged that MRFSS was a gravely flawed tool and unsuitable for use in setting the summer flounder TAL. On behalf of NMFS, the United States attorneys stated in the defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that, “MRFSS, while admittedly having limitations, has been upheld under National Standard 2 as the best available scientific information.” The defendants' brief cited three separate cases wherein MRFSS had been upheld as the best available scientific information relative to National Standard 2. In this case, the judge found in favor of the Secretary, adding further support to the adequacy of MRFSS data for use in fisheries management as the best available science. 1 *United Boatmen, et al.,* v. *Gutierrez Civil NO. 06-CV-400 (JBW)* *Comment 2:* One commenter alleges that state-by-state conservation equivalency violates National Standard 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires individual fish stocks to be managed as a unit throughout its range, to the extent practicable. *Response:* NMFS disagrees with the commenter. The summer flounder stock is managed as a single unit, consistent with National Standard 3. Management is cooperative among the Commission, which represents individual states in the management unit, the Council, and NMFS. The stock assessment conducted in support of annual TAL setting is for the entire Northeast Region management unit for summer flounder, from Maine to North Carolina. Catch limits for the recreational and commercial fisheries are established for the entire coast. The overarching commercial TAL is managed on a state-by-state basis, parsed by historic landings percentage by each state: Conversely, the recreational fishery may employ coastwide measures, or regional or state-by-state conservation equivalency to achieve the coastwide recreational harvest level. When state-by-state conservation equivalency is utilized for management, the individual state management measures are structured to achieve equivalency with the overarching coastwide (i.e., single management unit) recreational harvest limit. Furthermore, NMFS guidance on National Standard 3 (50 CFR 600.320) clearly states that management measures need not be identical for each geographic area within the management unit. *Comment 3:* Some of the comments received allege that state-by-state conservation equivalency violates National Standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which, states that conservation and management actions implemented by NMFS shall not discriminate between residents of different states. These commenters raised concerns about disparities that arise between adjacent states' management measures under the state-by-state conservation equivalency management system, specifically citing the differences between 2008 New York and New Jersey measures. Many of these commenters assert that such differences are highly inequitable and unfair. Some of these commenters point out that under the 2008 conservation equivalency system, New York will be required to implement measures with the greatest required reduction and, as a result, New York will have more restrictive fishing measures than any other state. Many of these commenters also stated that the state harvest allocations assigned by the Commission are inequitable and violate both National Standard 4 and National Standard 2 because they are based on a single year of landings data. *Response:* NMFS disagrees with these comments that state-by-state conservation equivalency violates National Standards 2 and 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The conservation equivalency system was implemented in 2001 by Framework Adjustment 2 to the Federal FMP (66 FR 36208, July 11, 2001) and the Commission's companion action Addendum III to the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. Under this process, states are allowed to design management measures to achieve their specified recreational management targets which, in turn, ensures that the coastwide recreational harvest limit will be achieved. NMFS has implemented conservation equivalency, as recommended by the Council and Commission, in each year since 2001. The overarching process of conservation equivalency establishes a set of guidance for states to tailor management measures that meet the conservation objectives of the FMP rather than being subject to a one-size-fits-all coastwide approach. The conservation equivalency framework is uniform and applied consistently for all states, without differentiating among U.S. citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or corporations on the basis of their state of residence. Individual states must provide a combination of minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season to ensure that, when paired with the remaining Atlantic coastal states, the coastwide recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. Each state's circumstance with respect to landings and overage is unique to that state and argues against the application of the same measures for each state. The Commission's Technical Committee evaluates the proposed state measures and, if sufficient, a recommendation to adopt, as functionally equivalent, the reviewed and approved measures is forwarded by the Commission to NMFS for implementation. This ensures that the conservation objectives of the FMP and the summer flounder rebuilding program are met. To achieve conservation equivalency, the Commission, not NMFS, establishes a base recreational allocation that each state receives from the coastwide recreational harvest limit and specifies the percent reduction or liberalization in landings each state's measures must meet for each year. The conservation equivalency system does not result in a direct distribution of fishing privileges to individual states by NMFS. This allocation is not earmarked solely for the residents of an individual state; rather, any landing made in the state in question is counted against that state's recreational allocation. Fishery participants are free to participate in multiple states, land in adjacent states, etc., and are not discriminated against based on their state of residence. The basis for the state recreational harvest allocations is the percentage of 1998 coastwide recreational landings by state. However, the Commission is at liberty to revise or amend these allocation percentages independently of the Council and/or NMFS as specific state recreational fishery percent allocations are not specified in the Federal regulations that implement the conservation equivalency program. The use of 1998 by the Commission was not arbitrary; the intent of 1998 as the base allocation year was to perpetuate the existing fishing practices in place prior to the onset of regulations which substantially modified the recreational fishery. The percent reduction, or liberalization in landings, required by the Commission is relative to the previous year's landings level to ensure that the state-supplied measures will result in the same harvest level as would coastwide measures. A state may be required to reduce landings if the coastwide recreational harvest limit is reduced from year to year, if the state in question has exceeded the previous year's recreational landing limit, or if both have occurred. For 2008, in response to NMFS indicating that conservation equivalency measures needed to be more robust, the Commission included an additional percent reduction for some states called a performance-based adjustment. This adjustment is a further reduction imposed by the Commission to ensure that conservation equivalency will function as designed, and is the average overage for individual states from the period of 2001-2007. New York has exceeded its Commission specified allocation of the recreational harvest limit in 5 of the 7 years where conservation equivalency has been utilized, including a 55-percent overage in 2007. The state's overages have ranged from 20 to 112 percent. Therefore, the percent reduction required by the Commission for New York under conservation equivalency for 2008 is greater than adjacent states. Had New York's measures achieved the required targets in previous years, New York would not be required to produce as large a reduction under the Commission's plan in 2008 to ensure that conservation equivalency could be achieved on a coastwide basis. For these reasons, NMFS finds that implementing conservation equivalency, as recommended by the Council and Commission for 2008, does not violate National Standard 4 or National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. *Comment 4:* Some commenters allege that state-by-state conservation equivalency violates National Standard 6 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. The basis for the commenters assertion is that conservation equivalency does not address a northward shift in summer flounder stock distribution. *Response:* NMFS disagrees with the commenters. Furthermore, NMFS asserts that the commenters have misinterpreted the intent of National Standard 6. The intent of National Standard 6 is to ensure that an FMP management regime includes some protection against uncertainties that may arise. National Standard 6 directs FMPs to have a suitable buffer, in favor of conservation, to deal with uncertainty, which may also be stated as a precautionary approach. Examples provided in NMFS guidance on National Standard 6 (50 CFR 600.336) include reductions in Optimum Yield, establishment of reserves, and adjustable management techniques to compensate for changes that occur during a fishing year as suitable buffers to mitigate uncertainty. In regards to conservation equivalency, a summer flounder stock assessment is conducted annually and fully accounts for, among other things, stock distribution, changes in stock size, and fishery removals. The stock assessment does fully account for changes in stock dynamics and distribution in providing the basis for setting the annual coastwide TAL, which is then divided among the recreational and commercial fisheries. The resultant commercial quota and recreational harvest limit generated from the annual stock assessment do account for uncertainty in the assessment by implementing a lower overall TAL than required by the FMP. For 2008, analysis conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) indicates that the 15.77-million-lb (7,153-mt) TAL has a 99-percent probability of not exceeding the overfishing level (FMAX=0.28). The FMP requires that the annual TAL have, at minimum, a 50-percent probability of constraining fishing mortality at or below the overfishing level. Further, both the states and NMFS are able to monitor recreational harvests during the fishing season, and both can take corrective or closure actions to ensure that mortality objectives or harvest targets are not exceeded. For these reasons, NMFS finds that the use of state-by-state conservation equivalency complies with National Standard 6 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. *Comment 5:* One commenter stated that NMFS did not conduct the required review of scientific and other relevant information before establishing the 2008 recreational management measures. *Response:* NMFS disagrees with the commenter as extensive analysis of scientific and other relevant information has occurred as part of the 2008 recreational management measures specification process. A full analysis of the fishery dependent and independent data was conducted, as has occurred annually for each year since the inception of the FMP. The Council's Monitoring Committee and Commission's Technical Committee met jointly in November 2007 to review the most up to date stock and fishery related information available for establishing the 2008 recreational management measures. This review is required under the summer flounder regulations at § 648.100(a). These groups relayed their findings in December 2007 to the Council and Commission who, in turn, forwarded recommendations to NMFS based on the information provided by the two committees. Following the joint Council and Commission meeting, Council staff prepared and provided to NMFS an EA/RIR/IRFA outlining, in detail, the options considered by the Council including the environmental, regulatory, and economic impacts of each. NMFS certified that the EA/RIR/IRFA, and this subsequent final rule to implement the 2008 recreational management measures, is fully compliant with the FMP, its implementing regulations, the Magnuson-Stevenson Act, and other applicable guidance and laws. *Comment 6:* One commenter stated that the only equitable way to manage the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery would be to have a coastwide minimum fish size and possession limit, and allow states to set individual season lengths. *Response:* This approach was not contemplated by the Council, Commission, or individual states for 2008. The summer flounder regulations found at § 648.100 are not currently structured to require or easily accommodate the commenter's proposed management system. Under coastwide management measures, minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season must be uniform for the entire coast. Under conservation equivalency, states may form voluntary regions; however, the states within those regions must have an identical minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season. If state by state-by-state conservation equivalency is utilized, states are permitted to adopt unique measures provided the suite of measures are equivalent to the level established by the coastwide measures. It is conceivable that under state-by-state conservation equivalency, each state could voluntarily agree to hold minimum fish size and possession limits the same across states, while implementing independent state fishing seasons. NMFS is implementing, through this final rule, state-by-state conservation equivalency as recommended by both the Council and Commission for the reasons previously outlined in the preamble to this rule. Under conservation equivalency, each state has implemented a unique minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season tailored to ensure that these measures result in recreational landings equivalent to the coastwide recreational harvest level. *Comment 7:* One commenter stated that no economic analysis had been conducted for the 2008 recreational management measures. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. A full economic impact analysis on regulated small businesses (i.e., federally permitted party/charter vessels) relative to the 2008 recreational management measures can be found in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared by Council staff, the EA supplement prepared by NMFS staff, the proposed rule (73 FR 15111, March 21, 2008) IRFA summary, and in the FRFA contained in this final rule. As such, the economic analysis is not repeated here. NMFS acknowledges that there are economic impacts associated with reductions in the TAL, and subsequent reductions in the recreational harvest limit from 2007 to 2008, and that continual reductions have a cumulative effect on fishery participants and associated businesses. A discussion of the steps taken to minimize, to the extent practicable, the economic impacts on small entities is outlined in the FRFA contained in the Classification section of this final rule. Although this final rule does not directly regulate fishing support industries, NMFS acknowledges that potential reductions in fishing effort and associated expenditures may have indirect impacts on hotels, restaurants, fishing gear and bait shops, marinas, and other associated businesses. Rising fuel costs paired with the fishery reductions may exacerbate those impacts. The RFA imposes an obligation on NMFS only to analyze the economic impacts on businesses that it regulates directly. Associated and support businesses to the fishing industry mentioned above are not directly regulated by NMFS. Thus, they were not included in the regulatory flexibility analysis. *Comment 8:* Several commenters raised the issue that NMFS had spoken in support of coastwide management measures in both written correspondence and on the record at public meetings during the 2008 summer flounder recreational management measures development. These commenters indicated that NMFS is now ignoring its own advice, and should exercise it's authority to replace the Council and Commission's recommendation for state-by-state conservation equivalency with coastwide management measures. *Response:* NMFS acknowledges that previous statements were made by agency personnel in support of coastwide management measures during the early stages of development of recreational management measures for the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery. In addition to these statements, NMFS personnel also urged the Council and Commission to consider factors that affect the effectiveness of both coastwide and conservation equivalency approaches to recreational management to substantially improve the likelihood of achieving the 2008 mortality objectives (i.e., not exceeding the recreational harvest limit). NMFS asked that the Council and Commission, through their Monitoring and Technical Committees, evaluate factors that influence the effectiveness of recreational management measures, including state performance relative to their respective conservation equivalency targets in previous years, changes in fish weight, angler participation, stock size, noncompliance rates, and standard error around MRFSS generated harvest estimates used in the evaluation of potential management measures. The Commission's Technical Committee reviewed these topics and found the use of the predicted 2008 average weight and the performance of individual states as compelling factors for application in 2008. The Technical Committee recommended using the predicted average weight for 2008 and a performance-based adjustment factor, that is derived by taking the average of yearly harvest-to-target performance by state from 2001-2007, and applying the resultant number as an additional reduction to 2008 states targets that have a net overage for the time frame. NMFS is not constrained or committed to a particular course of action for any rulemaking until a final rule is published in the **Federal Register** . Introduction of new or previously not considered information, or response to issues raised by the public during open comment periods, are examples of instances wherein NMFS may deviate from the course of action initially discussed or even published in a proposed rule. NMFS finds the Commission's required performance-based approach to be a meaningful demonstration by the Commission's member states to ensure that conservation equivalency performs as originally contemplated for 2008. As such, it is a more precautionary approach than applied in previous years, and presents a higher likelihood that the 2008 recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded on either a state-by-state basis or coastwide, and that the subsequent mortality objectives will be met for the 2008 fishing year. For NMFS to disapprove the Council's recommendation and substitute alternative measures, in this case, coastwide management measures, NMFS must reasonably demonstrate that the recommended measures are either inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise demonstrate that the conservation objectives of the FMP will not be achieved by implementing the recommendation in question. NMFS does not find the Council and Commission's recommendation are legally suspect or incapable of achieving the FMP's conservation objectives in light of the additional performance based factor mandated by he Commission for use in 2008. However, NMFS remains concerned that there is little margin for error in the remaining 4 years of the summer flounder rebuilding plan (2009-2012). Therefore, as NMFS also frequently indicated during recreational management measures development, recreational landings will be monitored in season and, if necessary to ensure the mortality objectives are not compromised for 2008, an inseason closure of the EEZ may occur. Any such closure action would be announced through multiple media outlets, including publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** . *Comment 9:* One commenter stated that the summer flounder stock is sufficiently rebuilt and that the current rebuilding target should be re-evaluated. *Response:* The updated 2006 stock assessment information used in establishing the 2008 summer flounder TAL indicates that the Spawning Stock Biomass
(SSB)in 2006, the most recent year for which complete information is available, was 93.3 million lb (42,316 mt). This is below the most recently peer-reviewed 2 biomass rebuilding target of 197.1 million lb (89,411 mt), and slightly below one-half the biomass rebuilding target level of 98.6 million lb (44,706 mt). As such, the stock continues to be defined as overfished, and has not yet been rebuilt as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The summer flounder stock must achieve the biomass rebuilding target (i.e., be rebuilt) by no later than January 1, 2013. 2 Summer Flounder Assessment and Biological Reference Point Update for 2006 A comprehensive benchmark stock assessment involving scientist from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Mid-Atlantic state fishery agencies, academia, and industry is currently occurring. The benchmark assessment will re-evaluate the status of the summer flounder stock and the biological reference points, including the rebuilding target. Results of the benchmark assessment, including updated stock status and any modifications to the biological reference points and rebuilding target, are expected to be available to the Council during their August 2008 meeting, wherein initial discussions for the 2009 summer flounder TAL will occur. *Comment 10:* Some commenters specifically requested that NMFS exercise its authority to replace the Council and Commission recommended state-by-state conservation equivalency management approach with the Council and Commission non-preferred alternative for coastwide measures. These commenters stated, in support of coastwide measures, that state-by-state conservation equivalency is based on flawed science, is grossly inequitable, and has consistently failed in constraining the recreational fishery to the respective annual targets. *Response:* NMFS is implementing, through this rule, the Council and Commission recommended management system for the 2008 summer flounder recreational fishery--state-by-state conservation equivalency. See response to comment 8 for additional details. NMFS may disapprove and implement substitute measures when the Council recommends measures that are inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act rebuilding requirements for summer flounder, or other applicable law. NMFS has determined that state-by-state conservation equivalency, paired with the Commission's performance-based adjustment factor, satisfies the 2008 regulatory and statutory requirements for summer flounder. As such, NMFS has no compelling reason to disapprove state-by-state conservation equivalency and substitute coastwide measures for the 2008 recreational fishery. NMFS acknowledges that state-by-state conservation equivalency has performed poorly, since the summer flounder recreational harvest limit has been exceeded in 5 of the 7 years where it has been utilized. It was for this reason that NMFS cautioned both the Council and Commission that several factors influencing the effectiveness of conservation equivalency be examined, and a new approach or approaches applied for the 2008 fishery. In response, the Commission's Technical Committee examined several areas not previously considered in conservation equivalency analysis. This examination led to the Technical Committee's recommended performance-based adjustment factor designed to reduce the risk of exceeding the 2008 recreational harvest limit. *Comment 11:* Some commenters stated that state-by-state conservation equivalency has failed too often and will not prevent overfishing in 2008. One of these commenters stated that the 2008 conservation equivalency differs by only the Technical Committee's performance-based adjustment from the system that performed very poorly in 2007, and is not likely to be successful in preventing overfishing. These commenters advocated for implementation of regional or coastwide measures. *Response:* NMFS has been vocal in raising its concerns about the performance of state-by-state conservation equivalency in recent years. However, as previously indicated in responses 8 and 10, NMFS has determined that the performance-based adjustment required by the Commission's Technical Committee, use of the predicted 2008 average weight, and inseason monitoring of the recreational fishery provides a sufficient basis to responsibly manage the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery so that the recreational harvest limit is not exceeded, and the mortality objectives of the rebuilding program are met. *Comment 12:* The State of Maine wrote in support of state-by-state conservation equivalency and clarified that Maine was in the process of revising its current recreational harvest limit of 4 summer flounder per day to 2 summer flounder per day with a minimum fish size of 20 inches (50.80 cm). This clarification was sent in response to the proposed rule that stated Maine had no recreational harvest limit and was not required to submit management measures to the Commission. *Response:* NMFS supports Maine's decision to implement a minimum fish size and possession limit for 2008 that is consistent with the size and possession limits of the precautionary default level. However, Maine does not have a recreational harvest allocation under the Commission conservation equivalency program and is not, as was stated in the proposed rule, required to submit measures to the Commission for conservation equivalency to be approved by NMFS. Occurrences of summer flounder north of Massachusetts are rare, and it is unlikely that many, if any, fish would be landed by recreational anglers in Maine. MRFSS data from 1998-2007 indicate that no summer flounder were landed by recreational fishermen in Maine for that 10-year period. Classification The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule implementing the 2008 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational management measures is necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for the summer flounder recreational management measures contained in this rule (§ 648.107(a)). The linchpin of NMFS's decision whether to proceed with the coastwide measures or to give effect to the conservation equivalent measures is advice from the Commission as to the results of its review of the plans of the individual states. This advice has only recently been received, via a letter dated April 23, 2008. The recreational summer flounder fishery will be open in eight of nine states by May 24, 2008. The remaining state will open June 10, 2008. Based on historic effort and landings information, and the importance of summer flounder as a recreational fishery target species, participation and landings are expected to be high from the onset of the fishery. The party and charter vessels from the various states are by far the largest component of the recreational fishery that fish in the EEZ. The Federal coastwide regulatory measures for the three species that were codified last year remain in effect until the 2008 recreational management measures become effective. The Federal coastwide measures for the summer flounder fishery do not achieve the necessary reduction in recreational landings to constrain the fishery to the 2008 recreational harvest limit. It is, therefore, imperative that NMFS implement measures, as quickly as possible, for the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery to ensure that the mortality objectives of the 2008 recreational harvest limit are not compromised. The conservation equivalent measures approved by the Commission and implemented by this final rule are such measures. Failure of NMFS to implement the 2008 conservation equivalent measures as soon as possible would result in fishery participants operating under the more liberal 2007 measures. The effect of this would be to substantially increase the early fishing season mortality on summer flounder beyond the levels used in estimating the appropriate 2008 measures. This substantially increases the likelihood that the 2008 mortality objectives will be compromised, as the early-season effort is historically high in southern and Mid-Atlantic Bight states, and those fish landed under last year's more liberal measures will contribute to higher recreational fishery mortality than previously accounted for in analyses. The state-by-state conservation equivalent measures will, upon their implementation, restrict the recreational summer flounder coastwide landings within the 2008 recreational harvest limit. The recreational scup fishery does not open until October 1, and the 2008 black sea bass measures remain status quo; therefore, there is no need to waive the delay in effectiveness for these species' measures. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Included in this final rule is the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts described in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. Copies of the EA/RIR/IRFA and supplement are available from the Council and NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement of Objective and Need A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are explained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule, and are not repeated here. A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments A summary of the comments received and NMFS' responses thereto is contained in the preamble of this rule. None of those comments addressed specific information contained in the IRFA economic analysis and thus, are not repeated here. No changes have been made from the proposed rule as a result of the comments received by NMFS. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Rule Will Apply The Council estimated that the proposed measures could affect any of the 919 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass in 2006, the most recent year for which complete permit data are available. However, only 369 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries in 2006. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule. Description of the Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities *No-action alternatives.* The economic analysis conducted in support of this action assessed the impacts of the various management alternatives. In the EA, the no action alternative for each species is defined as the continuation of the management measures as codified for the 2007 fishing season. The no-action measures were analyzed in Summer Flounder Alternative 2, Scup Alternative 3, and Black Sea Bass Alternative 1 in the Council's EA/RIR/IRFA. For summer flounder, state-specific implications of the no-action (coastwide) alternative of a 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish possession limit, and no closed season would not achieve the mortality objectives required, and, therefore, cannot be continued for the 2008 fishing season. Similarly the no-action alternative for scup (a 10-in (25.4-cm) minimum fish size, a 50-fish possession limit, and a fishing season of January 1 through the last day of February and from September 18 through November 30) would result in fishing mortality that exceeds the level established for 2008 and, therefore, cannot be continued for the 2008 fishing season. The implications of the no-action alternative are not substantial for black sea bass. Recreational landings of black sea bass in 2007 were less than the target, and the status quo measures are expected to constrain landings to the 2008 target. *Summer flounder alternatives.* In seeking to minimize the impact of recreational management measures (minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season) on small entities (i.e., Federal party/charter permit holders), NMFS is constrained to implementing measures that meet the conservation objectives of the FMP and Magnuson-Stevens Act rebuilding program requirements. As previously indicated, the no-action alternative for summer flounder was considered but rejected by the Council, and subsequently NMFS, on the grounds that it would not ensure that the 2008 mortality objectives would be met. The remaining alternatives examined by the Council and forwarded for consideration by NMFS consisted of the preferred alternative of state-by-state conservation equivalency with a precautionary default backstop, and the non-preferred alternative of coastwide measures. These were alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, in the Council's EA/RIR/IRFA. These two alternatives were determined by the Council analyses to satisfy the 2008 conservation objectives for the recreational fishery, i.e., analysis indicated that implementation of either would constrain recreational landings within the 2008 recreational harvest limit. Therefore, either alternative recreational management system could be considered for implementation by NMFS, as the critical metric of satisfying the regulatory and statutory requirements would be met by either. Next, NMFS considered the recommendation of both the Council and Commission. Both groups recommended implementation of state-by-state conservation equivalency with a precautionary default backstop. In response to NMFS request for more stringent analyses and changes in how conservation equivalency measures are calculated, the Commission further recommended the used of a performance-based adjustment to further increase the reduction required for the states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia for 2008. The conservation equivalency approach allows states some degree of flexibility in the specification of management measures, unlike the application of one set of uniform coastwide measures. The degree of flexibility available to states under conservation equivalency is constrained to a combined suite of minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season that will achieve the required percent reduction required for 2008 (i.e., achieve the conservation objectives). This provides the opportunity for states to construct measures that achieve the conservation objectives while providing a state-specific set of measures in lieu of the one-size-fits-all coastwide measure. States that fail to provide measures, or whose measures do not achieve the required reduction, are assigned the more restrictive precautionary default measures. At this time, it is not possible to determine the precise economic impact on small entities under conservation equivalency. The specific measures adopted for each state were only made available to NMFS from the Commission on April 23, 2008, and were unavailable for analysis during this rulemaking. Because the recreational fisheries in many states will have begun by the time this rule is effective, NMFS has elected to forgo quantitative analysis of the specific conservation equivalency measures as implemented by the individual states as the need to have measures in place in a timely fashion outweighs the benefits of delaying publication of this rule to complete further analysis. However, economic impact is likely to be proportional to the level of landings reductions required for each individual state. As such, the greater percent reduction required for states that have both the initially required reduction as specified by the Council and the performance-based reduction required by the Commission (Table 4), have the potential for higher economic impacts on small entities in comparison to coastwide measures dependent on the configuration of management measures ultimately selected. Table 4. 2008 Conservation Equivalency State Specific Initial Percent Reductions, Commission Required Performance Based Adjustments, and Final Percent Reductions. State Initial Percent Reduction Required under Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP Commission Performance-Based Reduction Factor Final Percent Reduction Required by Commission MA 0 0 0 RI 47.5 7.8 51.6 CT 28.7 1.9 30.1 NY 45.9 33.6 64.0 NJ 39.2 4.3 41.8 DE 41.8 0.0 41.8 MD 56.7 0.0 56.7 VA 13.9 8.9 21.5 NC 34.3 0.0 34.2 For NMFS to disapprove the Council's recommendation for conservation equivalency and substitute coastwide management measures, NMFS must reasonably demonstrate that the recommended measures are either inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise demonstrate that the conservation objectives of the FMP will not be achieved by implementing conservation equivalency. NMFS does not find the Council and Commission's recommendation to be inconsistent with the implementing regulations of the FMP found at § 648.100 or the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Furthermore, NMFS finds that the performance-based adjustment factor paired with the use of the predicted average fish weight for 2008 required by the Commission are meaningful demonstrations to improve the performance of conservation equivalency. These improvements, paired with the potential for inseason closure of the EEZ by NMFS, present a much higher likelihood that conservation equivalency will function in 2008 as designed and will ensure that the recreational harvest level will not be exceeded. The use of coastwide management measures was considered by NMFS. In fact, as a number of commenters stated in response to the proposed rule, NMFS advocated for a coastwide approach in the early stages of the 2008 recreational fishery management measures development. The economic impacts on small entities under the coastwide measures management system would vary in comparison to the conservation equivalency system dependent on the specific state wherein the small entities operate. In the Council's provided analysis, closed seasons typically result in a higher economic impact to small entities than do increases in minimum fish sizes or reduction in possession limits. The reason for this is that angler success begins to decline at higher minimum fish size and higher possession limits, yielding lower return on the effectiveness of implementing such measures. Closed seasons, however, are unmistakable in their effectiveness as they permit no harvest irrespective of fish size or possession limit, provided there are no compliance issues. Closed seasons also are typically more easily enforceable. The interplay between the three management measures and the inability to quantitatively assess the impacts of the state's implemented conservation equivalency measures make definitive statements regarding impacts difficult to provide. Both fishery independent and dependent data suggests that larger summer flounder are less common in the southern portion of the management range; therefore, implementation of coastwide measures may have a more profound economic impact on small entities operating in the southern portion of the management area if the minimum fish size is set larger than fish that are typically available in southern states. Conservation equivalency is generally expected to mitigate the economic impact in states with lower required percent reductions for 2008 compared to the coastwide reduction of 36.3 percent. In those states, management measures can be tailored that suit the expressed needs of both small entities and other recreational fishery participants while achieving the required conservation equivalency percent reduction. Conversely, coastwide measures may yield lower economic impacts for states with the percent reductions greater than the total coastwide level of reduction required for 2008 by permitting smaller minimum fish sizes paired with slightly lower possession limits, and comparable fishing seasons than would be required for implemented under conservation equivalency. However, NMFS is implementing the Council and Commission's recommended state-by-state conservation equivalency measures for the reasons previously stated:
(1)The state-by-state conservation equivalency management system has been modified, by the Commission, from the previously utilized methodology that had yielded a poor performance record; and,
(2)NMFS finds no compelling reason to disapprove the Council and Commission's recommended 2008 management system as the analysis provided by the Commission's Technical Committee demonstrates that the improved conservation equivalency system will provide a high likelihood that the 2008 recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. To further ensure that the 2008 recreational harvest limit is not exceeded, NMFS is prepared to close the EEZ during the fishing season if harvest projections indicate that the 2008 recreational harvest limit may be exceeded before the end of the calendar year. *Scup alternatives.* Similar to summer flounder, the options available for scup recreational management measures are constrained to selecting a suite of minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season measures that achieves the annual conservation objectives. In this case, the conservation objective is a level of recreational scup landings that is at or below the 2008 scup recreational harvest level. Therefore, the measures available to mitigate the economic impact on small entities is constrained to selection of management measures that will permit the maximum amount of recreational landings while achieving the specified conservation objectives for the fishing season. For 2008, a coastwide reduction in scup landings of 51.8 percent is necessary to achieve the conservation objective. The Council's EA/RIR/IRFA evaluated alternatives 1 and 2 for scup which would achieve this objective. The Council recommended, and NMFS has implemented, alternative 1 consisting of a 10.5-inch (26.67-cm) minimum fish size, a 15-fish possession limit, and a fishing season of January 1-February 29 and October 1-October 31 because it is projected to achieve a 53.2-percent reduction in scup recreational landings in 2008. Alternative 2, consisting of a 10.5-inch (26.67-cm) minimum fish size, a 15-fish possession limit, and a fishing season of January 1-February 29 and October 1-October 15, is projected to reduce landings by 60.5 percent from 2007 levels. The measures of this alternative are more restrictive than necessary to achieve the conservation objectives for 2008. The four states where the majority (approximately 97 percent) of scup recreational landings occur--New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts--entered into a regional conservation equivalency program in state-waters through the Commission process. In addition, the majority of scup recreational landings come from state waters (93 percent). Thus, the economic impacts on the recreational scup fishery are likely to be further mitigated from the level analyzed by the Council in the EA/RIR/IRFA. It is not possible, nor required, to quantify the extent of the potential reduction in economic impact that occurs from the Commission's regional scup conservation equivalency management system as the system and its measures exist wholly outside the Federal system and occur exclusively in state waters. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal party/charter permits issued for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. In addition, copies of this final rule and the small entity compliance guide are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and at the following website: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 16, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 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 § 648.102, the first sentence is revised to read as follows: § 648.102 Time restrictions. Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3) and fishermen subject to the possession limit may fish for summer flounder from May 23 through September 1. *** 3. In § 648.103, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.103 Minimum fish sizes.
(b)Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, the minimum size for summer flounder is 19-inch (48.26-cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit, and charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members, or party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members. 4. In § 648.105, the first sentence of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.105 Possession restrictions.
(a)Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, no person shall possess more than two summer flounder in, or harvested from, the EEZ, unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit. * * * 5. In § 648.107, paragraph
(a)introductory text and paragraph
(b)are revised to read as follows: § 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.
(a)The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2008 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum fish size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
(b)Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and registered in states whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b) and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season - July 4 through September 1; minimum size - 20.0 inches (50.80 cm); and possession limit - two fish. 6. In § 648.122, paragraph
(g)is revised to read as follows: § 648.122 Season and area restrictions.
(g)*Time restrictions.* Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(6), and fishermen subject to the possession limit, may not possess scup, except from January 1 through the last day of February, and from October 1 through October 31. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.120. 7. In § 648.124, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.124 Minimum fish sizes.
(b)The minimum size for scup is 10.5 inches (26.67 cm) TL for all vessels that do not have a moratorium permit, or for party and charter vessels that are issued a moratorium permit but are fishing with passengers for hire, or carrying more than three crew members if a charter boat, or more than five crew members if a party boat. 8. In § 648.125, the first sentence in paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.125 Possession limit.
(a)No person shall possess more than 15 scup in, or harvested from, the EEZ unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a scup moratorium permit, or is issued a scup dealer permit. * * * [FR Doc. E8-11601 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106673-8011-02] RIN 0648-XI07 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole by Vessels Participating in the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is closing directed fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the first seasonal allowance of the 2008 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery category by vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the BSAI. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 19, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The first seasonal allowance of the 2008 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery category by vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for the yellowfin sole fishery category in the BSAI is 214 metric tons as established by the 2008 and 2009 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (73 FR 10160, February 26, 2008). See § 679.21(e)(3)(vi)(A) and § 679.91(d)(1) and (3). In accordance with § 679.21(e)(3)(vi)(B) and § 679.21(e)(7)(v), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the first seasonal allowance of the 2008 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl yellowfin sole fishery category by vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the BSAI will be caught. Consequently, NMFS is closing directed fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the BSAI. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of May 16, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 19, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1287 Filed 5-19-08; 2:58 pm]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
24 references not yet in our index
  • 15 CFR 902
  • 50 CFR 680
  • Pub. L. 108-199
  • Pub. L. 109-241
  • 50 CFR 680.40(b)(2)(iv)
  • Pub. L. 109-479
  • 15 CFR 904
  • 24 CFR 891
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 29 CFR 4002
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 40 CFR 271
  • 40 CFR 271.21
  • 40 CFR 268.40
  • 40 CFR 271.20
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 50 CFR 622
  • 50 CFR 622.44(c)(2)
  • 50 CFR 622.43(a)
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 50 CFR 600.320
  • 50 CFR 600.336
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 600
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 1862
U.S.C.§ 1701q
U.S.C.§ 8013
C.F.R.§ 50.19
U.S.C.§ 4321
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Cite15 CFR 902
Cite50 CFR 680
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-199
Cites 49 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.