[Federal Register: July 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 144)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43362-43373]
[DOCID:fr25jy08-13]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 070917520-8831-03]
RIN 0648-AW06

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish
Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule that implements Amendment 89 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area (FMP) to establish Bering Sea habitat
conservation measures. Amendment 89 prohibits nonpelagic trawling in
certain waters of the Bering Sea subarea to protect bottom habitat from
the potential adverse effects of nonpelagic trawling. Amendment 89 also
establishes the Northern Bering Sea Research Area for studying the
impacts of nonpelagic trawling on bottom habitat. This rule is
necessary to protect portions of the Bering Sea subarea bottom habitat
from the potential effects of nonpelagic trawling and to provide the
opportunity to further study the effects of nonpelagic trawling on
bottom habitat. This action is intended to promote the goals and
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective August 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the FMP amendment, maps of the Bering Sea subarea
nonpelagic trawl closure areas and Northern Bering Sea Research Area,
and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) for this action may be
obtained from NMFS Alaska Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, or
from the Alaska Region NMFS website at http://
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (BSAI) groundfish fisheries are managed under the FMP.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMP
appear at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680. General regulations governing U.S.
fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

Background

    In June 2007, the Council recommended closing areas in the Bering
Sea subarea to nonpelagic trawling as a precautionary measure to
prevent the potential adverse effects of nonpelagic trawling on
portions of bottom habitat. These areas are (1) the Bering Sea Habitat
Conservation Area (BSHCA); (2) the St. Lawrence Island Habitat
Conservation Area; (3) the St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation
Area; (4) the Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat
Conservation Area; and (5) the Northern Bering Sea Research Area
(NBSRA). These closed areas include locations that have not been
previously fished with nonpelagic trawl gear, nearshore bottom habitat
areas that support subsistence marine resources, blue king crab
habitat, and a research area for further study of the potential impacts
of nonpelagic trawling on bottom habitat. The closed areas that extend
into State of Alaska waters apply to federally permitted vessels
operating in State of Alaska waters.
    Detailed background information for each of the closed areas is in
the preamble to the proposed rule (73 FR 12357, March 7, 2008). The
Council submitted Amendment 89 for review by the Secretary of Commerce,
and a notice of availability of the amendment was published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2008 (73 FR 10415), with comments on
the amendment invited through April 28, 2008. The comments on the
proposed rule were invited through April 21, 2008. The FMP was approved
by the Secretary of Commerce on May 19, 2008.

Regulatory Amendments

    This final rule adds definitions to Sec.  679.2 and new coordinate
tables and figures for the areas closed to nonpelagic trawling and the
research area. The definitions for the BSHCA; NBSRA; and Nunivak
Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat Conservation Area
refer to Tables 42, 43, and 44, and Figures 16, 17, and 21 to part 679,
respectively, because of the complexity of the area boundaries. The
definitions for the St. Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area and
St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area refer to Tables 45 and 46
to part 679 for the area boundaries; no figures are necessary due to
the simple shapes of these closures.
    This final rule also adds Sec.  679.22(a)(16) through (20) to close
the BSHCA; St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area; St. Lawrence
Island Habitat Conservation Area; Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and
Kuskokwim Bay Habitat Conservation Area; and NBSRA to nonpelagic
trawling.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received eight comments from individuals, the Council, and
groups on the notice of availability for Amendment 89 (73 FR 10415,
February 27, 2008). NMFS received 6,266

comments from individuals, the Council, and organizations on the
proposed rule (73 FR 12357, March 7, 2008). The majority of comments on
the proposed rule were form letters in support of the action. A large
number of those comments came from individuals located outside the
United States. No changes were made in the final rule from the proposed
rule. The following summarizes and responds to the 19 unique comments
received on the notice of availability for the FMP amendment and the
proposed rule.
    Comment 1: Fishing quotas are too high and allow marine life to
starve and to be decimated. People in the higher economic classes
should reduce their consumption of fish to allow the seas to restock,
and their bounty to rebound.
    Any fishing activity that competes for prey with sensitive,
endangered, or threatened species, or adversely modifies habitat that
supports these species should be prohibited. All trawling should be
prohibited because it decimates the sea floor for 50 years, is
environmentally destructive, and is an unsustainable practice for short
term profits. All nonpelagic trawling in the Bering Sea should be
prohibited because not doing so inadequately protects unique benthic
species and habitats and the sensitive, threatened, and endangered
species that depend on such habitat and that are increasingly imperiled
in the Bering Sea ecosystem. The proposed rule is grandfathering
nonpelagic trawling in all areas where such activity has already
occurred. The impacts in the current fishing locations should be
considered the baseline for protection of the Bering Sea, not the
ceiling. There are other fishing methods less invasive than nonpelagic
trawling that achieve higher productivity and protect our oceans,
making sure we will not overfish our resources. No one needs trawling.
    Response: Fishing quotas are based on the best available science to
allow for sustainable harvest of target species and in consideration of
potential impacts on the marine ecosystem. For the Alaska groundfish
fisheries, no information indicates that any target species are being
overfished or that marine life is starved or decimated due to
groundfish fishing activities.
    Trawling can have various effects on bottom habitat depending on
the type of trawl gear and the bottom features where fishing occurs.
Trawl gear can be either pelagic, which is used primarily in the water
column or nonpelagic, which is used on the bottom. Recovery times for a
trawled area can vary depending on the type of bottom habitat and
organisms impacted. More information about the impacts of trawling on
bottom habitat is available in the EA/RIR/FRFA for this action (see
ADDRESSES) and in the Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish
Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska, available from the
NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/
efheis.htm.
    Nonpelagic trawling is the most effective method for harvesting
certain groundfish species in the Bering Sea. These species include
flatfish and other species which occur on or near the ocean bottom. A
complete ban on the use of trawl gear throughout the Bering Sea is not
supported by the best scientific information available. Selective
restrictions on the use of nonpelagic trawl gear where impacts are most
likely to be a concern are more appropriate. The Council and NMFS have
implemented restrictions on nonpelagic trawling to reduce the potential
impact of nonpelagic trawl gear on certain bottom habitat in the
Aleutian Islands subarea and in the Gulf of Alaska (71 FR 36694, June
28, 2006) and numerous nonpelagic trawl closures are already in effect
for the Bering Sea, which are further described in the EA/RIR/FRFA (see
ADDRESSES). This final rule implements restrictions on nonpelagic trawl
gear to protect certain bottom habitats in the Bering Sea subarea,
taking into consideration protection of habitat that supports
sensitive, endangered, and threatened species.
    Comment 2: We support protecting the northern Bering Sea bottom
habitat from the destructive effects of nonpelagic trawling. The Bering
Sea habitat conservation measures would allow for the management of the
fisheries in a sustainable manner, provide for research on the
potential effects of nonpelagic trawling on bottom habitat, account for
the socioeconomic effects on fishery participants, and include
consideration of subsistence resource users. Religious and cultural
heritage combine to compel our protection of our natural resources. The
world depends on healthy oceans which are necessary for our life and
well-being. The Bering Sea bottom habitat is part of the marine
ecosystem that supports marine mammals, seabirds, and invertebrates,
which include important subsistence and commercial resources. It is
important to prevent bottom trawling from expanding into areas that
have not been previously bottom trawled, especially in consideration of
potential changes from global warming.
    The changing global climate and increasing world population make it
important to address environmental threats that can be controlled, such
as habitat destruction. Bottom trawling is the most destructive form of
fishing on bottom habitat. Preservation of delicate bottom habitat
ecosystems is vital for the long-term survival of the fishing industry
and for species dependent on the marine resources supported by bottom
habitat. Grey whales, spectacled eiders, Pacific walruses, snow crabs,
and other species depend on the bottom habitat protected by this
action. Protection of the highly productive Bering Sea habitat may
provide a buffer for other high latitude marine environments that are
under stress. This action is a significant investment in a more stable
and hopeful future for our children and grandchildren of the world. It
sets a good example for our children to care for the planet and sends a
message that adults care about preserving the marine environment for
our children. This action is precautionary and the right thing to do.
    Response: NMFS notes the commenter's support.
    Comment 3: The Council submitted comments and recommends that the
preamble to the final rule describe the Council's intent regarding
future actions for nonpelagic trawl management in the Bering Sea. The
Council intends future adjustment to the NBSRA boundary with the
implementation of a modified gear requirement for the flatfish trawl
fishery that would minimize potential impacts on bottom habitat. This
potential future adjustment would open a portion of the NBSRA to
nonpelagic trawling. The adjustment to the NBSRA boundary to open this
area is shown in Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY08.008

    Because the area to be opened with flatfish trawl gear modification
requirements may contain high concentrations of yellowfin sole and low
concentrations of other bycatch species, the flatfish industry has
identified this area as important to its fishery. In June 2008, the
Council received a report on the progress of developing modified gear
for flatfish fishing that will reduce the potential impacts on bottom
habitat. Analysis supporting the gear modification requirement and
adjustment to the NBSRA will supplement the existing EA/RIR/FRFA for
the Bering Sea Habitat conservation measures (see ADDRESSES).
    Response: Any potential changes in the gear requirements for the
flatfish fishery would require analysis of the potential environmental
and socioeconomic impacts of the action. NMFS will work with the
Council to ensure the appropriate information is available to inform
the Council's final recommendation on gear modification. If the Council
recommends a modified gear requirement for the flatfish fishery and the
adjustment to the NBSRA shown in Figure 1, NMFS will include these
recommendations in future proposed rulemaking for this action. The
supporting analysis for this potential future action would include
information from the EA/RIR/FRFA for this final rule and any relevant
new information to inform the decision making.
    Comment 4: To protect local communities' resources, we support
permanent closure of the area considered for opening in connection with
the implementation of modified gear for the flatfish fishery (Figure
1).
    Response: This final rule implements the closure of the NBSRA which
includes the area considered for opening with the potential future
implementation of modified gear for the flatfish fishery (Figure 1).
The Council has expressed its intent to open this area to commercial
fishing with implementation of a modified gear requirement (Comment 3).
    Any concerns about opening this area should be expressed to the
Council while the modified gear requirement recommendation is being
developed. The Council received a report on modified gear research at
its June 2008 meeting (73 FR 26964, May 12, 2008).

The Council recommended that staff develop an analysis of a gear
modification requirement, including consideration of opening the area
identified in Figure 1. The gear modification requirement and any
proposed adjustments to the NBSRA boundary will require analysis and
rulemaking to implement, including the public process provided by the
Council in developing its recommendations to NMFS.
    Comment 5: The NBSRA is to be closed to commercial nonpelagic
trawling only during the development and implementation of the research
plan to study the nonpelagic trawling effects on bottom habitat. The
intent is to develop an adaptively managed commercial nonpelagic trawl
fishery in the area based on information from the nonpelagic trawling
effects research.
    Response: This final rule closes the NBSRA to nonpelagic trawl
fishing unless conducted under an exempted fishing permit (EFP). Before
issuance, an EFP application for nonpelagic trawling in the NBSRA must
meet the requirements of the research plan adopted by the Council. When
the Council has received enough information from the research and EFP
data, it may develop an adaptive management plan and propose regulatory
amendments that would allow commercial nonpelagic trawling in the
NBSRA. Any changes to the fishing restrictions in the NBSRA would
require proposed and final rulemaking, and supporting analysis.
    Comment 6: In June 2007, The Council recommended review schedules
for a boundary closure and research plan. The Council recommended that
in four years after the Council's Bering Sea Habitat conservation
measures recommendation (June 2007), the southern boundary of the NBSRA
be reviewed by the Council for possible adjustments based on a report
by the fishing industry and Alaska Village Council Presidents
workgroup. The Council also recommended at that time that the research
plan identifying effects of nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat be
completed. The Council would review the plan within 24 months of
implementation of this final rule. Based on public comments received in
April 2008, the Council recommends changing the schedules for the
Council's review of the NBSRA boundary and the research plan to June
2011.
    Response: NMFS supports the Council's recommended changes to the
review schedules for the NBSRA boundary and the research plan.
    Comment 7: The development of the research plan for the NBSRA
should include tribal and other stakeholder input to address protection
of species and subsistence resources that depend on bottom habitat. Any
research in the NBSRA conducted with bottom trawl gear would be only
for the testing of protections for bottom habitat. These tests would be
conducted in a manner that would minimize damage to bottom habitat.
    Response: NMFS agrees that input from all stakeholders is important
in the development of the NBSRA research plan. The development of the
plan will proceed through the Council decision process. That process
provides advance public notice and opportunity to provide testimony
before decisions are made. The research plan will be developed by the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center through the Council process. The actual
process for developing the plan is yet to be determined, but public
involvement will be an important component.
    The Council recommended that the plan investigate the effects of
nonpelagic trawling on bottom habitat and consider and identify
protection measures for bottom habitat. Research data can inform the
further development and testing of protection measures. Some habitat
damage would be necessary to understand effects, but damage would be
limited to the extent needed for scientifically valid results.
    Comment 8: Areas closed to nonpelagic trawl gear should not be
opened under exempted fishing permits (EFP) because many studies of
fishing impacts on bottom habitat already exist.
    Response: Fishing impacts on bottom habitat research are specific
to the locations and the gear types tested. While research on the
effects of fishing on bottom habitat has been conducted worldwide, more
needs to be known about the habitat in the NBSRA before the results of
research elsewhere can be applied to the conditions occurring in the
NBSRA. By establishing the NBSRA, information gathered under EFPs would
be directly applicable to nonpelagic trawl fisheries management in the
Bering Sea in areas with similar features as the NBSRA. Because the
first contact of a nonpelagic trawl is likely to cause the largest
impact on bottom habitat, it is important to conduct bottom habitat
effects research in an area where nonpelagic trawling has not occurred.
The closure of the NBSRA and the research fishing planned in this area
should provide the information necessary to effectively manage
nonpelagic trawling in similar habitats of the Bering Sea.
    Comment 9: Nonpelagic trawl closures also should include waters of
Bristol Bay to protect spawning habitat for yellowfin sole and to
protect subsistence resources. The potential effects of trawlers on
spawning habitat should be studied.
    Response: Under Sec.  679.22(a)(9), all trawling for groundfish is
prohibited in most of the Bristol Bay area, including nearshore waters
that may include yellowfin sole spawning habitat. Directed fishing for
groundfish by vessels using trawl gear in Bristol Bay, as described in
the current edition of NOAA chart 16006, is closed at all times in the
area east of 162[deg]00' W. long. The only exception is a portion of
the Nearshore Bristol Bay Trawl Area that is open to trawling from 1200
hours A.l.t., April 1 to 1200 hours A.l.t., June 15 of each year
(Figure 2).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY08.009

    According to the 2007 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
Report for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands yellowfin sole, commercial
bottom trawlers have commonly found high concentrations of yellowfin
sole in areas such as near Togiak Bay (Low and Narita, 1990) and in
more recent years from Kuskokwim Bay to just south of Nunivak Island
(NPFMC 2007). Yellowfin sole spawning likely occurs in the area open to
trawling between April 1 and June 15. The impacts of trawling in this
area on yellowfin sole were considered in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and
Conservation and were thought to be minimal. The EIS is available from
the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/
seis/efheis.htm. The trawl closures currently in place in Bristol Bay
protect areas that are known to support yellowfin sole spawning
locations; and therefore, no additional closures with this action are
necessary to protect yellowfin sole in Bristol Bay. With nearly the
entire bay closed to trawling, no additional closures are needed to
protect bottom habitat in Bristol Bay that may support subsistence
resources.
    The NBSRA will provide the opportunity to study the effects of
nonpelagic trawling on bottom habitat and may include research on the
potential effect of nonpelagic trawling specifically on yellowfin sole,
if yellowfin sole spawning occurs in the NBSRA.
    Comment 10: We recommend the protection areas around St. Lawrence,
St. Matthew, and Nunivak Islands, and Kuskokwim Bay be enlarged, and
protection areas around Little Diomede,

King Island, and Sledge Island be considered with this action.
    Response: This action implements the Council recommendations, which
were developed by working with the fishing industry and subsistence
resource users. The Council is scheduled to revisit the boundaries of
the closure areas in this final rule in 2011. Any changes to the Bering
Sea habitat conservation measures, including the expansion of existing
closures and closure area additions could be proposed and analyzed for
consideration by the Council between now and 2011. NMFS recommends
suggested changes for consideration in 2011 be provided to the Council
at the earliest opportunity. This will facilitate careful development
and analysis of any proposed changes to the Bering Sea habitat
conservation measures implemented by this final rule.
    Comment 11: The decision that locates the BSHCA border along the
shelf break is based on preserving the nonpelagic trawl fleet's
development of the arrowtooth flounder fishery, rather than a projected
movement of arrowtooth flounder due to global warming effects. NMFS
Bering Sea surveys show a large amount of arrowtooth flounder near the
shelf break and slope of the Bering Sea. The location of this eastern
border allows access to the arrowtooth flounder found in this area,
permitting the arrowtooth flounder fishery to further develop.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 12: NMFS and the Council did not conduct appropriate tribal
consultation prior to the development of this actions conservation area
boundaries. A workgroup of some subsistence users should not be
considered ``tribal consultation.''
    Response: Executive Order 13175 on consultation and coordination
with Indian tribal governments establishes the requirement for regular
and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal
governments in the development of federal regulatory practices that
significantly or uniquely affect their communities; to reduce the
imposition on unfunded mandates on Indian tribal governments; and to
streamline the application process for and increase the availability of
waivers to Indian tribal governments. This Executive Order requires
federal agencies to have an effective process to involve and consult
with representatives of Indian tribal governments in developing
regulatory policies and prohibits regulations that impose substantial,
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal communities.
    NMFS agrees that a subsistence users workgroup does not substitute
for tribal consultation. To facilitate tribal consultation, NMFS wrote
to all tribal governments and Alaska native corporations notifying them
of the proposed action and invited requests for tribal consultation
under Executive Order 13175. NMFS also included a copy of the proposed
rule in the correspondence. NMFS did not receive any requests for
tribal consultation on this action. NMFS also agrees that commencing
tribal consultation early in fisheries management actions is preferred.
NMFS encourages tribal entities to enter into the Council process. Also
see response to Comment 13.
    Comment 13: The Council and NMFS should begin tribal consultation
before the decision making process begins. NMFS and the Council should
create suitable and binding tribal consultation protocols, immediately.
    Response: NMFS agrees that Alaska Native, community, and
stakeholder involvement should occur early in the process of developing
fishery management action. The Council is in the process of developing
tribal outreach protocols. In 2004, the Council revised its Alaska
groundfish management policy including the following management
objectives focused on increasing Alaska Native participation in
fisheries management:
     Continue to incorporate local and traditional knowledge in
fishery management;
     Consider ways to enhance collection of local and
traditional knowledge from communities, and incorporate such knowledge
in fishery management where appropriate; and
     Increase Alaska Native participation and consultation in
fishery management.
    The Council reviewed a discussion paper on meeting these objectives
at its June 2008 meeting. The discussion paper includes proposed
protocols for formal and informal consultation with Alaska Natives,
communities, and stakeholders on fisheries management actions and the
early identification of potentially affected communities to ensure
consultation in the early stages of fishery management action
development. Early involvement during the development of Council
recommendations is an effective way to ensure Alaska Native, community,
and stakeholder issues are considered. More information on this
activity is available from the Council's website at http://
www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/default.htm.
    Also see response to Comment 12.
    Comment 14: Village organizations should be given the opportunity
to review information relevant to the decision making process. NMFS and
the Council should provide them specific lists of species that may be
impacted by the action and their population, migration patterns,
biology, and species' use of the Bering Sea habitat.
    Response: This information is available in the EA supporting this
action (see ADDRESSES). Chapter 3 provides the status including biology
of all species that may be impacted by the action. Chapter 4 analyzes
the action's impact on these species and their habitats. Since March
2007, the EA has been available to the public through the Council's
website or at Council meetings.
    Comment 15: NMFS should immediately start a process to protect the
recently documented deep sea coral and sponge habitats of the Pribilof
and Zhemchug Canyons of the Bering Sea from adverse fishing effects. In
2007, Greenpeace and a NMFS researcher used a submersible vessel to
examine the Zhemchug and Pribilof Canyons, identifying coral and sponge
habitats located in these canyons.
    Response: The Council recommends habitat protection measures to
NMFS for those locations where the Council has determined protections
from the potential effects of fishing are appropriate based on the
information available. The Council is scheduled to review its essential
fish habitat (EFH) management in 2011, when information regarding new
locations that may need additional protection could be submitted for
consideration.
    Comment 16: NMFS should consider all the people impacted by this
action including those in the fishing and tourism industries. Everyone
in Alaska would benefit if there was more tourism and less fishing.
    Response: Along with impacts on the fisheries, NMFS considered the
impacts on the passive use of the Bering Sea resources in the
Regulatory Impact Review for this action (see ADDRESSES). Tourism in
the Bering Sea region is not precluded by this action. Tourism may
benefit through enhanced bottom habitat protection that may support
wildlife populations of interest to tourists. Many Alaskans depend on
either fishing, tourism, or both; and the reduction of either type of
activity would impact those who depend on these industries.
    Comment 17: It is important for NMFS to prevent nonpelagic trawling
from expanding into the Arctic Ocean.
    Response: This action is limited to the Bering Sea subarea, but the
Council is

developing a fishery management plan for the Arctic Ocean. The Council
recognizes that little is known about the fish stocks in the Arctic
Ocean, and more information is needed for sustainable management of
commercial fishing in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of the Arctic
Ocean. Therefore, the Council is considering prohibiting all or nearly
all commercial fishing in the Arctic Ocean until information indicates
that sustainable fishery management is possible. See the Council's
website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/Arctic/
arctic.htm for more information.
    Comment 18: This action is overly restrictive. The proposed action
is unnecessary because no current activities occur that warrant
protection measures. The action may prevent sustainable fishery options
in the future. Any protection action should be specific to highly
sensitive habitats and address actual problems.
    The Bering Sea offers high energy mud and sand bottoms that can be
safely trawled and continue to be productive. The current warmer water
temperatures supporting finfish may change and result in fisheries that
must target other species like shrimp that are effectively harvested by
trawl gear. The proposed action would prevent development of a future
shrimp trawl fishery that could have low bycatch and could be
sustainable.
    Response: The nonpelagic trawling closures in this action affect
only the groundfish fisheries and are a precautionary approach to
protecting Bering Sea bottom habitat. This final rule does not apply to
shrimp fishing by any method in the Bering Sea. This action meets the
Council's management objectives for the Alaska groundfish fisheries
stated in the FMP.
    The effects of nonpelagic trawling for groundfish on bottom habitat
are relative to the sediments contacted by trawl gear. Effects are
further discussed in the EA/RIR/FRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES).
Little is known about the characteristics of the bottom sediments in
most areas being closed to nonpelagic trawling. Consequently,
protection measures reduce the potential for adverse effects by
nonpelagic trawl gear. Because the first pass of a nonpelagic trawl is
most likely to damage bottom habitat, it is prudent to protect those
areas that are not already actively trawled. Results from the research
in the NBSRA may provide bottom habitat effects information that can
inform the management of nonpelagic trawling for groundfish in the
Bering Sea subarea and may support future adjustments to the closure
areas to allow for further development of groundfish fisheries.
    Comment 19: NMFS is urged to continue efforts to define habitat in
the Bering Sea.
    Response: This action establishes protection areas for bottom
habitat in the Bering Sea and does not define EFH. In 2006, the FMPs
for the Alaska fisheries were updated with new descriptions of
essential fish habitat for all of the managed species. NMFS continues
to gather information regarding bottom habitat and will work with the
Council to continue managing the fisheries based on the best available
scientific information. The Council is scheduled to review EFH in 2011.
Additional information regarding EFH and bottom habitat research is
available from the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://
www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that the FMP
Amendment 89 is necessary for the conservation and management of the
groundfish fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The
FRFA describes the economic impact of this final rule on small
entities. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the
public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those
comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action. Descriptions of the action, the reasons it is under
consideration, and its objectives and legal basis are included earlier
in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of
the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    A summary of the IRFA was provided in the classification section to
the proposed rule (73 FR 12357, March 7, 2008), and the public was
notified of how to obtain a copy of the IRFA. The public comment period
ended on April 21, 2008. No comments were received on the IRFA or on
the economic impacts of the rule.
    Fishing vessels, both catcher vessels and catcher/processors (CPs),
are considered small, for RFA purposes, if their gross receipts, from
all their economic activities combined, as well as those of any and all
their affiliates anywhere in the world, (including fishing in
federally-managed non-groundfish fisheries, and in Alaska-managed
fisheries), are less than or equal to $4.0 million annually. Further,
fishing vessels were considered to be large if they were affiliated
with an American Fisheries Act fishing cooperative in 2004. The members
of these cooperatives had combined revenues that exceeded the $4.0
million threshold.
    The entities that would be directly regulated by this final rule
are those vessels that fish for groundfish with nonpelagic trawl gear
in the eastern Bering Sea off Alaska. Section 5.6 of the RIR provides a
description of these fisheries and estimates the numbers of unique
vessels that presently participate (see ADDRESSES). Approximately 22 to
24 vessels have participated in the nonpelagic trawl CP fishery off
Alaska in recent years. Based on analysis of total annual gross
revenues, two of the vessels should be classified as small entities.
Six Community Development Quota groups and their associated communities
are considered small entities and are directly regulated by this action
because their allocations of BSAI species harvested by nonpelagic trawl
gear occur within the areas defined by this action.
    This regulation does not impose new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements on the regulated small entities.
    The FRFA did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the action.
    The Council considered three alternatives and five options to the
alternatives for this action. The suite of alternatives and options
were developed in consultation with members of the nonpelagic trawl CP
fleet to minimize potential adverse economic effects on directly
regulated entities. This action is the preferred alternative and
options, which reflect the least burdensome of management structures
available in terms of directly regulated small entities, while fully
achieving the conservation and management purposes articulated by the
Council.
    Alternative 1, the no action alternative, would not meet the
objectives of this action. This alternative would allow nonpelagic
trawling to expand into areas not previously trawled and would not meet
the objective to protect certain bottom habitat in the Bering Sea
subarea. Alternative 3, which would modify flatfish trawl gear to
reduce contact with the bottom, was not recommended by the Council at
this time because the gear is currently under development, and

gear standards are not yet ready for implementation.
    Under Alternative 2 for the BSHCA, the boundaries of the closure
area were established in locations that have not been trawled more than
once and are not likely to be trawled in the future. In addition, the
boundary of the BSHCA was adjusted to allow for potential future
development of the arrowtooth flounder fishery. These features of the
BSHCA mitigate potential adverse economic effects on small entities by
allowing continued fishing where substantial amounts of fishing have
already occurred and to allow for future expansion of the arrowtooth
flounder fishery.
    The boundaries for the nonpelagic trawl closures under Options 1,
3, 4, and 5 also were developed in consultation with members of the
nonpelagic trawl CP fleet. Under Options 1 and 5, the waters near St.
Matthew and St. Lawrence Islands were not substantially trawled and are
not likely to be trawled in the future, so the closures in these areas
are not likely to result in an adverse economic effect on small
entities. Option 2 closed waters near Nunivak Island and Etolin Strait
but would not close waters within Kuskokwim Bay to nonpelagic trawling.
Option 3 expanded on the closures under Option 2 by establishing the
Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay closure boundaries.
Option 3 closures were carefully negotiated between members of the
nonpelagic trawl CP fleet and some users of the subsistence marine
resources in the area. Adjustments were made to the boundaries to
ensure the flatfish fleet had access to concentrations of flatfish
while still maintaining overall protection to bottom habitat from the
potential effects of nonpelagic trawling. These boundary adjustments
reduce potential adverse economic effects on small entities
participating in the flatfish trawl fishery.
    Under Option 4 for the NBSRA, the southern boundary of the area was
also based on consultation with members of the affected trawl CP fleet
to ensure the closure would not prevent fishing in areas currently
fished and allowed for some northern movement of the fleet if fish
stocks also move north in response to global warming. The southern
boundary of the NBSRA would mitigate any potential adverse economic
impact on small entities by allowing continued fishing in locations
historically fished and permitting some flexibility with any future
movement of fish stocks.

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, NMFS Alaska Region has developed a website
that provides easy access to details of this final rule, including
links to the final rule, maps of closure areas, and frequently asked
questions regarding essential fish habitat. The relevant information
available on the website is the Small Entity Compliance Guide. The
website address is http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh.htm. Copies of
this final rule are available upon request from the NMFS, Alaska
Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the
Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of
Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in
matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199
(188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of Public Law 109-447 (118
Stat. 3267), extends the consultation requirements of the Executive
Order to Alaska Native corporations.
    NMFS contacted tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations,
which may be affected by the action, provided them with a copy of the
proposed rule, and offered them an opportunity to further consult. No
tribal governments or Alaska Native corporations requested further
tribal consultation for this action.

References

    Low, L. and R.E. Narita. 1990. Condition of groundfish resources in
the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands region as assessed in 1988. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-178, 224 p.
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2007. Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report. November 2007. Available from
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/stocks/assessments.htm.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: July 21, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as
follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447.

0
2. In Sec.  679.2, add in alphabetical order definitions for ``Bering
Sea Habitat Conservation Area'', ``Northern Bering Sea Research Area'',
``Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat Conservation
Area'', ``St. Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area'', and ``St.
Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bering Sea Habitat Conservation Area means a habitat protection
area specified at Table 42 and Figure 16 to this part.
* * * * *
    Northern Bering Sea Research Area means a habitat research area
specified at Table 43 and Figure 17 to this part.
    Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat
Conservation Area means a habitat protection area specified at Table 44
and Figure 21 to this part.
* * * * *
    St. Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area means a habitat
protection area specified at Table 45 to this part.
    St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area means a habitat
protection area specified at Table 46 to this part.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.22, paragraphs (a)(16) through (a)(20) are added to
read as follows:

Sec.  679.22  Closures.

    (a) * * *
    (16) Bering Sea Habitat Conservation Area. No federally permitted
vessel may fish with nonpelagic trawl gear in the Bering Sea Habitat
Conservation Area specified at Table 42 and Figure 16 to this part.

    (17) Northern Bering Sea Research Area. No federally permitted
vessel may fish with nonpelagic trawl gear in the Northern Bering Sea
Research Area specified at Table 43 and Figure 17 to this part.
    (18) Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat
Conservation Area. No federally permitted vessel may fish with
nonpelagic trawl gear in the Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and
Kuskokwim Bay Habitat Conservation Area specified at Table 44 and
Figure 21 to this part.
    (19) St. Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area. No federally
permitted vessel may fish with nonpelagic trawl gear in the St.
Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area specified at Table 45 to this
part.
    (20) St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area. No federally
permitted vessel may fish with nonpelagic trawl gear in the St. Matthew
Island Habitat Conservation Area specified at Table 46 to this part.
* * * * *

0
4. Tables 42 through 46 are added to part 679 to read as follows:

       Table 42 to Part 679--Bering Sea Habitat Conservation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Longitude                            Latitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
179 19.95W                                    59 25.15N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
177 51.76W                                    58 28.85N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
175 36.52W                                    58 11.78N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 32.36W                                    58 8.37N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 26.33W                                    57 31.31N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 0.82W                                     56 52.83N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
173 0.71W                                     56 24.05N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170 40.32W                                    56 1.97N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 56.63W                                    55 19.30N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 0.08W                                     54 5.95N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170 0.00W                                     53 18.24N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170 0.00W                                     55 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
178 46.69E                                    55 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
178 27.25E                                    55 10.50N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
178 6.48E                                     55 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
177 15.00E                                    55 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
177 15.00E                                    55 5.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 0.00E                                     55 5.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 0.00E                                     55 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 6.35E                                     55 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
173 59.70E                                    56 16.96N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The area is delineated by connecting the coordinates in the order
  listed by straight lines. The last set of coordinates for each area is
  connected to the first set of coordinates for the area by a straight
  line. The projected coordinate system is North American Datum 1983,
  Albers.

         Table 43 to Part 679--Northern Bering Sea Research Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Longitude                            Latitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 7.48W                                     65 37.48N*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
165 1.54W                                     60 45.54N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
167 59.98W                                    60 45.55N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
171 59.92W                                    60 3.52N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 0.00W                                     60 54.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 1.24W                                     60 54.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
176 13.51W                                    62 6.56N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 24.00W                                    63 57.03N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 24.00W                                    62 42.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 24.00W                                    62 42.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 24.00W                                    64 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 17.42W                                    64 0.01N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 58.62W                                    65 30.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 58.62W                                    65 37.48N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The area is delineated by connecting the coordinates in the order
  listed by straight lines except as noted by * below. The last set of
  coordinates for each area is connected to the first set of coordinates
  for the area by a straight line. The projected coordinate system is
  North American Datum 1983, Albers.
* This boundary extends in a clockwise direction from this set of
  geographic coordinates along the shoreline at mean lower-low tide line
  to the next set of coordinates.

 Table 44 to Part 679--Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay
                        Habitat Conservation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Longitude                            Latitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
165 1.54W                                     60 45.54N*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 7.01W                                     58 38.27N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 10.51W                                    58 38.35N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 34.31W                                    58 38.36N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 34.32W                                    58 39.16N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 34.23W                                    58 40.48N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 34.09W                                    58 41.79N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 33.91W                                    58 43.08N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 33.63W                                    58 44.41N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 33.32W                                    58 45.62N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 32.93W                                    58 46.80N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 32.44W                                    58 48.11N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 31.95W                                    58 49.22N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 31.33W                                    58 50.43N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 30.83W                                    58 51.42N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 30.57W                                    58 51.97N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
163 17.72W                                    59 20.16N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
164 11.01W                                    59 34.15N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
164 42.00W                                    59 41.80N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
165 0.00W                                     59 42.60N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
165 1.45W                                     59 37.39N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
167 40.20W                                    59 24.47N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 0.00W                                     59 49.13N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
167 59.98W                                    60 45.55N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The area is delineated by connecting the coordinates in the order
  listed by straight lines, except as noted by * below. The last set of
  coordinates for each area is connected to the first set of coordinates
  for the area by a straight line. The projected coordinate system is
  North American Datum 1983, Albers.
* This boundary extends in a clockwise direction from this set of
  geographic coordinates along the shoreline at mean lower-low tide line
  to the next set of coordinates.

   Table 45 to Part 679--St. Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Longitude                            Latitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 24.00W                                    64 0.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 24.00W                                    62 42.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 24.00W                                    62 42.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 24.00W                                    63 57.03N
------------------------------------------------------------------------

172 17.42W                                    64 0.01N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The area is delineated by connecting the coordinates in the order
  listed by straight lines. The last set of coordinates for each area is
  connected to the first set of coordinates for the area by a straight
  line. The projected coordinate system is North American Datum 1983,
  Albers.

   Table 46 to Part 679--St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Longitude                            Latitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172 0.00W                                     60 54.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
171 59.92W                                    60 3.52N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 0.50W                                     59 42.26N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 24.98W                                    60 9.98N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
174 1.24W                                     60 54.00N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The area is delineated by connecting the coordinates in the order
  listed by straight lines. The last set of coordinates for each area is
  connected to the first set of coordinates for the area by a straight
  line. The projected coordinate system is North American Datum 1983,
  Albers.

0
5. Figures 16 and 17 are added to part 679 to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY08.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY08.011

0
6. Figure 21 is added to part 679 to read as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY08.012

[FR Doc. E8-17144 Filed 7-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86896]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27642]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-101]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed December 4, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through December 11, 2023 10 a.m.
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230175, Draft, Caltrans, CA, Last Chance Grade Permanent
Restoration Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/13/2024, Contact: Steve
Croteau<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230176, Draft, USACE, FL, Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan Western Everglades Restoration Project Draft
Integrated Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact
Statement, Comment Period Ends: 01/29/2024, Contact: Melissa Nasuti
904-251-9597.
EIS No. 20230177, Draft, BLM, AK, ANCSA 17(d)(1) Withdrawals, Comment
Period Ends: 02/14/2024, Contact: Racheal Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230178, Final, BOEM, NY, Sunrise Wind Project, Review Period
Ends: 01/16/2024, Contact: Genevieve Brune<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 12, 2023.
Julie Smith,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-27642 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13241-13243]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04492]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1065]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sabine River, Near Ruliff, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the Kansas City Southern (KCS) Railroad drawbridge
across Sabine River, mile 36.2, between Newton County, TX and Calcasieu
Parish, LA. The drawbridge was converted to a fixed bridge in 2012 and
the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective February 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-1065. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jim Wetherington, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Kansas City Southern Railroad
Bridge over the Sabine River, mile 36.2, that once required draw
operations in 33 CFR 117.493(b), was converted to a fixed bridge in
2012. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be
removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because
this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on
mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or
value.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a rule that relieves a restriction is not
required to provide the 30 day notice period before its effective date.
This rule removes the Kansas City Southern (KCS) Railroad Bridge over
the Sabine River, mile 36.2, draw operation requirements under 33 CFR
117. 493(b), thus removing a regulatory restriction on the public.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register. The bridge has had an operation regulation
that states the bridge ``need not open'' since 1992. At that time, the
bridge was rendered effectively fixed with the removal of all
operations equipment associated with that bridge by KCS. The bridge has
been a fixed bridge for one year and this rule merely requires an
administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a
regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The KCS Railroad Bridge across the Sabine River, mile 36.2, was
converted to a fixed bridge in 2012 after 20 years of not being
required to open, by regulation, and being effectively fixed with the
removal of all operations equipment by the owner. It has come to the
attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this
drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the coversion of the
existing bridge to a fixed bridge. The conversion of this drawbridge
necessitates the removal of the parts of the drawbridge operation
regulation, 33 CFR 117.493(b), that are pertaining to the former
drawbridge.
    The purpose of this rule is to remove the parts of the paragraph of
33 CFR 117.493(b) that refer to the KCS Railroad Drawbridge at mile
36.2, from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge
that is no longer able to be opened.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.493(b) by
removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw
operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change
removes the part of the paragraph of the regulation governing the KCS
Railroad Bridge, mile 36.2, since the bridge has been converted to a
fixed bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal
Regulations by removing language that governs the operation of the KCS
Railroad Bridge, mile 36.2, which in fact is no longer a drawbridge.
This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does
not affect nor does it alter the operating schedules in 33 CFR
117.493(a), the remainder of 33 CFR 117.493(b) that governs the
remaining active drawbridge listed in this paragraph nor the remaining
active drawbridges on the Sabine River.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will have no effect on small entities since this
drawbridge has been converted to a fixed bridge and the regulation
governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer applicable.
There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by this rule;
therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

3. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

4. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

5. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

7. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the removal of the parts of the
paragraph of 33 CFR 117.493 (b) that refer to the KCS Railroad
Drawbridge at mile 36.2, from the Code of Federal Regulations since it
governs a bridge that has been converted to a fixed bridge. This rule
is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32) (e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.493(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.493  Sabine River.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the S12 Bridge, mile 40.8, at Starks, need not be
opened for the passage of vessels.

    Dated: January 31, 2013.
Roy A. Nash,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-04492 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53883]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21656]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP12-39-000; RP12-39-001]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice Establishing Deadline for
Comments

    On August 22, 2012, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin)
filed a response to the Commission's August 10, 2012 Data Request in
the captioned proceedings.
    Notice is hereby given that participants in the captioned
proceedings may file comments to Algonquin's Data Response on or before
5 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, September 5, 2012.

    Dated: August 27, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21656 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5096-5097]
[DOCID:fr31ja06-80]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53173; File No. SR-ISE-2006-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Changes for Transactions in Options on Three
Narrow-Based Indexes

January 24, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 5, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE.
The ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees
for transactions in options on three narrow-based indexes: the ISE-B&S
Water Index (``HHO''), the ISE-CCM Alternative Energy Index (``POW'')
and the ISE-CCM Nanotechnology Index (``TNY''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, at the Exchange's
Web site http://www.iseoptions.com/legal/proposed_rule_changes.asp)

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a
comparison fee for all transactions in options on HHO, POW and TNY.\5\
These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. The amount of the
execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing
shall be $0.15 and $0.03, respectively, for all Public Customer and
Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and comparison
fee for all Market Maker orders shall be equal to the execution fee and
comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for Market Maker
transactions in equity options.\6\ The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will further its goal of introducing new products to the
marketplace that are competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange states that the HHO, POW and TNY meet the
standards of ISE Rule 2002(b), which allows the Exchange to begin
trading these products by filing Form 19b-4(e) at least five
business days after commencement of trading these new products
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act, 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \6\ The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per
contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and
the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange has entered into separate development
agreements with Cronus Capital Markets and Boenning & Scattergood,
Inc., in connection with the development, listing and trading of
options on POW and TNY and HHO, respectively. As with certain other
licensed options, the Exchange is adopting a fee of $0.05 per contract
for trading in these options to defray the licensing costs. The
Exchange believes charging the participants that trade this instrument
is the most equitable means of recovering the costs of the license.
However, because of competitive pressures in the industry, the Exchange
proposes to exclude Public Customer Orders \7\ from this surcharge fee.
Accordingly, this surcharge fee will only be charged to Exchange
members with respect to non-Public Customer Orders (e.g., Market Maker
and Firm Proprietary orders) and shall apply to Linkage Orders \8\
under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2006.\9\
Further, since options on HHO, POW and TNY are not multiply-listed, the
Payment for Order Flow fee shall not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(33)
as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is
defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(32) as a person that is not a broker
or dealer in securities.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1900.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52168 (July 29,
2005), 70 FR 45454-01 (August 5, 2005), SR-ISE-2005-32 (extending
the expiration date for this pilot program from July 31, 2005 to
July 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange states that the basis under the Act for this proposed
rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \10\ that an
exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change. The ISE has not received any unsolicited written
comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\11\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder \12\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2006-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the ISE.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-03
and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1176 Filed 1-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45810-45812]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16215]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0719 Product Identifier 2019-CE-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-24 airplanes. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as movement of the aft fuel pipe
within the coupling, which can cause damage to the O-rings and lead to
a fuel leak, fuel fire or explosion, and consequent loss of control of
the airplane. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-
exception occurred on : 2020-16215.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-16215.htm
6371 Stans, Switzerland, +41 848 24 7 365, aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com, www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0719.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0719; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0719;
Product Identifier 2019-CE-041-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact it receives about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD No. 2019-0240, dated September 25, 2019 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for Pilatus
Model PC-24 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where, during maintenance, when
system pressure was applied to a motive-flow fuel pipe, the aft fuel
pipe was found to move to the end stop within the coupling. When
system pressure was released, the aft fuel pipe returned to its
point of origin. This movement can cause damage to the O-rings.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a fuel leak and
consequently a fuel contamination of the rear fuselage, which, in
combination with an ignition source in this area, could possibly
result in a fuel fire or fuel vapour explosion and consequent loss
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB to provide modification instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of affected parts with serviceable parts, as defined in
this AD, and prohibits (re-)installation of affected parts.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0719.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pilatus Service Bulletin No: 28-002, dated May 3,
2019. The service information contains procedures for replacing the two
flexible saddle clamps on the left-hand (LH) motive-flow fuel pipe and
the two flexible saddle clamps on the right-hand

(RH) motive-flow fuel pipe with fixed saddle clamps. This service
information also contains procedures for replacing the four O-rings on
the LH and RH motive-flow fuel pipes. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has
notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all information and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 16 products of
U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 7 work-
hours per product to comply with the requirements of this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $5,000 per product.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators would be $89,520 or $5,595 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, all or some of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all costs in this cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2020-0719; Product Identifier
2019-CE-041-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by September 14, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes,
all serial numbers, with a flexible saddle clamp part number (P/N)
9<IP_ADDRESS> installed between frame 34 and 36, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2800: Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an occurrence of movement of the aft
fuel pipe within the coupling when system pressure was applied. This
movement can cause damage to the O-rings, which could lead to a fuel
leak and fuel contamination of the rear fuselage. The FAA is issuing
this AD to prevent a fuel fire or fuel vapor explosion with
consequent loss of airplane control.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance with
the applicable compliance times:
    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
each flexible saddle clamp with a fixed saddle clamp with P/N
9<IP_ADDRESS>3, align the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) motive-
flow fuel pipes, and test the LH and RH motive-flow fuel pipe for
leaks in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, sections
3.B and 3.C, of Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 28-002, dated May
3, 2019.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a
flexible saddle clamp P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> between frame 34 and 36 on
any airplane.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug
Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2019-0240, dated September 25, 2019,
for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0719. For service information related to this AD, contact
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box
992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74;
exception occurred on : 2020-16215.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-16215.htm
fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com;
internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on July 22, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service .
[FR Doc. 2020-16215 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2943]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1123]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0523; FRL-9619-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Illinois; Redesignation of
the Illinois Portion of the St. Louis, MO-IL Area to Attainment for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for a proposed rule
published December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79579). On December 22, 2011, EPA
proposed to approve the State of Illinois' request to redesignate the
Illinois portion of the St. Louis, MO-IL nonattainment area (Jersey,
Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties) to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with the proposed approval of the redesignation request,
EPA proposed to approve, as a revision to the Illinois State
Implementation Plan, the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2025 in the area. EPA also proposed to approve the
2002 emissions inventory as meeting the comprehensive emissions
inventory requirement of the Clean Air Act for the Illinois portion of
the St. Louis area. Finally, EPA proposed to approve the State's 2008
and 2025 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Illinois portion of the
St. Louis area. In response to a December 22, 2011, request from David
C. Bender, EPA is extending the comment period for 30 days.

DATES: Comments. The public comment period for the proposed rule
published December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79579) is being extended for 30 days
to February 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0523, to: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional
instructions to comment can be found in the notice of proposed
rulemaking published December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79579).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 9, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1123 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P