We invite 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-2014-0425; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-180-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On March 15, 2012, we issued AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012). AD 2012-06-19 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012), we have determined that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0179, dated August 7, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-32-3233, Revision 02, dated January 27, 2014; and Service Bulletin A340-32-4275, Revision 01, dated July 5, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 92 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The actions that are required by AD 2012-06-19, Amendment 39-17000 (77 FR 22188, April 13, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-06-19 is $31,280 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $78,200, or $850 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 114 work-hours and require parts costing $435,000, for a cost of $444,690 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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.

We are 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 proposed 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.

We 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. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. 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.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0423; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-233-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

This proposed AD was prompted by cracking that occurred during a full-scale fatigue test airplane during the certification process. Such cracking could occur in the active airplane fleet prior to the fleet reaching its LOV. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward cargo compartment frames, which could result in loss of the fail safe structural integrity of the airplane.

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-53-182, dated June 28, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0423.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing an inspection of the attachment holes at the forward cargo compartment frames and the cargo liner for cracking, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require installing new oversized fasteners in the forward cargo compartment frames. These actions are specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-53-182, dated June 28, 2013, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair cracks detected during the high frequency eddy current inspection, but this proposed AD would require that those actions be done in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

The compliance time for the inspection specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0346; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received reports of fuselage frame cracking, and a report of a missing strap that was not installed on a fuselage frame during production. One report was a crack in the frame at station 328 and a crack that severed the frame at station 360 on the right side of an airplane that had 59,756 total flight cycles. The frame web and the failsafe chord were completely severed.

We have received ten reports of cracks in the frames at station 328 between stringers S-20R and S-21R on Model 737-200, 737-300, and 737-500 series airplanes that had accumulated between 43,581 and 73,655 total flight cycles. These cracks were in the frame web at an open tool hole, in the frame web at the end fastener in the inner chord, and in the frame web notch. The cracks were from 0.3 inch to 3.0 inches long.

We have also received 14 reports of cracks in the frames at station 360 between stringers S-19R and S-21R on Model 737-200 and 737-300 series airplanes that had accumulated between 42,183 and 66,588 total flight cycles. These cracks were in the frame web at an open tool hole, in the frame web at an insulation blanket stud hole, in the frame web at an end fastener in the doubler, and in the inner flange at the end fastener in the doubler. The cracks were from 2.5 inches long to cracks that severed the frame web and fail-safe chord.

We have received a report of three cracks in the frame at station 380 between stringers S-18R and S-20R on a Model 737-300 series airplane with 32,218 total flight cycles. Cracks were in the frame inner flange at fasteners common to the bulkhead support angle. One of the three cracks was also in the doubler.

We have received a report of a strap that was not installed on the frame at station 312 adjacent to stringer S-22R on a Model 737-400 series airplane with 24,037 total flight cycles. Investigation of the drawings determined that this was an incorrect frame configuration and that the strap should have been installed.

Missing fuselage frame straps and frame cracking can result in severed frames. Continued operation of the airplane with multiple adjacent severed frames, or the combination of a severed frame and fuselage skin chemical mill cracks, can result in uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2014-0346.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if the strap adjacent to a certain stringer is installed, and repair if missing; repetitive inspections of the frame for cracking or a severed frame web; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also provides optional actions to terminate the repetitive inspections.

The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Tables 13 through 15 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1323, dated December 6, 2013, specify post-modification inspections at certain locations, which may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2)). However, this NPRM does not propose to require those post-modification inspections. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 417 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. However, we estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs of the station 328 frame and the station 360 frame. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

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.

We are 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 proposed 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.

We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) 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.

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0345; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-230-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received a report of a failure of the Acme nut threads in a PTA, due to accelerated thread wear on the Acme nut that mates with the jackscrew. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the Acme nut threads in the PTA, which could lead to loss of control of pitch trim and reduced controllability of the airplane.

We reviewed Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin 27-4100, dated March 2012. This service bulletin describes procedures for an inspection to determine if PTAs having a certain serial number and part number are installed, and replacing those PTAs having specific serial numbers listed in the service bulletin.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

Although Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin 27-4100, dated March 2012, does not require repetitive replacements, this proposed AD would require repetitive replacements of PTAs with new PTAs or with overhauled PTAs having an Acme nut and jackscrew replaced with a new Acme nut and jackscrew every 1,800 flight hours or at the next PTA overhaul, whichever occurs first.

While the effectivity of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin 27-4100, dated March 2012, does not include Model MU-300 airplanes, those airplanes are included in the applicability of this proposed AD since the affected PTAs can also be used on these airplanes.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 735 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

According to the manufacturer, the costs of this proposed AD associated with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin 27-4100, dated March 2012, may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected owners/operators. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate. The costs of the repetitive replacement are not covered under warranty. However, the PTA manufacturer states that it is already replacing the Acme nut and jackscrew at every overhaul, so the owners/operators should not see a cost increase due to this repetitive replacement requirement.

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.

We are 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 proposed 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.

We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) 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.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-231-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We received reports of uncommanded door closure of the large lower lobe cargo door. One incident occurred while the door was being opened, a second one while the door was stationary in the open position, and the third incident occurred as the door was being closed. It was determined that all of the doors' rotary actuators had failed (two actuators per door). The three incidents occurred on Model 767 airplanes, but the same rotary actuator part numbers are also used on the large lower lobe cargo doors installed on the Model 777 airplanes. Examination of five of the failed rotary actuators found significant wear in the gear box and failure of the first stage input sun gear set. The sixth failed rotary actuator had a failed third-stage input sun gear from an overload condition. All three affected airplanes had between 12,500 and 13,500 total flight cycles. The failed actuators were manufactured with Nitralloy 135M steel between August 1994 and December 2000. Actuators manufactured before or after that timeframe were made with 9310 steel. The rotary actuators made from 9310 steel material are considered safe. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the rotary actuators for the large lower lobe cargo door, and subsequent uncommanded door closures, which could possibly result in injury to people on the ground.

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletins 767-52A0100, Revision 2, dated September 26, 2013; and 777-52-0053, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0426.

Boeing Service Bulletins 767-52A0100, Revision 2, dated September 26, 2013; and 777-52-0053, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2013; refer to Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 2, dated August 1, 2013, which provides serial number information and certain corrective actions (rework of certain rotary actuators or reidentification of certain other rotary actuators).

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require inspecting for part numbers and serial numbers of the rotary actuators of the large forward and aft lower lobe cargo doors, as applicable, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in the service information described previously.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 510 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary re-identification or replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these re-identifications or replacements:

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.

We are 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 proposed 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.

We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) 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.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0347; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-173-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received a report of several cases of low hydraulic pressure or loss of electrical power to the ACMP on the left engine. These cases were found to be caused by a damaged power feeder wire bundle in the outboard aft fairing area of the left engine strut. In most of the cases, the wire bundle had chafed against the fuse pin washer at the midspar fitting and signs of arcing were found. In one case, the wire bundle was found to have chafed against a hydraulic piping elbow near the fuse pin washer, which resulted in a severed wire bundle and a hole in the hydraulic piping elbow. That hole in the hydraulic piping elbow, if not found, could result in a hydraulic fluid leak. Wire bundles that are chafed due to rubbing against structure or the hydraulic piping elbow, if not detected and corrected, could result in electrical arcing in a flammable fluid leakage zone, and would provide a possible ignition source for fuel vapors and hydraulic fluids. Ignited fuel vapors or hydraulic fluid in an area without a fire detection or suppression system could result in an uncontained engine strut fire and structural damage to the engine strut.

AD 2004-16-12, Amendment 39-13768 (69 FR 51002, August 17, 2004), also applies to certain Model 767 airplanes that are powered by Pratt & Whitney engines. AD 2004-16-12 required actions to prevent fatigue cracking in primary strut structure, which could result in separation of the strut and engine from the airplane. One of those actions is the prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057, dated December 16, 1993; or Revision 1, dated August 14, 2003.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0347.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013, specifies concurrent or prior accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-29-0057, Revision 3, dated June 9, 2011, for modification of certain wire bundles.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require inspecting for damage of the wiring bundles in the left engine's strut, and corrective actions if necessary; and installing new wiring support brackets and bundle clamp.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee, to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013, described previously include steps that are labeled as RC (required for compliance) because these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

As noted in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013, steps labeled as RC must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0115, dated May 22, 2013, without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 126 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing the establishment of an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions requesting the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the region within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

TTB received a petition from Douglas Grigg of Walnut Hill Vineyards, LLC, on behalf of the Fountaingrove Appellation Committee, proposing the establishment of the “Fountaingrove District” AVA in Sonoma County, California. The committee originally proposed the name “Fountaingrove” but later requested to change the name to “Fountaingrove District” in order to avoid affecting current use of the word “Fountaingrove,” standing alone, in brand names on wine labels. The proposed AVA contains approximately 38,000 acres and has approximately 35 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 500 acres. Cabernet sauvignon, chardonnay, sauvignon blanc, merlot, cabernet franc, zinfandel, syrah, and viognier are the primary grape varieties grown within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA include temperature, soils, and topography. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA and its supporting exhibits.

The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is located in Sonoma County, California, northeast of the city of Santa Rosa. The proposed AVA lies within the larger, multicounty North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA shares its boundaries with the established Russian River Valley (27 CFR 9.66), Chalk Hill (27 CFR 9.52), Knights Valley (27 CFR 9.76), Calistoga (27 CFR 9.209), Diamond Mountain District (27 CFR 9.166), Spring Mountain District (27 CFR 9.143), and Sonoma Valley (27 CFR 9.29) AVAs, but does not overlap any of these AVAs. As it was originally submitted, the petition first proposed a western boundary that slightly overlapped the established Russian River Valley AVA, but after discussions with TTB, the petitioner adjusted the proposed boundary to follow the established Russian River Valley AVA boundary because the original proposed boundary would have resulted in dividing at least one existing vineyard between Russian River Valley AVA and the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA.

The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA derives its name from the historic community of Fountain Grove, a utopian colony founded northeast of the city of Santa Rosa in 1875 by Thomas Lake Harris. The community included 400 acres of vineyards and a winery. By 1882, the winery was producing 70,000 gallons of wine per year, making it one of the 10 largest wineries in California at that time.

In 1880, Harris appointed his California lieutenant, Kanaye Nagasawa, to take charge of the vineyard and winery operations and act as developer and manager of the community's 2,000 acres of vineyards. In 1900, Harris sold his interest in the vineyards and winery to Nagasawa and five other members of the commune, and by 1908, Nagasawa was the sole surviving owner of the Fountain Grove vineyards and winery. During Prohibition, he kept the vineyards and winery facilities productive by producing grape juice and cooking sherry. After Prohibition was repealed in 1933, Nagasawa changed the name of the winery and the community to “Fountaingrove.” Nagasawa died in 1934, and the property was eventually sold and turned into a cattle ranch.

Although the original community no longer exists and the original Fountaingrove Winery remains only as a few abandoned buildings, the name “Fountaingrove” is still associated with the region of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA. The petition notes that several modern subdivisions within the proposed AVA bear the “Fountaingrove” name, including Fountaingrove Ranch, Fountaingrove Village, Fountaingrove II, and the Meadows at Fountaingrove, which are all built on portions of the original Fountaingrove community and vineyards. Fountaingrove Parkway is a road that runs through the southwestern portion of the proposed AVA. Fountaingrove Lake is a large reservoir within the proposed AVA. Finally, the petition listed several businesses within the proposed AVA that use the name “Fountaingrove,” including Fountaingrove Inn Hotel and Conference Center, Fountaingrove Lodge Retirement Community, Fountaingrove Golf and Athletic Club, Fountaingrove Realty, Fountaingrove MedSpa, Fountaingrove Dentistry, Fountaingrove Deli, and Fountaingrove Cleaners.

The proposed AVA is a region of rolling hills and steeper mountains with elevations that range from approximately 400 feet near the city of Santa Rosa, at the southwestern boundary of the proposed AVA, to approximately 2,200 feet in the eastern portion of the proposed AVA, near the Sonoma-Napa County line.

The proposed boundary follows a series of elevation contours, roads, county lines, USGS map section lines, and straight lines between points marked on the relevant USGS maps. The northern portion of the proposed boundary is shared with the southern boundaries of the established Knights Valley and Chalk Hill AVAs. The eastern portion of the proposed boundary is formed by a ridgeline in the Mayacmas Mountains that forms the Sonoma-Napa County line. This portion of the proposed boundary is shared with the established Calistoga, Diamond Mountain District, and Spring Mountain District AVAs. Part of the southern portion of the proposed boundary is shared with the established Sonoma Valley AVA. The remainder of the proposed southern boundary separates the hills and mountains of the proposed AVA from the flat, urbanized terrain of the city of Santa Rosa. The western portion of the proposed boundary is shared with the established Russian River Valley AVA. The differences between the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA and the adjacent established AVAs are discussed below.

The distinguishing features of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA include its temperature, soils, and topography, and these are discussed in detail below.

The temperature of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is moderated by cool breezes from the Pacific Ocean. The breezes enter the region through a gap in the Sonoma Mountains between Taylor Mountain (located south of the city of Santa Rosa) and Redwood Hill (located north of the city). Because of the marine influence, the median growing season temperature within the proposed AVA is 63.9 degrees Fahrenheit. The petition provided the growing degree day units (GDD units), 1 calculated in degrees Celsius (C), for 16 vineyards distributed throughout the proposed AVA, and the petitioner determined the median number of GDD units for the entire proposed AVA was 1,663. 2 According to the Winkler scale, this figure places the proposed AVA in the Warm Region II category.

The following table was included in the petition and compares the median growing season temperatures and GDD units of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA to those of the surrounding established AVAs.

According to the table, the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is generally warmer than the region to the west and cooler than the region to the east. The temperatures within the Chalk Hill AVA, which is north of the proposed AVA, are similar to those in the Fountaingrove District; however, the Knights Valley AVA, which is also north of the proposed AVA, has significantly more GDD units than the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA because the higher hillsides of the Knights Valley AVA shelter its broad valley floor from the marine breezes. The Sonoma Valley AVA, immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, is slightly warmer.

The petition states that although the temperature differences between the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA and the surrounding regions appear slight, they do have a significant effect on viticulture. The petition includes a chart grouping grape varietals by maturation times based on average growing season temperatures. 3 According to the chart, most varietals only ripen successfully (meaning they achieve desired levels of acidity, sugars, and flavors) within a 3-to-4 degree C range of temperatures. As a result, cool-climate pinot noir grapes ripen successfully in the cooler temperatures of the neighboring Russian River Valley AVA, but do not grow reliably within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, according to the petition.

The petition notes that even the same varietal of grapes grown at opposite ends of the small range of “optimal” temperatures will have different characteristics. For example, the petition states that chardonnay grown in a Warm Region II area, such as the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, will have a tropical fruit flavor, whereas chardonnay grown in a cooler area will produce a drier, more mineral-like flavor. Likewise, cabernet sauvignon, one of the most commonly grown grapes in the proposed AVA, produces a lower alcohol wine with subtle flavors when grown in a Warm Region II area, but often produces wines with higher alcohol content and riper flavors when grown in Region III and Region IV areas. Vintners consider these flavor and alcohol differences when producing and blending their wines.

The soils within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA are derived primarily from Sonoma Volcanic and Franciscan Formation bedrock. The volcanic soils include Goulding, Spreckels, Laniger, and Felta series soils, which consist of pumiceous ash-flow tuff, and Guenoc and Toomes series soils, which consist of basalt lava. These volcanic soils are described in the petition as being well-drained and having a balance of nutrients favorable for grape-growing. Soils derived from the Franciscan Complex include the Boomer and Henneke series. Henneke soils contain the mineral serpentine, which has high levels of nickel and can be toxic to grapevines unless the soil is ameliorated to lower the levels. Soils of the Boomer series have desirably high levels of iron, which is an essential element for vine growth and fruit development.

The following table shows the soil types found within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA and the surrounding established AVAs.

As shown in the table, the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA has a greater diversity of soils than the surrounding AVAs. The proposed AVA has fewer soils derived from river and terrace deposits than most of the surrounding established AVAs. The petition states that soils comprised of river and terrace deposits are generally not as well-drained as volcanic soils and may require artificial drainage. Compared to the surrounding regions, the proposed AVA also has more soils that contain nickel-rich serpentine, which can be toxic to grapevines in high levels. Therefore, soils that contain serpentine must often be ameliorated in order to reduce the nickel levels so that the vines can grow.

The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is located on the western slopes of the Mayacmas Mountains, northeast of the city of Santa Rosa. The topography consists of low rolling hills and higher, steeper mountains. Although there are some narrow floodplains along creeks, the proposed AVA lacks the broad valley floors and floodplains that characterize several of the surrounding established AVAs. The slopes within the proposed AVA are primarily oriented towards the southwest. Elevations range from approximately 400 feet to approximately 2,200 feet, and all of the vineyards within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA are planted at elevations between 450 and 2,115 feet.

Topography affects viticulture within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the hillsides form a “thermal belt” that traps warm air, resulting in nighttime temperatures that are warmer than those of the lower, flatter valleys of the surrounding regions. The warmer temperatures reduce the risk of frost in the late spring and early fall. The southwest aspect of most of the slopes within the proposed AVA allows vineyards to be planted where they can receive the maximum amount of sunlight and warmth.

Immediately to the west of the proposed AVA is the Russian River Valley AVA. Elevations in the region begin at approximately 600 feet along the border shared with the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA and become lower and flatter southwest of the proposed AVA, within the city of Santa Rosa. Elevations within much of the city are between 100 and 200 feet.

To the north of the proposed AVA are the Chalk Hill and Knights Valley AVAs. The Chalk Hill AVA has a mountainous terrain with elevations similar to those of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, but the soils within the Chalk Hill AVA distinguish it from the proposed AVA, as discussed later in this document. The Knights Valley AVA has generally lower elevations and contains the broad, flat Knights Valley and Franz Valley.

To the east of the proposed AVA are the Calistoga, Spring Mountain District, and Diamond Mountain District AVAs, which have elevations and terrain similar to the proposed AVA. However, moving east, the mountainous topography of the Calistoga AVA quickly lowers to elevations of around 300 feet within the broad, flat Napa Valley. The slopes of the three established AVAs primarily face northeast, compared to the southwest-facing slopes of the proposed AVA. Because the established AVAs are located mostly on the lee side of the Mayacmas Mountains, they are subject to less maritime influence than the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA.

To the south of the proposed AVA, the Sonoma Valley AVA is marked by a long, flat valley surrounded by the Mayacmas Mountains to the east and the Sonoma Mountains to the west. The Sonoma Valley AVA receives less of the cooling marine air than the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA because of the shielding effect of the Sonoma Mountains.

In summary, the temperature, soils, and topography of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA distinguish it from the surrounding adjacent AVAs. Compared to the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, the Chalk Hill and Knights Valley AVAs to the north both have more soils derived from river and terrace deposits. Additionally, the Knights Valley AVA has warmer temperatures and significantly larger valleys than the proposed AVA. To the east, the Calistoga, Spring Mountain District, and Diamond Mountain District AVAs are warmer, have less soil diversity, and have mountain slopes oriented to the northeast. To the south, the Sonoma Valley AVA is warmer, has more alluvial soils, and is dominated by a large, flat valley rather than rolling hills and steeper mountains. To the west, the Russian River Valley AVA has cooler temperatures, more alluvial soils, and generally lower and flatter elevations.

The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-145, published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). It includes all or portions of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Marin, and Solano Counties, California. TTB notes that the North Coast AVA contains all or portions of approximately 40 established AVAs, in addition to the area covered by the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA. In the conclusion of the “Geographical Features” section of the preamble, T.D. ATF-145 states that “[d]ue to the enormous size of the North Coast, variations exist in climatic features such as temperature, rainfall, and fog intrusion.”

The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA shares the basic viticultural feature of the North Coast AVA--the marine influence that moderates growing season temperatures in the area. However, the proposed AVA is much more uniform in its temperature, soils, and topography than the diverse, multicounty North Coast AVA. In this regard, TTB notes that T.D. ATF-145 specifically states that “approval of this viticultural area does not preclude approval of additional areas, either wholly contained with the North Coast, or partially overlapping the North Coast,” and that “smaller viticultural areas tend to be more uniform in their geographical and climatic characteristics, while very large areas such as the North Coast tend to exhibit generally similar characteristics, in this case the influence of maritime air off of the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.” Thus, the proposal to establish the Fountaingrove District AVA is not inconsistent with what was envisioned when the North Coast AVA was established.

TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 38,000-acre Fountaingrove District AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice.

See the narrative description of boundary for the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Fountaingrove District,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Fountaingrove District” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. TTB does not believe that “Fountaingrove,” standing alone, should have viticultural significance if the proposed AVA is established, due to the current use of “Fountaingrove,” standing alone, as a brand name on wine labels. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full name “Fountaingrove District” as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. Wine labels using either “Fountaingrove” or “Fountain Grove,” standing alone, would not be affected if the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is established.

The approval of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “North Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the North Coast AVA would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA would allow vintners to use “Fountaingrove District” and “North Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA's location within the existing North Coast AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing North Coast AVA. TTB is also interested in comments whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding North Coast AVA that the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA on wine labels that include the term “Fountaingrove District” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods (please note that TTB has a new address for comments submitted by U.S. Mail):

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2014-0006 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federale-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 144 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab.

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.

Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 144 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.

In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2014-0006 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 144. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's “Help” tab.

All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.

You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of the USGS quadrangle maps or any similarly sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline.

In May 2008, EPA finalized regulations to implement the NSR Implementation Rule for PM 2.5 in the PSD and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) programs (2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule). The regulation included the creation of the major source threshold, significant emissions rate and offset ratios for PM 2.5 and the identification of PM 2.5 precursors. Additionally, the rule required states to consider emissions which may condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures, known as condensables, in permitting decisions by January 1, 2011.

WDNR submitted revisions to its PSD and NNSR programs that were intended to address the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule in October 2010. On October 29, 2012, EPA finalized a narrow disapproval of provisions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submittal that were intended to identify precursors to PM 2.5 and identify PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables ( see 77 FR 65478), because the submittal lacked specific references to condensables for PM 2.5 and PM 10 for applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule.

On May 12, 2011, and on March 5, 2012, WDNR submitted revisions to its SIP to comply with the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule. On July 25, 2013, EPA finalized disapproval of Wisconsin's submissions because the submissions did not explicitly define the precursors of PM 2.5 , nor did they contain the prescribed language to ensure that condensables are to be regulated within the PM 2.5 and PM 10 emission limits in Wisconsin's PSD and NNSR programs. ( see 78 FR 44881)

The infrastructure SIP requirements contained in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. States are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required to include a program for the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet new NSR requirements under the PSD and NNSR programs, and EPA evaluates, in determining whether states have satisfied these requirements, the following: (i) Provisions that explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program; (ii) identification of precursors to PM 2.5 and the identification of PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables in the PSD program; (iii) PM 2.5 increments in the PSD program; and, (iv) greenhouse gas permitting and the “Tailoring Rule.” This section also requires states to demonstrate that their existing SIPs meet current EPA requirements with respect to the NSR program. For example, states must adopt definitions that are identical to, or more stringent than, EPA's definitions. Of the structural PSD elements in the context of infrastructure SIPs, today's rulemaking only addresses Wisconsin's satisfaction of provisions that explicitly identify precursors to PM 2.5 , and the identification of PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables.

The final disapproval of the submission to address the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule and the final partial disapproval of the infrastructure SIP triggered the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the effective dates of the disapprovals, unless the state corrects the deficiencies and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.

On March 12, 2014, WDNR submitted a draft SIP revision request to EPA to revise portions of its PSD and NNSR programs to address deficiencies identified in EPA's previous partial infrastructure SIP disapproval. On April 15, 2014, WDNR submitted a supplement to its request with additional information to support its submittal. Since the rules WDNR submitted on March 12, 2014, are consistent with the Federal PSD rules, final approval of this SIP revision will resolve the deficiencies previously identified by EPA in its October 29, 2012, partial disapproval and July 25, 2013, disapproval. Wisconsin submitted revisions to its rules NR 400, 405, and 408 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. The submittal requests that EPA approve the following revised rules into Wisconsin's SIP: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and (124); (2) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; (3) NR 405.02(25i)(a), (ag) and (ar); (4) 405.02(27)(a)5m; and (5) NR 408.02(20)(e) 5.a and b. and 6. At this time EPA is only proposing to take action on the portions that pertain to the identification of precursors to PM 2.5 and identification of PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables. Specifically, today's proposed rulemaking is limited to the following provisions: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and (124); (2) NR 405.02(25i)(ag); (3) NR 405.02(25i)(ar)2. and 3.; and, (4) 405.02(27)(a)5m. EPA proposed approval of the remainder of WDNR's submission as it pertains to NO X as a precursor to ozone and the definition of major modification in a May 2, 2014 proposed approval (79 FR 25063).

Because portions of this draft SIP revision are not yet state-effective, Wisconsin requested that EPA “parallel process” the SIP revision. Under this procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before concluding its rulemaking process. EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a proposed rulemaking action. EPA publishes this proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public comment in approximately the same timeframe during which the state finalizes its rulemaking process.

After Wisconsin submits the formal state-effective SIP revision request, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking action for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP revision after EPA's proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then EPA may be obliged to repropose the action.

EPA has evaluated WDNR's proposed revision to the Wisconsin SIP in accordance with the Federal requirements governing state permitting programs. The revisions described in section III above are intended to update the Wisconsin SIP to comply with the current rules and address deficiencies identified by EPA in the its previous SIP disapprovals. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to approve these revisions because they meet Federal requirements.

The 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPS to address sources that emit direct PM 2.5 and other pollutants that contribute to secondary PM 2.5 formation. One of these requirements is for PSD permits to address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation of PM 2.5, otherwise known as precursors. In the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors to PM 2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and NO X (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NO X emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM 2.5 concentrations). The 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to PM 2.5 in the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient PM 2.5 concentrations.

The explicit references to SO 2, NO X , and VOCs as they pertain to secondary PM 2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)( b ) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)( b ). As part of identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM 2.5, the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of “significant” as it relates to a net emissions increase or the potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define “significant” for PM 2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct PM 2.5 ; 40 tpy of SO 2 ; and 40 tpy of NO X (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NO X emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM 2.5 concentrations). WDNR has revised the definition of “regulated NSR air contaminant” for the PSD program in 405.02(25i)(ar)2. and 3., consistent with EPA's own PSD regulations. WDNR has also revised its PSD significant emission rates to include PM 2.5 and its precursors in NR 405.02(27)(a)5m, consistent with EPA's PSD regulations.

The 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as condensables, in PM 2.5 and PM 10 emission limits in PSD permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables for applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM 2.5 and PM 10 in PSD permits beginning on or after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)( a ) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)( a ). WDNR's revisions, specifically at NR 400.02(123m) and (124) and NR 405.02(25i)(ag), are consistent with the PSD requirements obligated by the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule as they relate to PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables.

The 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule also codified requirements for PM 2.5 in the NNSR program. When WDNR initially submitted revisions to its SIP meant to address the 2008 PM 2.5 NSR Rule, the Milwaukee-Racine area was designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 24-hour NAAQS, and WDNR submitted rules pertaining to NNSR in addition to PSD. Thus, EPA's disapproval of this submission created an obligation for WDNR to address the deficiencies identified in both the PSD and NNSR programs. On April 22, 2014, EPA finalized approval of Wisconsin's request to redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine PM 2.5 area to attainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 24-hour NAAQS. As a result there are no areas designated as nonattainment for PM 2.5 located in Wisconsin. Since there are no areas designated as nonattainment for PM 2.5 in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is no longer obligated to submit a NNSR plan for PM 2.5 and there is no longer a FIP obligation for nonattainment NSR. Should an area be designated as nonattainment for PM 2.5 , Wisconsin will be required to revise its rules to include a plan to address PM 2.5 in NNSR.

Wisconsin's requested revisions are consistent with the applicable requirements found in Federal regulations; therefore EPA is proposing to approve the requested revisions.

EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Wisconsin rules NR 400, and NR 405 submitted by the State on March 12, 2014, and April 15, 2014, for approval into the SIP. The revisions submitted, described in section III, above, are consistent with Federal regulations governing state permitting programs. See section IV, above. EPA is also soliciting comment on this proposed approval. If EPA finalizes this proposed approval of WDNR's requested revisions, the FIP clocks started by EPA's October 29, 2012, narrow disapproval and July 25, 2013, disapproval will stop.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or to organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the proposed rule.

EPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's December 5, 2012, ozone redesignation request for Lake and Porter Counties for the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS because the Chicago nonattainment area continues to violate this standard based on the most recent three years (2011-2013) of quality assured, state-certified monitoring data for this ozone nonattainment area. Because this area continues to violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS, we cannot approve the ozone maintenance plan and MVEBs included in Indiana's December 5, 2012, submittal. We are proposing to take no action on the maintenance plan and MVEBs at this time.

EPA has determined that ground-level ozone (O 3 ) is detrimental to human health. On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated an eight-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million parts of air (0.075 ppm) (the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS or standard). This standard is violated in an area when any monitor in the area records eight-hour ozone concentrations with a three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations that equals or exceeds 0.076 ppm.

Ground-level ozone is generally not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emitted Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight, particularly under warm conditions, to form ground-level ozone, as a secondary pollutant, along with other secondary compounds. NO X and VOC are “ozone precursors.” Reduction of peak ground-level ozone concentrations is achieved through controlling VOC and NO X emissions.

Section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that violated the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. EPA promulgated designations and classifications for this standard for most areas on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088). However, in that rulemaking (77 FR 30091), EPA noted that the designation of the Chicago area was being delayed, pending review of 2011 ozone data certified by the state of Illinois in a December 7, 2011, letter. On June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34221), EPA promulgated the designation of the Chicago area as nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard with a classification of marginal nonattainment based on the review of 2009-2011 ozone data from Illinois and 2008-2010 data from Indiana and Wisconsin. 1 This review showed a violation of the standard at the Zion, Illinois monitoring site. The Chicago nonattainment area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County in Illinois, Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, and the area east of and including the corridor of Interstate 94 in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.

The CAA provides the basic requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA authorizes redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the state has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070).

Two significant policy documents affecting the review of ozone redesignation requests are the following: (1) “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (the September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum); and, (2) “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995 (the May 10, 1995 Clean Data Policy memorandum). Additional guidance on processing redesignation requests is included in the following documents:

• “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

• “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

• “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

• “Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;

• “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;

• “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993; and

• “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

EPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's ozone redesignation request for Lake and Porter Counties with a determination that the Chicago nonattainment area continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard based on quality assured, state-certified ozone data for 2010-2013. Indiana's ozone redesignation request fails to meet the critical air quality requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(1) of the CAA. The basis for EPA's proposed disapproval of the redesignation request is discussed in more detail as follows.

An area may be considered to attain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix P, based on the most recent three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all ozone monitoring sites in the area. To attain this standard, the average of the annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour averaged ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each monitoring site in the area over the most recent three-year period (the monitoring site's ozone design value) must not exceed 0.075 ppm. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitoring data considered here meet these certification criteria. All ozone monitoring data considered here have been certified by the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

As part of the December 5, 2012, ozone redesignation request, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) summarized the annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations and three-year eight-hour ozone design values for the period of 2006-2011 for all ozone monitoring sites in the Chicago nonattainment area.

Since the December 5, 2012, submittal of Indiana's ozone redesignation request, 2012 and 2013 ozone data have been quality-assured and certified by the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin and entered into AQS. These data, along with the ozone data summarized in Indiana's ozone redesignation request, must be considered in the review of Indiana's ozone redesignation request.

Table 1 summarizes the monitoring site-specific annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations for all monitoring sites in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the period of 2006-2013. Note that the 2012 and 2013 ozone data were obtained from EPA's AQS, whereas the 2006-2011 ozone data were documented in Indiana's ozone redesignation request and are confirmed by ozone monitoring data contained in AQS.

Table 2 gives the three-year averages of the annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site, the monitoring sites' ozone design values.

As can be seen from table 2, the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard is currently violated at the following sites in the Chicago area: (1) Chicago-Southwest Filtration Plant; (2) Northbrook; (3) Evanston; (4) Zion; and (5) Chiwaukee Prairie. In addition, the most recent three-years of quality assured, state certified ozone data (2010-2012) available for the Chicago-Ohio Street monitoring site show a violation of the 2008 ozone standard (the 2013 ozone data for this monitoring site are incomplete and not available to assess the attainment of the ozone standard). This shows that the Chicago nonattainment area has not attained the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard.

IDEM based the state's ozone redesignation request on the lack of ozone standard violations in Lake and Porter Counties. IDEM, however, has failed to demonstrate that the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard has been attained throughout the Chicago nonattainment area. The quality-assured and state certified ozone data for 2011-2013 show a violation of the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard in the Chicago nonattainment area. Preliminary 2014 ozone data also indicate that multiple monitors in the Chicago nonattainment area continue to violate the 2008 ozone standard for the period of 2012-2014. Therefore, Indiana's ozone redesignation request fails to meet the first, and most important, criterion for the approval of ozone redesignation requests: attainment of the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard throughout the entire nonattainment area.

To be approvable, an ozone maintenance plan, in part, must demonstrate that the ozone standard will be maintained in the ozone nonattainment area for at least 10 years after EPA approves the state's ozone redesignation request. A critical component of ozone maintenance plans is an ozone attainment emissions inventory documenting the VOC and NO X emissions inventory for the period in which the area has attained the ozone standard. The ozone maintenance demonstration usually involves the demonstration that future (during the 10 years after redesignation) VOC and NO X emissions will be at or below the attainment emissions. Indiana's ozone redesignation request contains such an ozone maintenance demonstration.

Since the Chicago ozone nonattainment area continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we cannot conclude that Indiana has developed an acceptable attainment year emissions inventory. This means that the ozone maintenance demonstration portion of the ozone maintenance plan is unacceptable.

Since the estimation of the VOC and NO X MVEBs depends on the determination of mobile source emissions that, along with other emissions in the nonattainment area, provide for attainment of the ozone standard, and since the Chicago nonattainment area continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we conclude that Indiana's estimates of the VOC and NO X MVEBs are also not acceptable.

We are not proposing action on Indiana's ozone maintenance demonstration and plan and MVEBs at this time. However, we note that, if we were to propose actions on these ozone redesignation request elements, we would find it necessary to propose disapproval.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves a state rule.

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

In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register , we are publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for OU2 of the NIROP Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial Deletion based on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion which is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register .

On October 2, 2013, we published a proposed rule to list the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species (78 FR 61046) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 2, 2013. On December 2, 2013, we extended the proposal's comment period for an additional 30 days, ending January 2, 2014 (78 FR 72058). For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the northern long-eared bat, please refer to the October 2, 2013, proposed listing rule. We also solicited and received independent scientific review of the information contained in the proposed rule from peer reviewers with expertise in the northern long-eared bat or similar species biology, in accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270).

Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of a proposed listing and concurrent proposed designation of critical habitat: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.

Since the publication of the October 2, 2013, proposed listing rule, there has been substantial disagreement regarding the best available science as it relates to the northern long-eared bat's current and predicted population trends and threats. Differing interpretations of the accuracy and sufficiency of the existing information on white-nose syndrome, which has been identified as the primary threat to the species, have led to disagreement regarding the current status of the species. In particular, some commenters raised questions regarding the certainty of scientific information used in the proposed listing rule. For example, some raised questions about: The probability and likely rate of white-nose syndrome spreading to currently unaffected areas; how or whether the disease will impact the northern long-eared bat in currently unaffected or recently affected areas within its range; or how existing scientific models predict such factors. Some commenters stated that some portions of the species' range where white-nose syndrome has been present in hibernacula for several years have yet to see declines in the species' numbers similar to what was observed in the Northeast.

There is substantial scientific uncertainty and disagreement about the Service's analysis or interpretation of the data, specifically in how and to what extent white-nose syndrome will spread and affect the northern-long eared bat across its range, which has a bearing on our listing determination. As a result of these comments, we find that there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to our listing determination. Therefore, in consideration of these disagreements, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determination for this rulemaking is necessary, and we are hereby extending the final determination for 6 months in order to solicit and consider information that will help to clarify these issues and to fully analyze information regarding available data that are relevant to our final listing determination. With this 6-month extension, we will make a final determination on the proposed rule no later than April 2, 2015.

We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing for the northern long-eared bat that was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2013 (78 FR 61046). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.

In consideration of the scientific disagreements about the data used to support the proposed rulemaking, we are particularly interested in new information and comment regarding:

(1) Whether we have appropriately interpreted the scientific studies cited in the proposed rule, and whether there is additional scientific information not considered in the proposal.

(2) Northern long-eared bat population trends in each State or rangewide.

(3) Information pertaining to white-nose syndrome, specifically:

(a) The predicted probability that white-nose syndrome will spread to currently unaffected areas;

(b) The predicted rate of white-nose syndrome spreading to currently unaffected areas;

(c) The magnitude of impacts specifically to the northern long-eared bat from white-nose syndrome, both in affected and currently unaffected areas; and

(d) The timeframe of response to white-nose syndrome in recently affected or currently unaffected areas.

(4) Conservation efforts for the northern long-eared bat that are planned or currently being implemented that were not already stated in comments submitted during the previous comment period.

If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.

If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov .

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024. Copies of the proposed rule are also available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html .

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

The FFP was originally created as the Fishing Vessel Mortgage and Loan Insurance program in 1971. It was renamed the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee in 1973. In 1998 it became the FFP. While originally created as a Federal Guarantee program that guaranteed loans made by the private sector, the program ultimately became a direct lending program. The FFP does not require appropriated funds because it has a negative subsidy under the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) of 1991. It operates on the basis of credit authority, provided by the Congress in annual appropriations, which authorizes the program to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Unused lending authority cannot be obligated after the end of each fiscal year, so the lending authority must be authorized each year. The FFP regulations do not allow financing the cost of new vessel construction or a vessel refurbishing project that materially increases an existing vessel's harvesting capacity. Additionally, for several years, prior to FY14 (see comments below), appropriations language has prohibited the use of FFP loan authority for any project that increases the capacity in any U.S. fisheries.

The FFP is a direct government loan program that receives annual loan authority from Congress to provide long-term loans to the aquaculture, mariculture, and commercial fisheries industries. These loans involve a wide variety of fisheries activities, including fishing, fish processing, purchases of fishing quota, and aquaculture facilities. Borrowers may be single proprietors, private corporations and limited partnerships, or public corporations. The program can finance up to 80 percent of the cost of an eligible project.

In order to be eligible for this program:

1. Borrower must be a U.S. citizen, or an entity who is a citizen for the purpose of documenting a vessel in the coastwise trade under 46 U.S.C. 50501,

2. Borrower must have a good credit and earnings record, net worth, and liquidity in support of the project,

3. Lending must be fully secured with borrower's assets, which may include personal guarantees and additional collateral not directly associated with the project,

4. Borrower must generally have the ability, experience, resources, character, reputation, and other qualifications necessary for successfully operating, utilizing, or carrying out the project.

The FFP makes long term, fixed rate loans with interest rates of two percent over the U.S. Department of the Treasury's cost of funds. Loan maturities may be up to 25 years, but may not exceed the economic useful life of a project. Loans have no prepayment penalties. All loans are secured by a promissory note, capital assets, and security agreement.

Applicants must pay a fee of 0.5% of the amount applied for with the application for a new loan. Half of this is the filing fee, which is nonrefundable.

The FFP has operated under regulations stating that loans will not be made for the cost of new vessel construction or vessel refurbishing that materially increases an existing vessel's harvesting capacity. Vessel owners have indicated that a significant portion of the existing fleet of U.S. fishing vessels consists of older vessels which are not optimal in terms of safety, efficiency, and environmental and fuel-efficient operation. The country needs to maintain the economic benefits of having a commercial fishing industry. This industry is a large employer, produces significant exports, and feeds people. The economic benefits trickle down to many segments of the national economy, including but not limited to the insurance, fuel, and vessel supply and equipment sectors. In many communities, the fishing industry is an essential element in their survival. This action will also generate employment by supporting projects in U.S. shipyards. Renewal of our aging fishing fleet would improve both safety and fuel efficiency and assist in maintaining the economic benefits derived from the commercial fishing industry.

Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations increased FFP's traditional loan authority from $59 million to $100 million and removed the language prohibiting its use for new vessel projects that increase capacity. Meeting this new program initiative will require changes to the existing FFP regulations at 50 CFR part 253. Specifically, the regulations will need to be changed to allow the direct loan program to finance the construction of new fishing vessels and projects that increase an existing vessel's capacity under specific circumstances. The regulations would also specify the manner in which these types of loans will be managed, including project review, qualification and collateral requirements, and related provisions.

In this ANPR, NMFS requests comments and input on the proposed program changes, and the provisions that need to be in place to implement those changes. Specifically, NMFS seeks to answer the following programmatic questions. Can fishing fleets be replaced or modernized without causing overfishing? Does it require that recapitalization occur only in limited access or quota share fisheries? If, implemented, are the suggested lending standards and requirements adequate?

NMFS generally does not want to finance the cost of new fishing vessels or reconstruction of existing vessels that materially increase harvesting. NMFS believes it can entertain financing these costs only for vessels participating in limited access fisheries. Where catch limits control the annual harvest, replacement or improvement of vessels does not increase the total catch. The FFP currently does not make vessel loans in any fisheries that are listed as overfished or subject to overfishing.

a. How and where to implement new vessel construction lending and remain harvesting neutral?

b. How to identify, approve and control the use of the replaced vessel?

c. How to control movement of new or improved vessels to other fisheries?

d. How to protect the FFP from the risks associated with vessel construction lending?

The FFP's regulation prohibits financing the cost of either new vessel construction or a vessel refurbishing project that materially increases an existing vessel's harvesting capacity. NMFS believes it should enter into financing the construction of new vessels and refurbishing that increases a vessel's harvesting capacity only if such lending results in no significant increase in fish harvesting. We will make that determination on an application-by-application basis.

NMFS is considering two approaches in implementing this new authority: Either we will act upon plans submitted by Fishery Management Councils responsible for particular fisheries or we will allow vessel owners in any limited access fishery to use the FFP. Factors to be considered in this determination include:

What fisheries are appropriate for this new lending? Would it be any fishery or just limited access fisheries?

Pros: In a limited access fishery, replacing one vessel with another maintains a constant number of vessels and permits. It provides the fishers or firms with the flexibility to tailor the replacement vessel to the market conditions at the time. If it makes sense to replace an existing vessel with a larger one, the business decision is left to the owner. The new vessel remains bound by the Total Allowable Catch in the fishery. There is no increase in harvesting.

Cons: Allowing this new lending in any fishery, without limitation, could increase the pressure on stocks not under controlled catch limits.

Where should new vessel construction be authorized—Nationwide, or in specific regions at the request of fisheries governed by specific Fishery Management Councils?

Pros: Implementing the program nationwide would remove ambiguity, allow the fisheries market to determine where and how to recapitalize, and might simplify the changes to the rule. Implementing at the request of Fishery Management Councils (FMC) would accommodate differences between regions and fisheries, and would allow the FMC to more narrowly tailor environmental analyses to regional issues and concerns.

Cons: Implementing the program nationwide might require a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA), addressing all of the fisheries of the United States. Such a PEA could take longer to complete than the time provided to use lending authority in a year. It would also require a significant increase in FFP lending authority, no matter which region was involved. One estimate of new vessel need for the North Pacific alone ranges between $2.2 and $4.4 billion. Implementing the program on the basis of Fishery Management Councils' plans could result in different rules for different fisheries—for example, some fisheries might request loans only for new replacement vessels, while others might request loans for vessel rehabilitation as well.

How to deal with the replaced vessel? In the case of new vessel construction, attention must be paid to the replaced vessel to insure a capacity and harvesting-neutral outcome. With no restrictions on the replaced vessel, it will become available for use in other U.S. fisheries or elsewhere in the world. This result could lead to, or increase, over fishing. The options are to have the vessel scrapped, have the vessel title restricted by revoking its fisheries endorsement and prohibiting foreign transfer, or have no restriction. An alternative would be to prohibit the replaced vessel's use in any U.S. fishery without the written approval of the FMC that manages that fishery. A related question is whether an FMC should be given responsibility to make such approvals. Included in considerations surrounding replacement vessels is what vessel is replaced. Can it be any fishing vessel or must it be one of similar capacity and in the identical fishery? Vessels in limited access fisheries are predominantly federally documented. Should we require that both new and replacement vessels be federally documented?

Pros: To require the replaced vessel to be scrapped would be the most straightforward solution. The business calculation would be simplified. Once the new vessel goes into operation, the replaced vessel would have a set time to be scrapped. However, some owners have expressed the wish to be able to re-sell their replaced vessel to another permit-holder in the same fishery, who would then scrap that replaced vessel. Title restriction allows the replaced vessel, which may have significant residual value, to be used in a non-fishing activity. Applicants will want to realize the greatest financial return from the replaced vessel.

Cons: Requiring vessels to be scrapped may cause owners to delay replacement of older vessels with significant residual value, which would slow the recapitalization effort and extend the use of older, less efficient vessels because of the cost involved and the potential loss of revenue from not having an alternative use. Title restriction has been an issue with State-documented vessels. Having no restriction isn't consistent with being capacity-neutral. Not requiring the vessel to be scrapped creates enforcement difficulties, as illustrated by the vessel capacity reduction programs. Under the latter programs, the U.S. Coast Guard has discovered abandoned buyback vessels docked in harbors, causing environmental and economic damage to the community. Additionally, buyback vessels have shown up in State waters, fishing in violation of the prohibition against fishing. Since they are not required to have a fisheries endorsement in State fisheries, they fish there with impunity.

What would we consider for the timing of the removal? We see two options. Option one is to require the removal restriction prior to funding the loan. Option two would require the removal restriction within four months of the new vessel being put in service.

Pros: Removal of the replaced vessel prior to funding the loan makes the process straightforward. There is no risk that the loan can be used to increase the number of vessels in a fishery. Removal within four months of the new vessel entering service would provide a break-in period for the replacement vessel, thus minimizing the disruption to the owner's operations.

Cons: Removal prior to funding exposes the vessel owner to sea trials and shake-out risk—potentially having no vessel able to fish until the new vessel is fully seaworthy. Management of FFP lending risks and traditional lending:

The FFP has a negative FCRA subsidy rate. As such, no appropriation of subsidy is required to allow program lending. New vessel construction lending and major rebuilding projects pose higher credit risks and are more labor intensive than the current program. Additionally, the 2014 appropriation results in an increase to the FFP's annual loan authority without allocation of this authority. We need to continue to have loans available for the FFP's historical uses. The projected size of the proposed new loans could quickly consume a year's loan authority without providing any loans for historical FFP purposes.

How do we design the requirements and guidelines to protect the FFP's negative subsidy and traditional uses?

Cost overruns pose a significant risk to the FFP. Progress payments while the vessel is in construction represent liabilities in advance of the project generating any revenue. The owner must begin to make debt service payments before the vessel is completed. If the final vessel cost exceeds the original estimate, the vessel owner must make up the difference. Cost overruns are common if not normal for large shipyard projects. The FFP could be left with an unpaid loan, and an unfinished asset with negligible value—the likelihood of a significant loss exists. The way to mitigate this risk is either through a performance bond or insurance, or a reserve fund.

Pros: A performance bond/insurance (a common practice) provides a payout in the event that the vessel is delayed in the shipyard, faces materials cost increases due to market fluctuations, or its final cost increases for other reasons. A reserve fund in the amount of 25% to 50% of the estimated cost of the vessel provides the same functionality, increasing the assurance that the vessel will be completed and viable for its intended use in a fishery, even if the cost rises inordinately. Either of these mechanisms would reduce the risk to the FFP significantly.

Cons: The performance bond/insurance would raise the owner's cost somewhat. The reserve fund would raise the owner's initial cash needs substantially, requiring the aggregation of between 45% and 70% of the vessel's total cost prior to closing on the FFP loan.

The vessel construction in progress must be monitored to certify milestones for periodic payments and the adequacy of the work. The FFP does not have the staff, expertise or funds for this. Not having the ability to perform this function would make the credit risk unacceptable. Requiring the borrower to procure such a third party is a reasonable way for NMFS to assure itself that milestones claimed for reimbursement with loan proceeds have, in fact, been met. The applicant will engage a surveyor to perform these functions for them. We need to determine if the same surveyor can jointly represent the applicant and NMFS.

Pros: Use of a vessel surveyor to monitor construction is the standard. Ship surveyors are a skilled trade, with industry certifications and licenses. The cost of the surveyor is generally proportional to the cost of the vessel. The borrower is responsible for managing and reimbursing the surveyor's costs. NOAA/NMFS could be adequately represented if we required our approval of the surveyor with a requirement to report directly to NMFS. Use of the applicant's surveyor would be paid by the applicant, but NMFS would receive copies of the surveyor's reports to the borrower.

Cons: The borrower has already hired a project manager and other support staff, so the surveyor may add to the overall cost of the vessel. The surveyor will be reporting to the FFP, but hired by the borrower. If one surveyor is reporting to the owner and NMFS but being paid by the owner, there could be a conflict of interest.

The FFP's annual traditional loan authority has been $59 million for a number of years. For FY14, it's $100 million. Even assuming a continuation at the $100 million level, a few large projects for new vessels or major reconstruction ($8-$25 million or more) could use all available loan authority. The FFP wishes to ensure it can continue to help as many industry participants as possible and provide traditional lending for purposes that don't increase capacity. Should there be an allocation reserved for traditional loan purposes?

Pros: The FFP provides a variety of loans for purposes that do not increase capacity. Examples include aquaculture facilities, existing vessel purchases, vessel repairs, and fish processing facilities. Maintaining a portion of loan authority to support these vital projects is important.

Cons: Lending authority set aside for the primary program would not be available to meet potential demand for new vessels or reconstruction projects. Recapitalization could be slowed as a result.

NMFS seeks comments on these questions and recommendations, as well as any alternatives that may achieve the same goals.

This ANPR explains the Fisheries Finance Program management history while also identifying some major potential changes to the program to support recapitalization and modernization of the fishing fleet. Some of the ideas discussed are specific changes to the current restriction on new vessel construction and reconstruction that materially increases the capacity of an existing vessel. This amendment to the FFP could be implemented through a regulatory action within the next year. The other changes discussed include operational considerations for the loan program, but they also signal an overarching policy on providing loans to support recapitalization of the fishing fleet over the long term.

Additionally, we note that all vessel construction or reconstruction projects will be required to be performed at a shipyard in the United States.

It is NMFS's goal to move forward with a viable and flexible vessel replacement and/or modernization solution that will achieve sustainable fishery goals and objectives while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. NMFS seeks public comment on the above issues and recommendations. NMFS anticipates having a relatively short time to draft, publish, and finalize a rule to implement the new authority, as well as to obligate the funds made available for the purpose, because these funds lapse at the end of the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.

The comment period for all topics discussed in this ANPR closes on July 30, 2014. Please see the ADDRESSES section of this ANPR for additional information regarding the submission of written comments. NMFS requests comments on the potential adjustment of the FFP program authority to allow the financing of new vessel construction to replace existing vessels in limited access fisheries.

The preceding sections provide background information regarding these topics and ideas for potential changes. The public is encouraged to submit comments related to the specific ideas and questions asked in each of the preceding sections. All written comments received by the due date will be considered in drafting proposed changes to the Fisheries Finance Program regulations. In developing any proposed regulations, NMFS must consider and analyze ecological, social, and economic impacts. Therefore, NMFS encourages comments that would contribute to the required analyses, and respond to the questions presented in this ANPR.

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

Regulatory Authority

NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 105 to the BSAI FMP. NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska under the BSAI FMP and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. The Council prepared the BSAI FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

The proposed action would revise Federal regulations and amend the BSAI FMP to:

• Define an amount of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the BSAI, that is the difference between each species' annual ABC and annual total allowable catch (TAC), as the ABC surplus for that flatfish species.

• Allow the Council to recommend, and NMFS to specify, that some, none, or all, of the ABC surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI be set aside each year through the annual harvest specifications process. The amount of ABC surplus set aside for a species is the ABC reserve.

• Allow CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives to apply to NMFS to receive a portion of the ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI if they exchange a portion of their unused annual allocations of one or two flatfish species for an equal amount of another flatfish species (e.g., exchange an amount of unused annual allocation of flathead sole or allocations of flathead sole and rock sole for an equal amount of yellowfin sole ABC reserve). This exchange would be defined as a Flatfish Exchange.

• Allow a Flatfish Exchange only if it would not cause a CDQ group or an Amendment 80 cooperative to exceed the ABC or ABC reserve amount for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole.

• Limit the number of Flatfish Exchanges that each CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative could undertake in a calendar year.

• Require that Amendment 80 cooperatives provide an annual report on the use of Flatfish Exchanges.

The purpose of this proposed action is to maximize catch, retention, and utilization of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole while maintaining catch at, or below, the ABC and ABC reserve for each species. The following sections provide necessary background to describe the effects of the proposed action. These sections are: (1) The annual harvest specification process; (2) the CDQ Program; (3) the Amendment 80 Program; (4) the objectives for and effects of the proposed action; and (5) the proposed action. The proposed action section includes a description of: The process for setting the ABC surplus and the ABC reserve; the method for determining the portion of the ABC reserve for each flatfish species available to each CDQ group and Amendment 80 cooperative; the Flatfish Exchange process each CDQ group and Amendment 80 cooperative must use; and annual Amendment 80 cooperative Flatfish Exchange reporting requirements.

Section 3.2.3 of the BSAI FMP and its implementing regulations at § 679.20(c) require that the Council recommend and NMFS specify an overfishing level (OFL), an ABC, and a TAC for each stock or stock complex (i.e., species or species group) of groundfish on an annual basis. The OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for BSAI groundfish are specified through the annual harvest specification process. A detailed description of the annual harvest specification process is provided in the Harvest Specifications EIS, the Harvest Specifications SIR, and the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014) and is briefly summarized here.

Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines the OFL as the level above which overfishing is occurring for a species or species group. NMFS manages fisheries in an effort to ensure that no OFLs are exceeded in any year. Section 3.2.4.3 of the BSAI FMP clarifies that if catch is approaching an OFL, NMFS will prevent overfishing by closing specific fisheries identified by gear and area that incur the greatest catch. Closures expand to other fisheries if the rate of take is not sufficiently slowed. Regulations at §§ 679.20(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) define the process NMFS uses to limit or prohibit fishing to prevent overfishing and maintain total catch at or below the OFL.

Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines the ABC as the level of a species or species group's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty. The ABC cannot exceed the OFL as described in section 3.2.3.3.1 of the BSAI FMP. NMFS attempts to manage all fisheries so that total catch does not exceed the ABC by monitoring fisheries, imposing necessary closures, and other limitations. Regulations at §§ 679.20(d)(1) and (d)(2) describe the range of management measures that NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or below the ABC.

Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines the TAC as the annual catch target for a species or species group, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty. Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the BSAI FMP requires that the TAC must be set lower than or equal to the ABC. Section 3.2.4.3 of the BSAI FMP clarifies that NMFS may use a variety of management measures to limit catch to avoid exceeding the TAC. Regulations at §§ 679.20(d)(1) and (d)(2) describe the range of management measures that NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or below the TAC.

The development of the OFLs and ABCs are based on annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports compiled by the Council's BSAI Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team) and reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Advisory Panel (AP). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the BSAI ecosystem and the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The Plan Team publicly reviews the SAFE reports, receives input from the public, and recommends any needed revisions to the SAFE reports, estimates an OFL and ABC for each species or species group, and provides those recommendations to the Council.

Annually at the December Council meeting, the Council, the SSC, and the AP, publicly review the Plan Team's recommendations. During this meeting, the Council adopts OFLs and ABCs that cannot exceed the amounts recommended by the SSC. In setting specific TAC levels, the Council considers the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass.

Section 3.2.2.2 of the BSAI FMP and regulations at § 679.20(a)(2) require the sum of the TACs in all BSAI groundfish fisheries to be set within a range from 1.4 to 2 million metric tons (mt). This regulation implements the statutory requirement that “[t]he optimum yield for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area shall not exceed 2 million metric tons” (See section 803(c) of Pub. L. No. 108-199). Pursuant to Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the BSAI FMP, the Council may recommend TACs that are lower than the ABCs recommended by the SSC if setting TACs equal to ABCs would cause TACs to exceed 2 million mt. NMFS adheres to the statutory provision by limiting the sum of the TACs for all BSAI groundfish to 2 million mt. Generally, the sum of the ABCs for BSAI groundfish exceeds 2 million mt. For example, in 2014 the sum of all BSAI groundfish ABCs was 2,572,819 mt (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). In recent years, the Council and NMFS have specified TACs for several species below their respective ABCs to ensure that the sum of the TACs for groundfish in the BSAI does not exceed 2 million mt.

In addition to public comment received and considered by the Council during the development of annual harvest specifications, NMFS provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment when it issues a proposed rule to implement the annual harvest specifications, which covers the Council's OFL, ABC, and TAC recommendations. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) will approve the final rule implementing the Council's recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs if she finds them consistent with the FMP, MSA, and other applicable law. The final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications provide additional detail on this process (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014).

Flatfish in the BSAI are harvested by vessels primarily using trawl gear. In this mixed species fishery, operators target certain species of flatfish but also take a variety of species incidentally, including halibut and crab (species that are prohibited for harvest by vessels fishing for groundfish), and other groundfish that typically occupy the same habitat at the same times of year. The composition of groundfish species taken in the BSAI flatfish fisheries varies by season and by fishing year.

Three of the most valuable BSAI flatfish fisheries, and the focus of this proposed action, are flathead sole, rock sole ( Lepidopsetta polyxystra ), and yellowfin sole ( Limanda aspera ). In the BSAI, flathead sole represents two morphologically similar species managed by NMFS as single species group. The flathead sole referred to in this document, and targeted in BSAI flatfish fisheries, is comprised of flathead sole ( Hippoglossoides elassodon ) and Bering flounder ( Hippoglossoides robustus ); the harvest of both species accrues toward a flathead sole TAC.

Typically the Council has recommended, and NMFS has approved, setting flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole TACs below the ABCs for those species for a variety of factors summarized here and described in greater detail in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action. In the Bering Sea, pollock is the target of a highly valued fishery; therefore, the Council often recommends, and NMFS approves, a TAC that is at, or near, the ABC for Bering Sea pollock, and that TAC is almost always completely harvested each year. The pollock TAC accounts for a large portion of the total groundfish available for harvest under the OY range for all BSAI groundfish. For example, in 2014 the Bering Sea pollock ABC is 1,369,000 mt and the TAC is 1,267,000 mt (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). This TAC level means that the sum of the TACs for all remaining BSAI groundfish in 2014 must not exceed 733,000 mt to ensure that the sum of the TACs for all BSAI groundfish does not exceed 2 million mt. It follows that setting TACs equal to ABCs for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole would further limit or eliminate harvest opportunities in the remaining non-pollock groundfish fisheries that also must be accommodated within the 2 million mt TAC limit. Although there is a relatively large biomass of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, and relatively large ABCs, compared to other BSAI groundfish species, the TACs set for these three flatfish species have not been fully harvested in recent years. Some of the reasons for the relatively limited harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole include the uncertain nature of harvest in these multi-species flatfish fisheries, operational factors specific to the CDQ Program and Amendment 80 fisheries, and economic conditions. These factors are described in more detail below in the “CDQ Program” and “Amendment 80 Program” sections of this preamble. For these reasons the Council did not recommend setting the TAC equal to ABC for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in 2014.

During the annual harvest specification process, the Council and NMFS must apportion the flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole TAC according to specific regulatory requirements. First, regulations require that NMFS reserve 10.7 percent of the TAC for each of these species for use by CDQ groups (see regulations at §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). Second, the remaining TAC for each of these species is reduced by an incidental catch allowance (ICA) to account for incidental catch of flathead sole, rock sole and yellowfin sole by non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80 Program participants (see regulations at §§ 679.20(a)(8) and (10)). For the purposes of this proposed action, incidental catch refers to the flatfish caught and retained while targeting another species or species group. For example, NMFS must accommodate incidental catch of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea pollock fishery by including an amount in the ICA that will accommodate incidental catch in that fishery; NMFS must also add an amount to the yellowfin sole ICA to accommodate incidental catch in all other non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80 fisheries. Third, the remainder of the TAC is assigned to Amendment 80 Program and non-Amendment 80 Program participants as required for each species. Regulations require that the flathead sole and rock sole TACs remaining after establishing the CDQ reserves and ICAs are fully assigned to the Amendment 80 Program (see Table 33 to part 679). The yellowfin sole TAC remaining after establishing the CDQ reserve and the ICA is apportioned between the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector (i.e., non-Amendment 80 trawl vessels) according to a specific formula that varies with the abundance of yellowfin sole (see Table 34 to part 679 for additional detail).

The CDQ Program is an economic development program associated with federally managed fisheries in the BSAI. The purpose of the CDQ Program is to provide western Alaska communities with the opportunity to participate and invest in BSAI fisheries, to support economic development in western Alaska, to alleviate poverty, to provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska.

Regulations establishing the CDQ Program were first implemented in 1992 (57 FR 46133, October 7, 1992). Additional provisions applicable to the CDQ Program were incorporated in the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 through the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Pub. L. 104-297). Regulations implementing the CDQ Program provide an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the groundfish, crab, and halibut annual catch limits for use by non-profit entities representing specific eligible western Alaska communities. These exclusive harvest privileges are known as CDQ allocations. A total of 65 communities are authorized under section 305(i)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to participate in the CDQ Program. These communities participate in the CDQ Program through six nonprofit corporations (CDQ groups) that manage and administer the CDQ allocations, investments, and economic development projects. These communities, and their CDQ groups, are identified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act at section 305(i)(1)(D).

The CDQ Program is defined as a catch share program because it provides an exclusive harvest privilege (i.e., a CDQ allocation) to a specific fishery participant (i.e., a CDQ group) for its exclusive use. The CDQ Program allocates a portion of commercially important BSAI groundfish species, including flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, to the CDQ groups. Specific to this proposed action, section 305(i)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires an annual allocation of 10.7 percent of the TAC of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to the CDQ Program. Section 305(i)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act clarifies that 10 percent of the TAC for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole is allocated among the six CDQ groups, based on the percentage allocations that were in effect on March 1, 2006, while the remaining 0.7 percent of the TAC for each of these species is distributed among CDQ groups based on the percentage allocations agreed on by a Board of Directors, serving in its capacity as the Administrative Panel or is allocated by the Secretary based on the nontarget needs of eligible CDQ groups in the absence of an Administrative Panel decision (see section 305(i)(1)(G) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act). Currently, the Western Alaska Community Development Association (WACDA) serves as the Administrative Panel specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and defines the allocation of 0.7 percent of the TAC for each of these species among the CDQ groups. Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides additional detail on the CDQ allocations of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to the CDQ Program as a whole, and to each CDQ group.

NMFS prohibits any CDQ group from exceeding its CDQ allocation (see regulations at § 679.7(d)(3)). NMFS established this regulatory prohibition to hold CDQ groups accountable for maintaining their catch below their CDQ allocations. NMFS determined that this management measure is appropriate because CDQ groups have greater control over their harvesting activities, and are not engaged in a “race for fish” that can occur in fisheries that do not receive an exclusive harvest privilege. The CDQ allocations allow CDQ groups to make operational choices to improve fishery returns, reduce bycatch, and reduce fish discards. These operational changes are not likely to occur under a race for fish. Since the implementation of the CDQ Program, CDQ groups have maintained all harvests within their CDQ allocations with very few overages.

CDQ groups can also transfer their CDQ allocation among CDQ groups to provide an opportunity for CDQ groups to more fully harvest their allocations (see regulations at § 679.5(n)). This transfer provision helps CDQ groups ensure that they can receive a transfer if needed and have adequate allocations to avoid exceeding their CDQ allocation.

Currently, the six CDQ groups harvest their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations through contracts with Amendment 80 and non-Amendment 80 harvesting partners. Although the CDQ groups vary individually in the degree to which they harvest their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations, the six CDQ groups have not collectively harvested their allocations in recent years. For example, from 2008 through 2012, CDQ groups have collectively harvested approximately 12 percent of their flathead sole, 30 percent of their rock sole, and 39 percent of their yellowfin sole CDQ allocations. Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA provides additional detail on the dynamics that can affect the ability of CDQ groups to fully harvest their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations. Those dynamics are also summarized in the “Amendment 80 Program” section of the preamble.

In June 2006, the Council adopted Amendment 80 to the BSAI FMP, which was implemented in 2008 with a final rule published in 2007 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007) and is commonly known as the Amendment 80 Program. Among other measures, the Amendment 80 Program authorized the allocation of six BSAI groundfish species to trawl catcher/processors (C/Ps) that are not specifically listed as authorized to conduct directed fishing for Bering Sea pollock under the American Fisheries Act of 1998 (AFA) (Pub. L. 105-227, Title II of Division C). The minimum participation requirements to enter this non-AFA trawl C/P subsector were established by Congress in section 219(a)(7) of the BSAI Catcher Processor Capacity Reduction Program, which is contained within the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-447). Based on these criteria, NMFS determined that 28 non-AFA trawl C/Ps originally qualified for the Amendment 80 Program. These non-AFA trawl C/Ps are commonly referred to as Amendment 80 vessels or the Amendment 80 sector. The final rule implementing Amendment 80 provides additional detail on the Amendment 80 Program (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Key elements of the Amendment 80 Program applicable to this proposed action are summarized here.

NMFS issued an Amendment 80 quota share (QS) permit to each person holding the catch history of an original qualifying Amendment 80 vessel beginning in 2008. The amount of QS issued was based on the qualifying Amendment 80 vessel's catch history of six license limitation groundfish species, known as Amendment 80 species (i.e., Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, Atka mackerel, flathead sole, Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole), in the BSAI from 1998 through 2004. The sum of all Amendment 80 QS issued for an Amendment 80 species is defined as the Amendment 80 QS pool.

The Amendment 80 Program is intended primarily to improve retention and utilization of fishery resources; encourage fishing practices with lower discard rates; and improve the opportunity for increasing the value of harvested species while lowering operational costs. The Amendment 80 Program accomplishes these goals by encouraging the formation of cooperatives and the development of cooperative fishing practices among all persons holding Amendment 80 QS permits. Amendment 80 cooperatives are eligible to receive cooperative quota (CQ), which represents an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the TAC for each Amendment 80 species annually. Throughout this preamble, the term CQ is used to refer to Amendment 80 CQ. An Amendment 80 cooperative receives an allocation of CQ for a specific Amendment 80 species based on the proportion of the total amount of Amendment 80 QS assigned to that cooperative (e.g., an Amendment 80 cooperative would receive 60 percent of the flathead sole CQ if the members of the cooperative held 60 percent of the flathead sole QS). In any given fishing year, Amendment 80 sector participants who do not choose to join a harvesting cooperative must fish in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, without an exclusive harvest privilege. Participants in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery race for fish with other participants in that fishery. Amendment 80 cooperatives receive CQ that allows vessel operators to make operational choices to reduce discards, reduce bycatch, and improve the value of Amendment 80 species harvests because the incentives of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery—to maximize catch rates to capture a larger share of the available catch—are removed. Amendment 80 cooperatives, like CDQ groups, operate as catch share fisheries. The Amendment 80 Program provides an exclusive harvest privilege (i.e., CQ) to a specific fishery participant (i.e., an Amendment 80 cooperative) for its exclusive use. The benefits realized by the Amendment 80 Program are described more fully in the final rule implementing Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007).

NMFS prohibits any Amendment 80 cooperative from exceeding its CQ allocation (see regulations at § 679.7(o)(4)(iv)). NMFS established this regulatory prohibition to hold Amendment 80 cooperatives accountable for maintaining their catch below their CQ allocations. NMFS determined that this management measure is appropriate because Amendment 80 cooperatives have greater control over their harvesting activities, and are not engaged in a race for fish that can occur in fisheries that do not receive exclusive harvest privileges. No Amendment 80 cooperative has exceeded any of its CQ allocations since the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program.

Although the Amendment 80 Program has met many of its goals, Amendment 80 cooperatives have found it difficult to predict the amount of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole that can be taken when specifically targeting those species, while ensuring adequate CQ remains to accommodate incidental harvest of these species while targeting other species (e.g., an Amendment 80 cooperative must ensure that it has adequate yellowfin sole CQ to accommodate both a targeted yellowfin sole fishery and all incidental harvest of yellowfin sole in all other BSAI fisheries). Section 1.5.3 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides additional detail on specific conditions that can constrain the full use of a cooperative's flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ. Those factors are briefly summarized here.

As an Amendment 80 cooperative approaches the maximum harvest permitted under its CQ, all participants in the cooperative must modify their fishing behavior to avoid exceeding that CQ allocation. Amendment 80 cooperative members rely on their cooperative managers to assist them in their multi-species flatfish fisheries to ensure cooperatives do not exceed their CQ allocation. Prior to the start of the fishing year, Amendment 80 cooperative managers consider the specific fishing plans of cooperative members, and anticipated incidental catch of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole by cooperative members in other fisheries in the BSAI. However, the relative catch composition of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole can be unpredictable from month to month, and from year to year. Because of this uncertainty, Amendment 80 cooperative managers may recommend cooperative members limit the harvest of certain species early in the fishing year. For example, Amendment 80 cooperative members may choose to stop fishing in the valuable rock sole roe fishery that occurs in the early part of the year (winter), to ensure adequate rock sole CQ is available to accommodate incidental harvest of rock sole while fishing for yellowfin sole from late summer through fall. If rock sole incidental catch is lower than expected in the fall fisheries, too much rock sole CQ may have been set aside and there may no longer be adequate opportunity for cooperative members to target rock sole at the end of the fishing year and fully use the remaining rock sole CQ. The economic loss of this foregone harvest may be amplified because the Amendment 80 cooperative members did not harvest as much of the higher value roe-bearing rock sole as could have been possible earlier in the fishing year.

Variations in environmental conditions also can constrain the ability of cooperative managers and cooperative members to predict changes in catch composition over time and space. The location of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole aggregations on fishing grounds, particularly those that can be harvested with limited bycatch of halibut, is affected by the location of colder water, “cold pool,” on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf. Ice conditions in the Bering Sea, which can vary substantially from year to year, can effectively preclude vessels from reaching specific fishing grounds where flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole are typically harvested. Vessel operators may have to shift harvesting to other non-flatfish species during these conditions. This shift could increase incidental harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, and decrease the number of opportunities for cooperative members to target these flatfish later in the fishing year. The unpredictable nature of environmental conditions limits the ability of cooperative managers and vessel operators to predict harvest rates or harvest amounts.

Market conditions may also affect harvests. BSAI flatfish are sold into a global market, and a wide array of factors may make harvests of a given flatfish species more or less economically desirable, or not economically viable to harvest. These market conditions may change throughout the year, and cooperative managers may have a difficult time coordinating fishing plans to accommodate uncertainty in incidental harvest rates, unpredictable environmental conditions, and changing market conditions.

As the fishing year progresses, vessel operators and cooperative managers can better predict whether they will fully harvest their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ. However, harvest opportunities later in the year may be limited due to the lack of time to fully harvest CQ for a specific species before the end of the year and the expiration of the annual CQ permit. As noted earlier, environmental conditions could limit access to fishing grounds for specific species, and changing market conditions may make it uneconomic to harvest a species later in a year.

During the development of the Amendment 80 Program, the Council and NMFS recognized the broad range of intra- and inter-annual factors that can affect catch composition. As noted in the preamble to the final rule for the Amendment 80 Program, this variability could be addressed within cooperatives and between cooperatives through non-regulatory contractual agreements (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Specifically, Amendment 80 cooperatives have established private contractual arrangements stipulating processes and procedures cooperative members use to share information on catch rates and ensure access to CQ issued to the cooperative (i.e., intra-cooperative transfers) as needed, while ensuring other members are not unduly constrained.

The Amendment 80 Program incorporates regulatory provisions that are designed to facilitate the harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. Regulations provide that if, during a fishing year, NMFS determines that a portion of the flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole ICA or yellowfin sole TAC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is unlikely to be harvested, NMFS may reallocate that remaining amount to Amendment 80 cooperatives in proportion to the amount of Amendment 80 QS for that flatfish species assigned to that cooperative (see regulations at § 679.20(a)(10)(iii)(B)). This provision provides additional harvest opportunities to Amendment 80 cooperatives to the extent there are remaining amounts of ICAs or BSAI trawl limited access yellowfin sole TAC.

The Amendment 80 Program established provisions that allow the transfer of CQ between cooperatives to allow more efficient use of Amendment 80 species among cooperatives (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007, see regulations at § 679.91(g)). Inter-cooperative transfers have been used to maximize the harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ. Beginning in 2011, and in each year since, each Amendment 80 QS holder has been a member of one of the two Amendment 80 cooperatives. Since 2011, the use of inter-cooperative transfers increased (see Section 1.4.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action).

In 2009, the Council recommended, and NMFS adopted, revisions to the inter-cooperative transfer provisions to allow post-delivery transfers in the Amendment 80 Program (74 FR 42178, August 21, 2009). These revisions mitigate potential overages, reduce enforcement costs, and provide for more precise TAC management and more value from the harvests for participants. Post-delivery transfers also increase fleet flexibility and allow more efficient use of resources. The flexibility to complete transfers after deliveries reduces the potential that some CQ will remain unharvested if a cooperative is not able to harvest its CQ allocation without the risk of an overage, and minimizes the potential for CQ overages because a CQ account can be balanced after delivery (see regulations at § 679.7(o)(4)(v)). Section 1.4.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides additional detail on non-regulatory and regulatory measures used to maximize the harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ.

Although a broad range of non-regulatory arrangements exist and regulatory measures have been implemented to aid in the more complete harvesting of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ, these measures do not fully address the range of conditions summarized here that can constrain harvest. Although annual harvest rates by Amendment 80 cooperatives can vary, from 2008 through 2012, Amendment 80 cooperatives harvested approximately 21 percent of their flathead sole, 55 percent of their rock sole, and 48 percent of their yellowfin sole CQ. The fact that harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole are substantially below the available CQ suggests that existing management measures may not provide the flexibility needed to allow more complete harvest.

The factors discussed here that limit Amendment 80 cooperatives from fully harvesting their allocations also apply to the CDQ groups. As noted in the “CDQ Program” section of this preamble, CDQ groups contract with both Amendment 80 and non-Amendment 80 vessels to harvest their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations. Both Amendment 80 vessels and non-Amendment 80 vessels fishing CDQ allocations are affected by the same uncertain operational conditions (e.g., difficultly predicting harvest rates of flatfish in target and non-target fisheries), unpredictable environmental conditions, and market conditions that can limit harvest. Recent harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole by the six CDQ groups have been substantially below CDQ allocations, as described in Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA and the “CDQ Program” section of this preamble. This indicates that existing management measures applicable to CDQ groups may not provide the flexibility needed to allow more complete harvest.

The objective of this proposed action is to establish a new accounting methodology that would provide CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives with additional opportunities to fully harvest flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole allocations, while ensuring ABCs cannot be exceeded. This proposed action would establish regulatory limits to ensure that the individual ABCs for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole would not be exceeded, while facilitating a more complete harvest of one or more of these flatfish species, up to the ABC for a species, if specific conditions are met. Although an individual TAC (not ABC) may be exceeded, this proposed rule would establish a regulatory mechanism designed to prevent the sum of all TACs for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole from being exceeded, thereby ensuring the sum of BSAI groundfish TACs does not exceed 2 million mt. Moreover, because no exchange can exceed the ABC reserve and because the action requires the consideration of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole catch during the harvest of groundfish and incidental catch of non-groundfish species prior to any flatfish exchange, this proposed action would ensure that the ABC for each flatfish species would not be exceeded. This proposed action is designed to provide the tools necessary to maximize the sustainable harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, and thus continues to achieve the OY in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.

The rationale for this proposed action follows. Flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole are valuable species that are not fully harvested due to a variety of statutory and regulatory constraints on the setting of TACs and operational, economic, and environmental limitations described previously in this preamble and detailed in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action. The proposed modifications provide additional flexibility to existing management practices and are appropriate given the fact that CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives are participating in catch share fisheries that are capable of limiting their overall harvests within specific catch limits, and CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives are subject to strict management controls that prohibit fishing beyond these catch limits as described in the “CDQ Program” and “Amendment 80 Program” sections of this preamble.

Although CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives have a range of regulatory tools available to maximize harvests, such as the ability to transfer allocations of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole between CDQ groups or between Amendment 80 cooperatives to increase overall harvesting opportunities, the existing harvest patterns indicate that neither CDQ groups or Amendment 80 cooperatives are likely to fully harvest their existing allocations (see the “CDQ Program” and “Amendment 80 Program” sections of this preamble and Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). The Council and NMFS expect that additional regulatory tools will promote increased harvest of CDQ and CQ allocations. This proposed action is not intended to completely resolve the complex issues that have constrained the CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives from fully harvesting their flatfish allocations. This proposed action is intended to provide the flexible management necessary to mitigate a diverse range of conditions that may limit catch of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.

This proposed action is also intended to preserve the Council's and NMFS' ability to consider a broad range of factors when determining how much flexibility to provide CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives through the annual harvest specifications process. For example, the Council could recommend setting the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to account for any management uncertainty as a precautionary measure. If approved, this action promotes the Council's and NMFS' ability to ensure a transparent annual harvest specification process and articulate the criteria by which the Council and NMFS are making those decisions.

The objectives of this proposed action are consistent with the 10 National Standards established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed action addresses the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards and would balance a number of competing objectives for fishery conservation and management. These include National Standard 1, National Standard 8, and National Standard 9. National Standard 1 requires that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. The ability to harvest the entire TAC for each groundfish fishery, in any given year, is not determinative of whether the BSAI groundfish fishery achieves optimum yield. Providing the opportunity for the CDQ groups and the Amendment 80 cooperatives to maximize catch, retention, and utilization of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole while maintaining catch at or below the ABC for each species is one aspect of achieving optimum yield in the long term. National Standard 8 requires considering the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities. This action is intended to improve the ability of CDQ groups to harvest their allocations, which could increase the economic benefits that CDQ groups and western Alaska communities derive from the BSAI groundfish fisheries. National Standard 9 requires that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch. This proposed action is intended to result in higher retention and utilization of groundfish without increasing overall bycatch of groundfish or non-groundfish species beyond existing limitations, such as the ABCs.

Other species of flatfish that are harvested by CDQ groups and the Amendment 80 sector would not be subject to this proposed action, because only Arrowtooth flounder and Bering Sea Greenland turbot are allocated to the CDQ groups, and no other flatfish species are allocated to the Amendment 80 Program. Therefore, these other flatfish species are still subject to a race for fish. This limits the ability of CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives to constrain harvests of non-allocated flatfish species, and reduces the management and enforcement tools available to NMFS to ensure harvests do not exceed an ABC. In addition, other flatfish fisheries are not allocated to CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives and are not prosecuted in the same manner as mixed-stock flatfish fisheries that include flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole (see Sections 1.5.3 and 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). Therefore, there is no need to provide the same management flexibility to the other flatfish fisheries as this proposed action would provide to the CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives. Participants that do not join an Amendment 80 cooperative and participate in an Amendment 80 limited access fishery would not be subject to this proposed rule and would not receive the opportunity to access an ABC reserve (see Section 1.4.2 in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). The participants in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would continue in a race for fish. Such participants are not subject to the strict management controls that apply to CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives, such as prohibitions against fishing once a CDQ or CQ allocation is reached. Similarly, the BSAI trawl limited access sector, which is allocated a portion of the yellowfin sole TAC, is not assigned an exclusive harvest privilege as are CDQ groups and the Amendment 80 cooperatives. The lack of exclusive harvest privileges in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery and the BSAI trawl limited access sector limits NMFS' ability to strictly manage harvests to ensure an ABC is not exceeded; therefore, those sectors would not be eligible for Flatfish Exchanges.

This action proposes the following changes to the existing regulatory text at 50 CFR part 679:

• Add definitions for “ABC reserve,” “ABC surplus,” “Amendment 80 ABC reserve,” “CDQ ABC reserve,” and “Flatfish Exchange” to § 679.2.

• Add § 679.4(p) to establish the Flatfish Exchange Application requirements and annual limitations on the number of Flatfish Exchanges.

• Add requirements for the Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report to § 679.5(s)(7).

• Add § 679.20(b)(1)(iii) to establish the ABC reserves, CDQ ABC reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC reserves as part of the general limitations.

• Revise § 679.20(c)(1)(iv) to include Flatfish Exchange specifications in the annual proposed groundfish harvest specifications.

• Revise § 679.20(c)(3)(iii) to include Flatfish Exchange specifications in the annual final groundfish harvest specifications.

• In § 679.31, revise the headings of paragraphs (a) and (b) to be consistent with this proposed rule.

• Add § 679.31(a)(5) to establish the CDQ ABC reserve as part of the CDQ allocations.

• Add § 679.31(b)(4) to allocate CDQ ABC reserves among CDQ groups.

• Add § 679.31(d) to allow CDQ groups to access the CDQ ABC reserves.

• Add § 679.91(i) to establish the Amendment 80 ABC reserves as annual harvest privileges allocated to Amendment 80 cooperatives, and to allow Amendment 80 cooperatives to access the Amendment 80 ABC reserves.

NMFS proposes revising regulations at § 679.2 to define the ABC surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the BSAI as the difference between each species' annual ABC and TAC. NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.20(c)(1)(iv) to clarify that the ABC surplus would be specified in the annual harvest specifications. Under this proposed action, the Council would continue to set the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs, and allocations of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the annual harvest specifications process, and once those amounts are determined, the annual harvest specifications would also specify an ABC surplus for each flatfish species. The ABC surplus would represent the maximum additional amount of flathead sole, rock sole or yellowfin sole that could be harvested above the TAC. However, the actual amount available for harvest would be the ABC reserve.

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.2 to define the ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the BSAI as an amount equal to or less than the ABC surplus, depending on whether the Council and NMFS reduce the surplus for social, economic, or ecological considerations during the determination of the annual harvest specifications. NMFS proposes to revise annual harvest specifications regulations at § 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A) to clarify that the ABC reserve would be set after consultation with the Council. Unless the Council recommends otherwise, or NMFS determines there is a need to set the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus, NMFS would set the ABC reserve equal to the ABC surplus for each species. Setting the ABC reserve as a portion of the ABC surplus, or equal to the ABC surplus, would ensure that the total amount of each species that is accessible would not exceed the ABC.

Section 1.4.3 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides additional detail on why the ABC reserve may be set below the ABC surplus, and those factors are briefly summarized here. The Council or NMFS could choose to establish a precautionary buffer to accommodate uncertainty in harvests under an ICA, or to address a range of socioeconomic considerations. As noted in the “Annual Harvest Specifications” section of this preamble, the amount of harvest in the ICA can be uncertain from year to year because it is difficult to predict specific incidental harvest rates in the non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80 fisheries. The Council and NMFS may deem it appropriate to set the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus to accommodate potential harvests of non-target species greater than the ICA. Similarly, the Council may recommend establishing an ABC reserve less than the ABC surplus to accommodate market conditions. For example, the Council may be concerned that setting an ABC reserve for a given species at a specific harvest level could increase supply, and thereby reduce demand and reduce the ex-vessel value of that flatfish species. These effects could affect CDQ groups, Amendment 80 cooperatives, and other fishery participants differently. The Council and NMFS could evaluate these socioeconomic considerations when setting the ABC reserve. The specific recommendation to set an ABC reserve below the ABC surplus for a specific flatfish species would be described in the annual harvest specifications.

Once the ABC reserve is identified for a flatfish species, the ABC reserve for that flatfish species would then be apportioned among CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives. NMFS would publish the allocation of ABC reserve available to CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives in the proposed and final harvest specifications. NMFS proposes revising annual harvest specification regulations at §§ 679.20(c)(1)(iv) and (3)(iii) to clarify that the proposed and final harvest specifications would include the ABC surplus, the ABC reserve, the CDQ ABC reserve, the apportionment of the CDQ ABC reserve among CDQ groups, the Amendment 80 ABC reserve, and the apportionment of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve among Amendment 80 cooperatives. This revision would be necessary to clearly inform the public about the specific proposed and final allocations. Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/IRFA provides additional detail on the process for allocating the ABC reserve among CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives.

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.2 to define a “CDQ ABC reserve” as 10.7 percent of the amount of the flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that is allocated among CDQ groups as annually calculated according to the methods described at § 679.31(b)(4). As noted in the “CDQ Program” portion of the preamble, the CDQ Program is currently allocated 10.7 percent of the TAC for these flatfish species. This proposed rule would allocate 10.7 percent of the ABC reserve of each of these flatfish species to the CDQ Program to be consistent with section 305(i)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that requires that 10.7 of the TAC be assigned to the CDQ Program.

NMFS proposes to revise annual harvest specification regulations at § 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(B) to clarify that an amount equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole would be allocated to CDQ ABC reserves for each species. The CDQ ABC reserves would be further allocated to each CDQ group as described under § 679.31(b)(4). NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.31(b)(4) to clarify that NMFS would allocate each CDQ ABC reserve among CDQ groups consistent with the requirements in section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for allocating TAC among CDQ groups. Specifically, 10 percent of the ABC reserve would be allocated in fixed percentages to specific CDQ groups as described in section 305(i)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, while the remaining 0.7 percent of the ABC reserve would be allocated among CDQ groups according to WACDA agreements (i.e., the Administrative Panel established in section 305(i)(1)(G) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act). Alternative methods for calculating catch limits and allocating the CDQ ABC reserve were considered by the Council and NMFS and rejected because they would not be consistent with 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA for additional information).

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.2 to define an “Amendment 80 ABC reserve” as the amount of the flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that remains for each species after designating the amount assigned to the CDQ ABC reserves. The Amendment 80 ABC reserve would be allocated among Amendment 80 cooperatives annually as calculated according to the methods described at § 679.91(i)(2).

NMFS proposes to revise annual harvest specification regulations at § 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(C) to clarify that the Amendment 80 ABC reserve would be calculated as the ABC reserves as reduced by the CDQ ABC reserve. Given the allocation of 10.7 percent of the ABC reserve to the CDQ ABC reserve, 89.3 percent of the ABC reserve would be allocated to the Amendment 80 ABC reserve. The Amendment 80 ABC reserves would be apportioned to each Amendment 80 cooperative as described under § 679.91(i)(2).

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.91(i)(2) to clarify that the amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserve for each species of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative is equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS units of that species assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders divided by the total Amendment 80 QS pool for that species multiplied by the Amendment 80 ABC reserve for that species. For example, if 60 percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 QS were assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders, that Amendment 80 cooperative would receive access to 60 percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves. This approach would ensure that each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive access to a portion of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve in proportion to its Amendment 80 QS holdings of a species, and in turn would provide flexibility for Amendment 80 cooperatives to engage in exchanges to maximize their overall harvest of flatfish. Alternative methods for allocating the Amendment 80 ABC reserve among Amendment 80 cooperatives were considered and rejected because they did not provide an equitable allocation of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve in proportion to Amendment 80 QS holdings (see Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action for additional information).

Under these proposed regulations, it is important to note that if all Amendment 80 QS holders have not joined an Amendment 80 cooperative, not all of an Amendment 80 ABC reserve would be allocated. Using the example provided in this section of the preamble, if there is only one Amendment 80 cooperative in the Amendment 80 sector that is assigned 60 percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 QS, and all other Amendment 80 QS holders are participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, then NMFS would allocate only 60 percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserve to that Amendment 80 cooperative. The remaining 40 percent of the flathead sole, 70 percent of the rock sole, and 80 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserve would not be allocated. NMFS notes that this example differs from the one previously provided to the Council in the Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action when the Council recommended Amendment 105. Under both examples, the scenario is identical (i.e. some Amendment 80 QS holders are not members of the single cooperative). Unfortunately, the example in the RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendment 45 that was available to the Council at that time did not consider that allocating 100 percent of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve to a portion of the Amendment 80 QS holders is inconsistent with overall Council intent that the apportionment of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve for a species be in proportion the amount of the Amendment 80 QS pool the Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned for that species. Allocating all the Amendment 80 ABC reserve to a cooperative out of proportion to its Amendment 80 QS holdings could create incentives for members of the sole Amendment 80 cooperative to exclude Amendment 80 QS holders from an Amendment 80 cooperative to increase the amount of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve available to it. These effects on Amendment 80 cooperative formation and membership were not considered or addressed by the Council at the time it recommended Amendment 105. The example and method for apportioning the Amendment 80 ABC reserve provided above in this preamble is consistent with Council intent and would instead assign the Amendment 80 ABC reserve in proportion to the amount of the Amendment 80 QS pool an Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned. Additional detail on this example and the consistency of this example with the Council's overall recommendation for Amendment 105 is provided in Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.

In years where no CQ is assigned, Flatfish Exchanges could not occur among Amendment 80 Program participants. Since the establishment of the Amendment 80 Program, one or two Amendment 80 cooperatives have been established each year. Since 2011, all Amendment 80 QS holders are members of an Amendment 80 cooperative. However, it is possible that Amendment 80 QS holders may be unwilling or unable to establish a cooperative. In years when no Amendment 80 cooperatives are established, NMFS would not assign any Amendment 80 ABC reserve because there would be no Amendment 80 cooperatives receiving CQ.

To aid the reader in understanding this proposed action, this section provides a hypothetical example of the annual harvest specification process and the allocation of the ABC surplus, ABC reserve, CDQ ABC reserve, and Amendment 80 ABC reserve. This example uses the 2014 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs established for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). This example also uses the 2014 apportionments of CDQ among CDQ groups, and the allocation of CQ among Amendment 80 cooperatives that existed at the time of publication of the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). Specifically, there are six CDQ groups, and two Amendment 80 cooperatives that include all of the Amendment 80 QS holders. For this example, the flathead sole and rock sole ABC reserves are set 1,000 mt below the ABC surpluses for those species, the yellowfin sole ABC reserve is set 500 mt below the yellowfin sole ABC surplus.

Table 1 describes the OFLs, ABCs, ABC surpluses, ABC surpluses, CDQ ABC reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC reserves based on the proposed allocation methodologies described previously in this preamble. Table 2 shows the allocation of the TAC among the ICA, CDQ Program, Amendment 80 Program, and the BSAI trawl limited access sector.

Table 3 describes the allocation of the ABC reserve among the six CDQ groups based on the CDQ allocations that existed at the time of publication of the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). A matrix describing the specific allocations to each CDQ group, for each CDQ species, is available on the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cdq/allocations/annualmatrix2014.pdf. As noted earlier in this preamble, the CDQ ABC reserve is equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC reserve for each of these flatfish species. Table 3 describes the allocation of the CDQ ABC reserve based on the CDQ allocations to CDQ groups applicable in 2014.

Table 4 describes the allocation of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve between the two Amendment 80 cooperatives that applied for CQ in 2014. In 2014, all Amendment 80 QS holders are members of one of these cooperatives. The allocation of ABC reserve is based on the proportion of the Amendment 80 QS of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole that each Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned. As noted earlier in this preamble, the Amendment 80 ABC reserve is equal to 89.3 percent of the ABC reserve for each species.

This proposed action would require that a CDQ group or an Amendment 80 cooperative would have to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application to NMFS. That application would have to be approved by NMFS, and revised TACs would have to be published in the Federal Register , before unused CDQ or CQ would be exchanged for a portion of its CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80 reserve. NMFS' approval of a Flatfish Exchange Application is necessary to ensure that ABC's are not exceeded. As proposed, NMFS would have the authority to disapprove an application if it is likely that an ABC will be exceeded. This section describes this process and associated, proposed regulations, and provides an example of a Flatfish Exchange.

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.2 to define a “ Flatfish Exchange ” as the exchange of unused CDQ, or Amendment 80 CQ, of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI for an equivalent amount (in metric tons) of CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80 ABC reserve, respectively, for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI other than the species listed for exchange on the Flatfish Exchange Application as described in a notice of adjustment or apportionment in the Federal Register .

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.4(p) to describe the Flatfish Exchange Application. NMFS would process any completed Flatfish Exchange Application submitted by a CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative. The Flatfish Exchange Application must specify the amounts of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to be exchanged, and certify the information submitted is true, correct, and complete. The specific requirements of the Flatfish Exchange Application are provided on the form that would be posted at the Alaska Region Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov once Amendment 105 and its implementing regulations become effective. All Flatfish Exchange Applications would be submitted electronically through the Alaska Region Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Currently, CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives submit a range of applications and reports electronically. This provision would be consistent with existing electronic submittal requirements applicable to CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives and would reduce administrative burden and costs.

NMFS' approval of a Flatfish Exchange Application would be required prior to the use of the CDQ or CQ subject to the Flatfish Exchange. NMFS would approve the Flatfish Exchange Application if: (1) The CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative exchanging flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole has sufficient CDQ ABC reserves or Amendment 80 ABC reserves for the flatfish species for which it is requesting to increase its CDQ or CQ; (2) the CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative requesting an exchange of flathead sole, rock sole, yellowfin sole exchanges an equal amount of unused CDQ allocation or unused CQ for the amount of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole received from the CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80 ABC reserve; and (3) the CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative has not submitted three Flatfish Exchange applications, as described in the next section of this preamble. NMFS notes that unused CDQ allocation could only be exchanged for CDQ ABC reserve, and unused CQ could only be exchanged for Amendment 80 ABC reserve. Furthermore, NMFS notes that a CDQ group could only submit a Flatfish Exchange Application for an amount of CDQ ABC reserve assigned to that CDQ group, and an Amendment 80 cooperative could only submit a Flatfish Exchange Application for an amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserve assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.

Proposed regulations at § 679.4(p)(4) would provide that no Flatfish Exchange would take effect until notification has been published in the Federal Register with a statement of the findings on which the apportionment or adjustment is based. This provision would provide clear notification to the public and the affected CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative that the Flatfish Exchange Application has been approved and display the resulting adjustment in CDQ ABC reserve and CDQ allocation for that CDQ group, or the resulting adjustment in Amendment 80 ABC reserve and CQ for that Amendment 80 cooperative.

Proposed regulations at § 679.4(p)(5) would provide that each NMFS-approved Flatfish Exchange Application is debited as one Flatfish Exchange, and that an approved Flatfish Exchange is effective on the date of publication of the notice of adjustment or apportionment in the Federal Register . NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.31(d) to note that CDQ groups would need to submit and have NMFS approve a Flatfish Exchange Application to access their CDQ ABC reserve. Similarly, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.91(i)(3) to note that Amendment 80 cooperatives would need to submit and have NMFS approve a Flatfish Exchange Application to access their Amendment 80 ABC reserve.

To aid the reader, an example of a Flatfish Exchange is provided in Table 5. For this example, NMFS assumes that the Amendment 80 cooperative, Alaska Seafood Cooperative (ASC), has submitted, and NMFS has approved, a Flatfish Exchange Application. This example assumes the 2014 allocations of Amendment 80 ABC reserve that ASC would receive are based on the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications and described in Table 4 of this preamble. This example assumes that ASC has not previously engaged in any Flatfish Exchanges, has an adequate amount of unused CQ remaining, and has adequate ABC reserve. In this example, ASC is requesting an additional 3,500 mt of yellowfin sole CQ from its ABC reserve, for which it would exchange 1,500 mt of unused flathead sole CQ, and 2,000 mt of unused rock sole CQ. No net change in the total flatfish available for harvest to the ASC would result, but the Amendment 80 cooperative would gain additional access to yellowfin sole and forego access to flathead sole and rock sole.

As noted earlier in this preamble and illustrated in Table 5, under this proposed action there would be no net change in the total available sum of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole available for harvest as CDQ or CQ. However, CDQ groups or Amendment 80 cooperatives could use Flatfish Exchanges to increase the available CDQ or CQ of one or two flatfish species, by foregoing an amount of unused CDQ or CQ for another flatfish species, but not maximize the harvest of all three flatfish species during a calendar year. In the example provided in Table 5, the ASC cooperative has increased the amount of yellowfin sole available for harvest. In this example, ASC would reduce the amount of yellowfin sole ABC reserve available to exchange for flathead sole or rock sole CQ in future exchanges. As is clear from the example, there is no net increase in the ABC reserve, as summed across the three flatfish species as a result of this exchange. Moreover, Table 5 clarifies that Flatfish Exchanges will result in the same sum of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole available for harvest before, and after the exchange.

NMFS is proposing regulations at § 679.4(p)(3) to provide that NMFS would not approve any Flatfish Exchange that could result in exceeding an ABC or ABC reserve for a species. As proposed, this method for implementing Flatfish Exchanges is designed to ensure that although an individual flatfish TAC could be exceeded, the ABC will not be exceeded. As proposed, NMFS would have the authority to disapprove an application if NMFS determines it is likely that an ABC will be exceeded because of fishing effort in another groundfish fishery. For example, the risk of exceeding an ABC could arise if incidental catch of the allocated flatfish species in other fisheries (e.g., catch of yellowfin sole by AFA vessels in the BSAI pollock fishery) was much higher than anticipated. NMFS will review each Flatfish Exchange Application and consider approval or disapproval in light of incidental catch levels occurring in other groundfish fisheries. NMFS would consider the amount of incidental harvest under the ICAs and the amount of harvest in the yellowfin sole BSAI limited access fishery before a Flatfish Exchange Application would be approved. For example, if the ICAs for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole were exceeded, or the BSAI trawl limited access fishery exceeded its yellowfin sole allocation, NMFS would not approve a Flatfish Exchange Application to harvest from an ABC reserve if the exchange would cause a species' ABC to be exceeded. Moreover, NMFS would consider increases in an Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ from unused ICAs or reallocations of yellowfin sole from the BSAI limited access fishery, and inter-cooperative CQ or CDQ transfers, before approving a Flatfish Exchange Application to ensure accurate amounts in CDQ allocation and CQ accounts.

As noted earlier in this preamble, Flatfish Exchanges would not be effective until publication of a notice in the Federal Register . The requirement for publication in the Federal Register would allow NMFS to fully consider the Flatfish Exchange Application and total catch of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. NMFS could disapprove the Flatfish Exchange if, upon further review of the Flatfish Exchange Application and all other sources of catch, approval of the Flatfish Exchange Application could cause an ABC or ABC reserve to be exceeded. NMFS believes that any such situation is highly unlikely given methods in place to accurately track catch, but this provision would ensure proper accounting before any Flatfish Exchange is approved.

To further simplify the catch accounting for Flatfish Exchanges, NMFS proposes regulations at § 679.4(p)(3)(vii) to clarify that Flatfish Exchanges would not be approved unless the Flatfish Exchange Application is received and approved by NMFS during the same calendar year that the Flatfish Exchange would be implemented. As described earlier in this preamble, CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives have initiated CDQ and CQ transfers at the end of the year to account for catch that occurred earlier during the year. This proposed provision would clarify that all Flatfish Exchanges would need to be completed and received by NMFS prior the end of the calendar year to ensure proper accounting for catch and ABC reserves. NMFS notes that CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives would need to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application prior to the end of the calendar year that the exchange would occur to allow for at least 10 business days for NMFS review and approve (or deny) the Flatfish Exchange Application (i.e., publication in the Federal Register ).

The Council considered and rejected alternatives that would have either limited the ability to exchange flathead sole or rock sole ABC reserve for yellowfin sole CQ, or limit the maximum amount of yellowfin sole CQ that could be received through a Flatfish Exchange (see Section 1.8.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). These measures were considered as a way to mitigate potential adverse impacts of additional harvest opportunities that a Flatfish Exchange could provide to Amendment 80 cooperatives relative to other fishery participants. Participants in the yellowfin sole fishery in the BSAI trawl limited access sector raised specific concerns. The Council and NMFS rejected these alternative approaches because the Council and NMFS have the ability to set the TAC amounts and modify the yellowfin sole ABC reserve under this proposed action based on a broad range of biological and socioeconomic factors, including the potential impact on the yellowfin sole BSAI trawl limited access fishery during the annual harvest specifications process. Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA provides additional detail on these alternatives considered but not selected for this proposed action.

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.4(p)(5) to limit to three the number of Flatfish Exchanges each CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative could execute within a fishing year to limit the administrative burden associated with Flatfish Exchanges. The Council and NMFS considered an option that would not limit the number of Flatfish Exchanges. However, as noted in Section 1.8.3 of the RIR/IRFA, unlimited Flatfish Exchanges would increase administrative burden and costs for NMFS, and was not deemed as necessary to provide adequate opportunities for CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives to engage in Flatfish Exchanges for additional harvest opportunities. For example, a CDQ group could exchange unused yellowfin sole CDQ allocation for an equal tonnage of rock sole CDQ ABC reserve early in the year if such a need is projected. Subsequently, the same CDQ group could exchange any unused yellowfin sole CDQ allocation for an equal tonnage of flathead sole or rock sole ABC reserve if needed later in the year. This would still provide CDQ group an opportunity for a final Flatfish Exchange by the end of the calendar year if needed. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes an annual limit of three Flatfish Exchanges based on input from CDQ groups, Amendment 80 cooperatives, and the need to balance the administrative concerns raised by NMFS. Assuming that the same number of CDQ groups (six) and Amendment 80 cooperatives (two) that existed in 2014 exist in future years, NMFS could process a maximum of 24 Flatfish Exchanges per year.

NMFS proposes to revise regulations at § 679.5(s)(7) to require each Amendment 80 cooperative to submit annually to the Council a Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report reviewing the use of the cooperative's Amendment 80 ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would report the number of vessels used to harvest the Amendment 80 cooperative's quota; the number of Flatfish Exchanges and dates those exchanges were approved; the types and amounts of CQ and Amendment 80 ABC reserve used; and the dates, types, and amounts of inter-cooperative CQ transfers. This report would be due to the Council by December 1 of each year. This report would allow the Council, during the annual harvest specifications process, to assess the use of Flatfish Exchanges, the use of CQ, and weigh the potential socioeconomic impact of Flatfish Exchanges before establishing the ABC reserve. The Council would make this report available to the public.

NMFS is not proposing to require Amendment 80 cooperatives to disclose catch data that may be considered confidential. When the Council recommended this proposed action, it requested that NMFS implement Federal regulations that would require each Amendment 80 cooperative to provide catch information for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole catch as part of this new proposed reporting requirement. However, Amendment 80 cooperative catch data at this level of fisheries participation currently is considered confidential and therefore protected under section 402 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1881a). Therefore, these data cannot be disclosed to the Council or the public. NMFS notes that information on aggregate catch by all vessels operating in the BSAI are available by species at NMFS Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov or could be provided to the Council on request at the December meeting, or any time prior to that meeting.

NMFS has issued a proposed rule that, if implemented, will provide additional clarification on the release of catch information under “limited access privilege” programs, as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see 77 FR 30486, May 23, 2012). As proposed, that rule addresses the release of catch information collected under the Amendment 80 Program. NMFS is currently in the process of developing a final rule for that proposed rule. Because that proposed rule broadly addresses the release of confidential data under section 402 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it could provide for the release of the currently-confidential catch information on flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole the Council requested when it recommended this proposed action. If that final rule provides additional clarification on the amount and type of data that may be released by Amendment 80 cooperatives prior to the publication of a final rule for this proposed action (if approved), then NMFS would amend the rule proposed here so that the final rule accommodates the specific catch information requests made by the Council.

The proposed reporting requirements are intended to maintain a transparent groundfish harvest specifications process while providing the Council and the public additional information that could be used to identify any fishery impacts of this proposed action on non-Amendment 80 cooperative participants. The Council and NMFS acknowledged that the use of the flexibility provided by this proposed rule could have impacts on other fishery participants, which were previously assessed (see Categorical Exclusion, see Addresses ), but could be better understood by obtaining information on the use of CQ transfers and Flatfish Exchanges by Amendment 80 cooperatives. For example, the use of Flatfish Exchanges could allow additional access to markets or modify the timing of harvests that may have socioeconomic impacts on non-Amendment 80 Program fisheries (see Sections 1.8.2.3 and 1.8.2.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action for more detail).

The Council and NMFS determined the best way to monitor potential socioeconomic changes in non- Amendment 80 Program fisheries would be to review the transfers of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ among Amendment 80 cooperatives, and the amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserves used by Amendment 80 cooperatives. Reporting the amounts and frequency of Flatfish Exchanges (and CQ transfers) could aid the Council, NMFS, and the public in providing a greater understanding of the relative impacts of this proposed action on harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report would provide the Council, NMFS, and the public with specific data on the timing and amount CQ transferred between cooperatives, and the number and amounts of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole exchanged through Flatfish Exchanges.

The proposed Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report would be integrated into the annual harvest specifications process. The Council would receive the reports, receive public comment on these reports, and incorporate that information in its ABC reserve decisions. Under this proposed action, the Council would use these data when deciding whether to recommend ABC reserve amounts below the ABC surplus amounts for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. This proposed reporting requirement is intended to maximize the Council's ability to consider factors that it may not otherwise have available relating to the use of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole when it considers establishing an ABC reserve during its December Council meeting.

This proposed action would not modify existing reporting requirements for the CDQ groups. The Council did not recommend, and this proposed rule would not propose a similar report from CDQ groups, given the small amount of the ABC reserve (10.7 percent) allocated to CDQ Program, and the limited impact that the use of Flatfish Exchanges by CDQ groups would be likely to have on other fishery participants. The potential impact of the use of the CDQ ABC reserve is limited by the fact that the CDQ ABC reserve is allocated among six CDQ groups, and no one CDQ group is likely to be able to substantially increase its harvests relative to the TAC for any species under this proposed action (see Tables 1 and 3 of this preamble for an example of the amount of TAC and ABC reserve available to each CDQ group). This proposed rule would not modify existing regulations that require each Amendment 80 cooperative to submit an Annual Amendment 80 cooperative report (see regulations at § 679.5(s)(6)).

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that Amendment 105 to the BSAI FMP and this proposed rule are consistent with the BSAI FMP, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and are not repeated here. Each of the statutory requirements of section 603(b) and (c) has been addressed and is summarized as follows. A copy of the complete IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives are directly regulated through this proposed action through their allocations of harvesting privileges for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.

On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013. 78 FR 37398 (June 20, 2013). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million, Id. at 37400 (Table 1). The new size standards were used to prepare the IRFA for this action.

All the vessels and companies participating in the Amendment 80 sector have been affiliated with one of two Amendment 80 cooperatives, the Alaska Seafood Cooperative or the Alaska Groundfish Cooperative, since 2011. The most recent gross revenue data for Amendment 80 cooperatives is from 2011, and these data indicate that the total gross revenues earned by the vessels in each of the Amendment 80 cooperatives exceed $19.0 million. Thus, the vessels and companies participating in Amendment 80 cooperatives are all large entities, either by virtue of their own gross revenues or by virtue of their affiliation with other large entities through their cooperative membership. Therefore, this analysis addresses the impact on the directly regulated small entities (i.e., CDQ groups) and not Amendment 80 cooperatives.

The six CDQ groups are all small entities by virtue of their non-profit status. These groups include Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, Coastal Villages Region Fund, Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation, and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association. Each of these groups is organized as an independently owned and operated not-for-profit entity and none is dominant in its field; consequently, each is a “small entity” under the RFA.

All six CDQ groups annually are allocated groundfish, halibut, and crab CDQ allocations. These groups participate, either directly or indirectly, in the commercial harvest of these allocations. Commercially valuable allocations include (among others) Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, Pacific halibut, Greenland turbot, Atka mackerel, various flatfish species, as well as king and Tanner crab. CDQ groups receive royalties from the successful harvest of CDQ by commercial fishing companies, as well as access to employment and training opportunities for their communities' residents. Royalties and income from CDQ harvesting activities are used to fund economic development projects in CDQ communities. In 2011, the six CDQ groups earned approximately $311.5 million in royalties (i.e., gross revenues) from the harvest of CDQ allocations. CDQ Program activities are discussed in detail in Section 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.

No duplication, overlap or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified.

An IRFA also requires a description of any significant alternatives to the preferred alternative (Alternative 3, option 1 described below) that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The suite of potential actions includes three alternatives and associated options. A detailed description of these alternatives and options is provided in Section 1.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.

Alternative 1 is the status quo, and does not provide additional harvesting flexibility for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole to CDQ groups. Alternative 2 would establish a CDQ ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole that is allocated among CDQ groups equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC surplus for each species, while Alternative 3 would allow the Council or NMFS to establish a CDQ ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole that is allocated among CDQ groups that may be less than or equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC surplus for each species after considering socioeconomic or biological considerations.

Alternative 2 is less restrictive, and thus has fewer adverse impacts on the directly regulated CDQ groups. While Alternative 2 may be less restrictive to CDQ groups, Alternative 3 was adopted because it provides the Council flexibility to address socioeconomic or biological considerations during the annual harvest specifications process. The Council and NMFS may deem it appropriate to set the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus to accommodate potential harvests of non-target species greater than the ICA. Similarly, the Council may recommend establishing an ABC reserve less than the ABC surplus to accommodate market conditions.

The Council also considered three options that could apply to either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3; however, options 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive. Option 1 would establish an ABC surplus, ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, but limit the number of Flatfish Exchanges to no more than three Flatfish Exchanges per CDQ group per calendar year. Option 2 would create an ABC surplus, ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve only for flathead sole and rock sole. Option 3 limits the maximum amount of the ABC surplus, ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve for yellowfin sole available to CDQ groups. Options 2 and 3 are more restrictive than Option 1 and provide fewer opportunities for CDQ groups to use Flatfish Exchanges to maximize their harvests, particularly their harvests of yellowfin sole. Therefore, Options 2 or 3 would have more adverse impacts on CDQ groups than the preferred alternative, which combines Alternative 3 and Option 1.

Option 1, which limits CDQ groups to three Flatfish Exchanges during a year, is more restrictive than the adoption of Alternative 3 without the option. Alternative 3 without Option 1 would not limit the number of Flatfish Exchanges that a CDQ group could undertake each calendar year. However, Option 1 was meant to limit the potential administrative burden and costs on NMFS of the proposed action. As explained in Section 1.8.3 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action, the Council determined and NMFS agreed that a maximum of three Flatfish Exchanges per calendar year per CDQ group would meet the goals and objectives for the proposed action, would not unduly constrain CDQ groups, and would reduce administrative burden and costs on NMFS. The Flatfish Exchange limits are intended to allow the CDQ groups to make an adequate number of exchanges needed to accommodate uncertain harvesting conditions throughout the year as described earlier in the preamble and in Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.

This action is projected to have a negligible impact on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of CDQ groups participating in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The regulations proposed under this amendment directly impact the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Amendment 80 cooperatives, but not those of the CDQ groups. Under this action, NMFS would not require the directly regulated small entities (i.e., CDQ groups) to annually report data on Flatfish Exchanges. Moreover, the decision to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application is entirely voluntary on the part of all affected entities. If a CDQ group chooses to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application, it will need to submit the information required. The information required in a Flatfish Exchange Application is similar to the information already required by for transfers of CDQ allocations among CDQ groups (see regulations at § 679.5(n)). Some recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be required by Amendment 80 cooperatives, which are considered large entities and is not addressed further here.

This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control Number 0648-0565. Public reporting burden is estimated to average 30 minutes for the Flatfish Exchange Application and 25 hours for Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report. The estimated response times include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of collecting the information, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, and email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

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