Federal Register Vol. 80, No.51,

USDA remains committed to minimizing the burdens on individuals businesses, and communities for participation in and compliance with USDA programs that promote economic growth, create jobs, and protect the health and safety of the American people.

USDA programs are diverse and far reaching, as are the regulations and legislation that implement their delivery. The regulations range from nutrition standards for the school lunch program, natural resources and environmental measures governing national forest usage and soil conservation, emergency producer assistance as a result of natural disasters, to protection of American agriculture from the ravages of plant or animal pestilence. USDA regulations extend from farm to supermarket to ensure the safety, quality, and availability of the Nation's food supply. Regulations also specify how USDA conducts its business, including access to and eligibility for USDA programs. Finally, regulations specify the responsibilities of businesses, individuals, and State and local governments that are necessary to comply with their provisions.

Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” was issued to ensure that Federal regulations use the best available tools to promote innovation that will reduce costs and burden while allowing public participation and an open exchange of ideas. These principles will enhance and strengthen Federal regulations to allow them to achieve their regulatory objectives, most important among them protecting public health, welfare, safety, and the environment. In consideration of these principles, and as directed by the Executive Order, Federal agencies and departments need to periodically review existing regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.

In addition, Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” directed Federal agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the availability of new technologies. Executive Order 13610 directs Federal agencies to give priority, consistent with law, to those initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens while protecting public health, welfare, safety, and the environment. For the regulatory requirements imposed on small businesses, it directs Federal agencies to give special consideration to initiatives that would simplify or harmonize the regulatory requirements.

As part of this retrospective review of regulations, USDA published an RFI on April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22058), and developed a final plan that focused on reducing costs and reporting requirements on the public. However, the overall intention of Executive Order 13563 was not to be a single exercise, but to create a continuing process of scrutiny of regulatory actions. Therefore, USDA is once again seeking public comment on how best to remove unintended regulatory obstacles to participation in and compliance with USDA programs and ways to improve the current regulations to help USDA agencies advance the USDA mission.

All regulatory actions by all USDA agencies are open for comment. USDA is particularly interested in public comments that speak to areas in which we can reduce costs and reporting burdens on the public, through technological advances or other modernization efforts, and comments on regulatory flexibility.

USDA's initial retrospective review under Executive Order 13563 identified eight regulations, four of which have been implemented. An additional regulation from the Forest Service on revised National Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures was also identified and implemented. USDA also identified paperwork and burden reduction initiatives under Executive Order 13610. The following table highlights USDA's key accomplishments and on-going activities pursuant to its efforts to reduce regulatory burdens:

In addition to looking back at current regulations, USDA is also looking forward to how new regulations are implemented and how existing regulations can be improved. Regulatory flexibility includes a variety of regulatory techniques that can help avoid unnecessary costs on regulated entities and avoid negative impacts. Regulatory flexibility techniques could include:

• Pilot projects, which can be used test regulatory approaches;

• Safe harbors, which are streamlined modes of regulatory compliance and can serve to reduce compliance costs;

• Sunset provisions, which terminate a rule after a certain date;

• Trigger provisions, which specify one or more threshold indicators that the rule is designed to address;

• Phase-ins, which allow the rule to be phased-in for different groups at different times;

• Streamlined requirements, which provide exemptions or other streamlined requirements if a particular entity (for example, a small business) may otherwise experience disproportionate burden from a rule;

• State flexibilities, which provide greater flexibility to States or other regulatory partners, for example, giving them freedom to implement alternative regulatory approaches; and

• Exceptions, which allow exceptions to part or all of the rule in cases where there is a potential or suspected unintended consequence.

In providing comments, the public is encouraged to respond to the below questions:

• What regulations or reporting requirements that have become outdated and, if so, how can they be modernized to accomplish the regulatory objectives better?

• Do agencies currently collect information that they do not need or use effectively to achieve regulatory objectives?

• Which regulations, reporting requirements, or regulatory submission or application processes are unnecessarily complicated or could be streamlined to achieve regulatory objectives in ways that are more efficient?

• Which regulations, submission and application processes, or reporting requirements have been overtaken by technological developments? Can new technologies be used to modify, streamline, or do away with existing regulatory or reporting requirements?

• Which regulations provide examples of how regulatory flexibility techniques have worked well? In general, who has benefitted from the regulatory flexibility? What types of regulatory flexibility have worked well?

• What regulations would be improved through the addition of regulatory flexibility techniques? How would regulatory flexibility lower costs and burden? How would regulatory flexibility improve benefits?

This is a non-exhaustive list that is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to limit the issues that commenters may choose to address. We welcome comments from the public on any of USDA's regulations and ways to improve them to help USDA agencies advance the mission of the Department consistent with the Executive Order. USDA notes that this RFI is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. While responses to this RFI do not bind USDA to any further actions related to the response, all submissions will be made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov.

Table of Contents I. Background II. Definitions A. Rough Service Lamps B. Vibration Service Lamps C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps D. 2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps III. Comparison Methodology IV. Comparison Results A. Rough Service Lamps B. Vibration Service Lamps C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps D. 2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps V. Conclusion I. Background

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) was enacted on December 19, 2007. Among the requirements of subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of title III of EISA 2007 were provisions directing DOE to collect, analyze, and monitor unit sales of five lamp types (i.e., rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps). In relevant part, section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 325(l) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) by adding paragraph (4)(B), which generally directs DOE, in consultation with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), to: (1) Collect unit sales data for each of the five lamp types for calendar years 1990 through 2006 in order to determine the historical growth rate for each lamp type; and (2) construct a model for each of the five lamp types based on coincident economic indicators that closely match the historical annual growth rates of each lamp type to provide a neutral comparison benchmark estimate of future unit sales. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B)) Section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraph (4)(C), which, in relevant part, directs DOE to collect unit sales data for calendar years 2010 through 2025, in consultation with NEMA, for each of the five lamp types. DOE must then: (1) Compare the actual lamp sales in that year with the benchmark estimate; (2) determine if the unit sales projection has been exceeded; and (3) issue the findings within 90 days of the end of the analyzed calendar year. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(C))

On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a notice of data availability (NODA) for the Report on Data Collection and Estimated Future Unit Sales of Five Lamp Types (hereafter the “2008 analysis”), which was published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2008. 73 FR 79072. The 2008 analysis presented the 1990 through 2006 shipment data collected in consultation with NEMA, the spreadsheet model DOE constructed for each lamp type, and the benchmark unit sales estimates for 2010 through 2025. On April 4, 2011, DOE published a NODA in the Federal Register announcing the availability of updated spreadsheet models presenting the benchmark estimates from the 2008 analysis and the collected sales data from 2010 for the first annual comparison. 76 FR 18425. Similarly, DOE published NODAs in the Federal Register in the following three years announcing the updated spreadsheet models and sales data for the annual comparisons. 77 FR 16183 (March 20, 2012); 78 FR 15891 (March 13, 2013); 79 FR 15058 (March 18, 2014). This NODA presents the fifth annual comparison; specifically, section IV of this report compares the actual unit sales against benchmark unit sales estimates for 2014.1

EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (4)(H), which state that if DOE finds that the unit sales for a given lamp type in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., more than double the anticipated sales), then DOE must take regulatory action to establish an energy conservation standard for such lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D) through (H)) For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, DOE must adopt a statutorily prescribed energy conservation standard. For the other four types of lamps, the statute requires DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards. If the Secretary does not complete the accelerated rulemakings within one year of the end of the previous calendar year, there is a “backstop requirement” for each lamp type, which would establish energy conservation standard levels and related requirements by statute. Id.

As in the 2008 analysis and previous comparisons, DOE uses manufacturer shipments as a surrogate for unit sales in this NODA because manufacturer shipment data are tracked and aggregated by the trade organization, NEMA. DOE believes that annual shipments track closely with actual unit sales of these five lamp types, as DOE presumes that retailer inventories remain constant from year to year. DOE believes this is a reasonable assumption because the markets for these five lamp types have existed for many years, thereby enabling manufacturers and retailers to establish appropriate inventory levels that reflect market demand. In addition, increasing unit sales must eventually result in increasing manufacturer shipments. This is the same methodology presented in DOE's 2008 analysis and subsequent annual comparisons, and the Department did not receive any comments challenging this assumption or the general approach.

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “rough service lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `rough service lamp' means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii) is designated and marketed specifically for `rough service' applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for rough service.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))

As noted above, rough service incandescent lamps must have a minimum of five filament support wires (not counting the two connecting leads at the beginning and end of the filament), and must be designated and marketed for “rough service” applications. This type of incandescent lamp is typically used in applications where the lamp would be subject to mechanical shock or vibration while it is operating. Standard incandescent lamps have only two support wires (which also serve as conductors), one at each end of the filament coil. When operating (i.e., when the tungsten filament is glowing so hot that it emits light), a standard incandescent lamp's filament is brittle, and rough service applications could cause it to break prematurely. To address this problem, lamp manufacturers developed lamp designs that incorporate additional support wires along the length of the filament to ensure that it has support not just at each end, but at several other points as well. The additional support protects the filament during operation and enables longer operating life for incandescent lamps in rough service applications. Typical applications for these rough service lamps might include commercial hallways and stairwells, gyms, storage areas, and security areas.

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “vibration service lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `vibration service lamp' means a lamp that—(i) has filament configurations that are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being vibration service only.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))

The statute mentions three examples of filament configurations for vibration service lamps in Figure 6-12 of the IESNA Lighting Handbook, one of which (i.e., C-7A) is also listed in the statutory definition of “rough service lamp.” The definition of “vibration service lamp” requires that such lamps have a maximum wattage of 60 watts and be sold at a retail level in packages of two lamps or fewer. Similar to rough service lamps, vibration service lamps must be designated and marketed for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications. As the name suggests, this type of incandescent lamp is generally used in applications where the incandescent lamp would be subject to a continuous low level of vibration, such as in a ceiling fan light kit. In such applications, standard incandescent lamps without additional filament support wires may not achieve the full rated life, because the filament wire is brittle and would be subject to breakage at typical operating temperature. To address this problem, lamp manufacturers typically use a more malleable tungsten filament to avoid damage and short circuits between coils.

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “3-way incandescent lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `3-way incandescent lamp' includes an incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 filaments, operated separately and in combination, to provide 3 light levels; and (ii) is designated on the lamp packaging and marketing materials as being a 3-way incandescent lamp.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y))

Three-way lamps are commonly found in wattage combinations such as 50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 100 watts. These lamps use two filaments (e.g., a 30-watt and a 70-watt filament) and can be operated separately or together to produce three different lumen outputs (e.g., 305 lumens with one filament, 995 lumens with the other, or 1,300 lumens using the filaments together). When used in three-way sockets, these lamps allow users to control the light level. Three-way incandescent lamps are typically used in residential multi-purpose areas, where consumers may adjust the light level to be appropriate for the task they are performing.

The statute does not provide a definition of “2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps”; however, DOE is interpreting this term to be a general service incandescent lamp 2 that emits light between 2,601 and 3,300 lumens. Lamps on the market that emit light within this lumen range are immediately recognizable because, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, all general service incandescent lamps must be labeled with lamp lumen output.3 These lamps are used in general service applications when high light output is needed.

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or shatter-protected lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The terms `shatter-resistant lamp,' `shatter-proof lamp,' and `shatter-protected lamp' mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with [National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute] NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with—(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition provides three names commonly used to refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers to them collectively as “shatter-resistant lamps.”

Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a special coating designed to prevent glass shards from being dispersed if a lamp's glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a coating compliant with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,4 “Food Equipment Materials,” and are labeled and marketed as shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected. Some types of the coatings can also protect the lamp from breakage in applications subject to heat and thermal shock that may occur from water, sleet, snow, soldering, or welding.

In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed each of the five sets of shipment data that was collected in consultation with NEMA and applied two curve fits to generate unit sales estimates for the five lamp types after calendar year 2006. One curve fit applied a linear regression to the historical data and extended that line into the future. The other curve fit applied an exponential growth function to the shipment data and projected unit sales into the future. For this calculation, linear regression treats the year as a dependent variable and shipments as the independent variable. The linear regression curve fit is modeled by minimizing the differences among the data points and the best curve-fit linear line using the least squares function.5 The exponential curve fit is also a regression function and uses the same least squares function to find the best fit. For some data sets, an exponential curve provides a better characterization of the historical data, and, therefore, a better projection of the future data.

For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE found that the linear regression and exponential growth curve fits produced nearly the same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the difference between the two forecasted values was less than 1 or 2 percent). However, for rough service and vibration service lamps, the linear regression curve fit projected lamp unit sales would decline to zero for both lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the exponential growth curve fit projected a more gradual decline in unit sales, such that lamps would still be sold beyond 2018, and it was, therefore, considered the more realistic forecast. While DOE was satisfied that either the linear regression or exponential growth spreadsheet model generated a reasonable benchmark unit sales estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE selected the exponential growth curve fit for these lamp types for consistency with the selection made for rough service and vibration service lamps.6 DOE examines the benchmark unit sales estimates and actual sales for each of the five lamp types in the following section and also makes the comparisons available in a spreadsheet online: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/63.

For rough service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2014 to be 5,224,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 7,267,000 units in 2014. As this finding exceeds the estimate by only 39.1 percent, DOE will continue to track rough service lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

For vibration service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2014 to be 2,729,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 5,220,000 units in 2014. As this finding exceeds the estimate by only 91.3 percent, DOE will continue to track vibration service lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

For 3-way incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2014 to be 49,107,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 35,340,000 units in 2014. As this finding is only 72.0 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 3-way incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2014 to be 34,110,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 5,232,000 units in 2014. As this finding is 15.3 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

For shatter-resistant lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2014 to be 1,671,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 1,042,000 units in 2014. As this finding is only 62.4 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track shatter-resistant lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

None of the shipments for rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed the statutory threshold for a standard. DOE will continue to monitor these five currently exempted lamp types and will assess 2015 sales by March 31, 2016, in order to determine whether an energy conservation standards rulemaking is required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D) through (H).

I. Background. II. Requirement to Submit Complete and Accurate Information. III. Analysis of Public Comments. IV. Determination of Petition. V. Availability of Documents. I. Background

On April 15, 2013, the NRC received a PRM (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443) requesting the NRC to revise its regulations relating to nuclear reactors at §§ 50.1, 50.9, 52.0, and 52.6 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to expand its “regulatory framework to make it a legal obligation for those non-licensees who seek NRC regulatory approvals be held to the same legal standards for the submittal of complete and accurate information as would a licensee or an applicant for a license.” James Lieberman, a regulatory and nuclear safety consultant, submitted the petition which was filed on April 15, 2013, and later amended on September 16, 2013. The petitioner originally requested that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52, to require all persons who seek NRC approvals to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information.

The NRC assigned the petition Docket Number PRM-50-107 and published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested public comment on the petition and received two comments, both supporting the petition. On September 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443), the petitioner amended the rulemaking petition to expand its scope to include not only 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory framework for radioactive materials, waste disposal, transportation, and spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). The NRC published a notice regarding the amended petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML13261A190) in the Federal Register requesting comment (79 FR 3328; January 21, 2014). One additional comment in support of the amended petition was received.

The petitioner asserts that non-licensees (including vendors and other contractors) used by NRC-regulated entities to meet regulatory requirements should be subject to the same requirements for complete and accurate submissions as NRC licensees and license applicants. When the Commission promulgated the 1987 “Completeness and Accuracy of Information” rule (52 FR 49362; December 31, 1987) (the 1987 rule), neither the rule language nor the Statement of Considerations (SOC) discussed non-licensees submitting information to the NRC for regulatory approvals. The 1987 rule included nearly identical “Completeness and Accuracy of Information” requirements in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, and 72. When the Commission added 10 CFR parts 52 and 63 to its regulations, it added “Completeness and Accuracy of Information” requirements to these parts as well (72 FR 49521, August 28, 2007; and 66 FR 55732, November 2, 2001; respectively). The petitioner asserts that the intent of this petition is to close the gap that exists in NRC requirements between licensees/applicants and non-licensees regarding the submittal of complete and accurate information for NRC approval.

The NRC assigned the petition Docket Number PRM-50-107 and published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested public comment on the petition and received two comments, both supporting the petition. On September 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443), the petitioner amended the rulemaking petition to expand its request to include not only 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory framework for radioactive materials, waste disposal, transportation, and spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). In the amended petition, the petitioner also requested that the “scope” section for each of the parts be revised to add language to highlight that any person seeking or obtaining an NRC approval for a regulated activity would be subject to enforcement action for violation of the completeness and accuracy provision of that part. The applicable sections are §§ 30.1, 40.2, 50.1, 52.0, 60.1, 61.1, 63.1, 70.2, 71.0, and 72.2.

The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 30.9, 40.9, 50.9, 52.6, 60.10, 61.9a, 63.10, 70.9, 71.7, and 72.11 implemented: (1) The longstanding policy that license applicants and licensees provide the Commission information that is complete and accurate in all material respects and maintain such information as required; and (2) the requirement that license applicants and licensees notify the NRC of any information they identify as having, for the regulated activity, a significant implication for the public health and safety or common defense and security.

The 1987 rule re-emphasized the NRC's need to receive complete and accurate information and timely notification of safety significant information from its licensees and license applicants if the NRC is to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The SOC for the 1987 rule stated that “the accuracy and forthrightness in communications to the NRC by licensees and applicants for licenses are essential if the NRC is to fulfill its responsibilities to ensure that utilization of radioactive material and the operation of nuclear facilities are consistent with the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security.” The SOC relied on the general authority provision in AEA Section 161b. that permits the NRC to establish by rule, regulation, or order, such standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. The SOC also specifically mentioned the importance of accurate information in AEA Section 186, which authorizes the NRC to revoke any license for material false statement in an application or statement of fact required under AEA Section 182.

However, similar concerns also are raised when non-licensees seek the NRC's approval in other situations. For example, a non-licensee may submit a description of its Quality Assurance (QA) program to the NRC for approval in support of a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for transportation and storage casks. The regulations at 10 CFR part 71 and part 72 set forth requirements for QA programs in subparts H and G, respectively. Non-licensees who intend to apply for a CoC establish, maintain, and execute programs satisfying the QA requirements for the control of quality-affecting activities such as design, procurement, special processes, inspection, and testing, among other activities. Implementing an effective QA program during transportation or storage cask design and testing pre-application phases provides adequate confidence that the systems or components will perform satisfactorily in service.

On more than one occasion the NRC has received from a non-licensee a description of a QA program for NRC approval in accordance with 10 CFR parts 71 and 72 requirements. After reviewing this information, the NRC staff approved the QA program, as documented. However, a subsequent on-site inspection of that NRC-approved QA program resulted in a finding of inadequate implementation of certain quality-related activities. Had this QA program implementation deficiency gone unidentified and uncorrected, it could have resulted in design issues or reduced confidence that systems or components would perform satisfactorily in service. Under current regulations, the NRC can only take an enforcement action against the applicant if the cause of a QA program deficiency is attributable to an applicant providing incomplete or inaccurate information. The NRC is unable to take enforcement action against the non-licensee for not providing complete and accurate information that was submitted for NRC's approval; the NRC is limited to issuing an administrative action, such as a notice of nonconformance.

A topical report is another example of one type of information submitted to the NRC by non-licensees for regulatory approval. Once reviewed and approved, the NRC endorses the use of the topical report, and licensees implement the report accordingly. The petitioner cited reactor topical reports as an example of a single safety evaluation report, once approved by the NRC, that may be adopted by many licensees, and therefore greatly magnify the impact of any error beyond the non-licensee applicant for the topical report itself.

The petition states that non-licensees who submit information to the NRC for approval should be held accountable for providing complete and accurate information. The petitioner's proposed rule change would provide the NRC staff with additional enforcement tools to encourage non-licensees to submit complete and accurate information to the NRC.

The NRC received a total of three comment submissions on the petition and amended petition from two private citizens. The NRC received two public comments in response to the June 10, 2013, Federal Register notice. Both were in support of the petition, one suggested the inclusion of additional licensees in the petition. In response to the January 21, 2014, Federal Register notice, the NRC received a second comment from a previous commenter reiterating his support on the amended petition.

Comment: The commenter asserted that the NRC should consider for rulemaking Mr. Lieberman's petition to require vendors and suppliers to provide complete and accurate information. The commenter also stated that the NRC should consider expanding the original petition's request to include other parts of the regulations that have the same completeness and accuracy provisions, namely 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 61, 70, 71, and 72. The commenter highlighted that it is important to have complete and accurate information in submittals by non-licensees who seek the following: (1) Exemption from NRC regulations; and (2) NRC approval that their activities do not need a license. The commenter pointed out that currently there is no legal obligation for a vendor to provide complete and accurate information either in the application for a topical report or in response to NRC questions on the topical report. The commenter noted that this oversight has been brought to light during litigation.

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment, and intends to consider this issue in the rulemaking process. In addition, the petitioner amended the petition to expand the request of proposed changes in the regulations.

Comment: The commenter stated that the NRC should consider Mr. Lieberman's petition for rulemaking.

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and intends to consider this PRM in the rulemaking process.

Comment: The commenter stated that the NRC should consider for rulemaking the revised petition that expands the original petition request.

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and intends to consider the PRM in the rulemaking process.

Non-licensee applicants for NRC regulatory approvals (e.g. topical report, an exemption from licensing, or submission of a QA program) currently are not under the same regulatory obligation as licensees or license applicants to provide complete and accurate information. Non-licensees that have received an NRC approval are also not under the same regulatory obligation as licensees to notify the NRC of any information that may have a significant implication for public health and safety or the common defense and security. As a result, the lack of similar requirements for non-licensees could adversely affect public health and safety or the common defense and security. As with licensees and license applicants, the NRC staff relies on the information submitted by non-licensees as the primary basis for approving their requests; it is fundamental for good regulation that all applicants for NRC approvals meet the same requirement to submit complete and accurate information. It is also important that both licensees and non-licensees operating under an NRC approval be required to notify the NRC of information they have identified as having a significant implication for the public health and safety or common defense and security. In the case of reactor topical reports, as cited by the petitioner, a single safety evaluation report may be adopted by many licensees once it has been approved by the NRC, greatly magnifying the impact of any errors beyond the non-licensee applicant for the topical report itself.

The NRC agrees with the petitioner that non-licensee applicants for NRC approvals in all subject areas (e.g. reactors, materials, transportation, and waste) should be required to submit complete and accurate information. Imposing the same requirement for completeness and accuracy of information to all non-licensee applicants for NRC approvals ensures a consistent and comprehensive set of regulatory expectations.

Although not mentioned in the petition or the amended petition, the NRC staff identified other portions of the regulations that contain similar requirements for “Completeness and Accuracy of Information.” As a result, the NRC also considered the applicability of the issue to 10 CFR parts 54, 76, and 110 in its evaluation.

For these reasons, the NRC will consider the issues raised in the petition in the rulemaking process.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated. For information on accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Comments Invited

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-2015-0490; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-018-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 October 20, 2008, we issued AD 2008-22-20, Amendment 39-15717 (73 FR 66747, November 12, 2008). AD 2008-22-20 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 series airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2008-22-20, Amendment 39-15717 (73 FR 66747, November 12, 2008), it has been determined from a fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation that the compliance times for certain inspections and modification must be reduced.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0012R1, dated January 24, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-0490.

Initial compliance time thresholds range from 7,300 flight cycles or 47,600 flight hours, and up to 25,400 flight cycles or 76,300 flight hours, depending on configuration and range.

Repetitive compliance time thresholds range from 1,700 flight cycles or 11,300 flight hours, and up to 4,500 flight cycles or 13,500 flight hours, depending on configuration.

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.

Airbus has issued the following service information. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3159, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010. The service information describes procedures for a modification of the fuselage, which includes inspections (e.g., eddy current rotating probe test of fastener holes for cracking, high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the upper shell structure of the fuselage, and checks of the fastener position for clearance) and applicable corrective actions (e.g., repair and rework).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3160, Revision 03, dated January 6, 2012. The service information describes procedures for applicable actions, including an eddy current rotating probe test for cracking of the fastener holes and an HFEC inspection for cracks in the upper shell of the fuselage (and including checks of the fastener position for clearance and applicable corrective actions (e.g., repair and rework)), and a modification of the airplane upper shell structure of the fuselage between FR80 and FR86.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3168, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2011. The service information describes procedures for a HFEC inspection for cracking of the upper shell structure of the fuselage between FR80 and FR86.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4165, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010. The service information describes procedures for a modification of the fuselage, which includes inspections (e.g., eddy current rotating probe test of fastener holes for cracking, HFEC inspections for cracking of the upper shell structure of the fuselage, and checks of the fastener position for clearance) and applicable corrective actions (e.g., repair and rework).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4172, Revision 01, dated July 8, 2009. The service information describes procedures for inspections (e.g., rototest inspections of fastener holes for cracking, HFEC inspections for cracking of the upper shell structure of the fuselage, and checks of the fastener position for clearance) and modification of the airplane upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86 (including applicable corrective actions (e.g., repair and rework).

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4174, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2011. The service information describes procedures for a HFEC inspection for cracking of the upper shell structure of the fuselage between FR80 and FR86.

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.

Unlike the procedures described in the service information, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in the upper shell structure. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked upper shell structure must be repaired before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA and Airbus.

The compliance time for the modification 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 26 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 208 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements (inspection and modification) of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $28,360 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,197,040, or $46,040 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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 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:

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this document, the Department proposes a priority for the i3 program that would promote the implementation of comprehensive high school reform and redesign strategies. This proposed priority could be used in the Development, Validation, or Scale-up tier of the i3 program in future years, as appropriate.

Costs and Benefits: The Assistant Deputy Secretary believes that the proposed priority would not impose significant costs on eligible applicants seeking assistance through the i3 program.

The proposed priority is designed to be used in conjunction with several priorities that have already been established under the i3 program, and no priority, whether it is used as an absolute or competitive preference priority, affects the overall amount of funding available to individual applicants in any given fiscal year.

In addition, we note that participation in this program is voluntary. Potential applicants need to consider carefully the effort that will be required to prepare a strong application, their capacity to implement a project successfully, and their chances of submitting a successful application. We believe that the costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priority would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants. The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds and with matching funds provided by private-sector partners. Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in order to schedule a time to inspect comments in person.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: The i3 program addresses two related challenges. First, there are too few practices in education supported by rigorous evidence of effectiveness, despite national attention paid to finding practices that are effective in improving education outcomes in the decade since the establishment of the Department's Institute of Education Sciences. Second, there are limited incentives to expand effective practices substantially and to use those practices to serve more students across schools, districts, and States. As a result, students do not always have access to high-quality programs.

The i3 program addresses these two challenges through its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project. Applicants proposing practices supported by limited evidence can receive small grants to support the development and initial evaluation of promising practices and help to identify new solutions to pressing challenges; applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as large randomized controlled trials, can receive substantially larger grants to support expansion across the Nation. This structure provides incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness of their proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving more students across schools, districts, and States so that applicants can compete for more sizeable grants.

As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their grant award to conduct independent evaluations of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under the i3 program contribute significantly to improving the information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, for which types of students, and in which contexts. More information about the i3 program, including information about eligible applicants, can be found in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18682).

Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.

The Department has conducted five competitions under the i3 program and awarded 143 i3 grants since the program was established under ARRA.

In FY 2015, Congress directed the Department, in making new awards with FY 2015 i3 funds, to establish a priority to support high school reform that will increase the number and percentage of students who graduate from high school and enroll in postsecondary education without the need for remediation and with the ability to think critically, solve complex problems, evaluate arguments on the basis of evidence, and communicate effectively. Congress further recommended that the Department use this priority to support schools where not less than 40 percent of students are from low-income families.

There is a growing body of evidence about what works in comprehensive high school reform. Interventions supported by research include: Implementing a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum that links student work and real-world experiences; 1 providing accelerated learning opportunities that allow students to earn credit toward a postsecondary degree, including dual enrollment programs and early college high schools; 2 implementing early warning indicator systems to identify and target supports for struggling students; 3 personalizing learning for students; 4 and strengthening relationships with business and post-secondary partners, linking student work to real-world expectations and experiences.5 There is a particular need to improve readiness for college and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, both because these are high-growth fields and because too many of our high schools fall short in this area.6 There is also substantial evidence that demonstrates that comprehensive academic supports for high school students can improve student outcomes, increasing high school graduation and college preparation,7 including for at-risk students.8

The scallop fishery's management unit ranges from the shorelines of Maine through North Carolina to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), established in 1982, includes a number of amendments and framework adjustments that have revised and refined the fishery's management. The Council sets scallop fishery specifications through framework adjustments that occur annually or biennially. This annual action includes allocations for fishing year 2015, as well as other scallop fishery management measures.

The Council adopted Framework 26 on November 20, 2014, and submitted it to NMFS on February 17, 2015, for review and approval. Framework 26 specifies measures for fishing year 2015, but includes fishing year 2016 measures that will go into place as a default, should the next specifications-setting framework be delayed beyond the start of fishing year 2016. NMFS will implement Framework 26, if approved, after the start of fishing year 2015; 2015 default measures concerning allocations have been in place as of March 1, 2015. These default measures are more conservative than the Framework 26 proposed allocations and would be replaced by the higher Framework 26 allocations if this action is approved. The Council has reviewed the Framework 26 proposed rule regulations as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the MSA.

The proposed allocations incorporate new biomass reference points that resulted from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's most recent scallop stock benchmark assessment that was completed in July 2014. The assessment reviewed and updated the data and models used to assess the scallop stock and ultimately updated the reference points for status determinations. The scallop stock is considered overfished if the biomass is less than half of the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy), and overfishing is occurring if fishing mortality (F) is above the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy). The assessment continues to find that the scallop resource is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, but the estimates for Fmsy and Bmsy have changed. A comparison of the old and new reference points is outlined in Table 1.

Due to these reference point updates, the fishing mortality rates that the Council uses to set OFL, ABC, and ACL would be updated through this action. The proposed OFL was set based on an F of 0.48, equivalent to the F threshold updated through the 2014 assessment. The proposed ABC and the equivalent total ACL for each fishing year are based on an F of 0.38, which is the F associated with a 25-percent probability of exceeding the OFL. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended scallop fishery ABCs for the 2015 and 2016 fishing years of 55.9 M lb (25,352 mt) and 70.1 M lb (31,807 mt), respectively, after accounting for discards and incidental mortality. The Scientific and Statistical Committee will reevaluate an ABC for 2016 when the Council develops the next framework adjustment.

Table 2 outlines the proposed scallop fishery catch limits that are derived from the ABC values. After deducting the incidental target total allowable catch (TAC) and the research and observer set-asides, the remaining ACL available to the fishery is allocated according to the fleet proportions established in Amendment 11 to the Scallop FMP (72 FR 20090; April 14, 2008): 94.5 percent allocated to the limited access (LA) scallop fleet (i.e., the larger “trip boat” fleet); 5 percent allocated to the limited access general category (LAGC) individual fishing quota (IFQ) fleet (i.e., the smaller “day boat” fleet); and the remaining 0.5 percent allocated to LA scallop vessels that also have LAGC IFQ permits. These separate ACLs and their corresponding ACTs are referred to as sub-ACLs and sub-ACTs, respectively, throughout this action. Amendment 15 to the Scallop FMP (76 FR 43746; July 21, 2011) specified that no buffers to account for management uncertainty are necessary in setting the LAGC sub-ACLs, meaning that the LAGC sub-ACL would equal the LAGC sub-ACT. As a result, the LAGC sub-ACL values in Table 2, based on an F of 0.38, represent the amount of catch from which IFQ percentage shares will be applied to calculate each vessel's IFQ for a given fishing year. For the LA fleet, the management uncertainty buffer is based on the F associated with a 75-percent probability of remaining below the F associated with ABC/ACL, which, using the updated Fs applied to the ABC/ACL, now results in an F of 0.34.

This action would deduct 567 mt of scallops annually for 2015 and 2016 from the ABC and set it aside as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research and to compensate participating vessels through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. As of March 1, 2015, this set-aside was available for harvest by RSA-funded projects in open areas. Framework 26 would allow RSA to be harvested from the Mid-Atlantic Access Areas that is proposed to be open for 2015, once this action is approved and implemented, but would prevent RSA harvesting from access areas under 2016 default measures. Of this 1.25 M lb (567 mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 397,470 lb (180.3 mt) to previously funded multi-year projects as part of the 2014 RSA awards process. NMFS has reviewed proposals submitted for consideration of 2015 RSA awards and will be selecting projects for funding in the near future.

This action would also set aside 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost of scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-asides for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are 254 mt and 318 mt, respectively. The 2016 observer set-aside may be adjusted by the Council when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2016.

This action would implement vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three LA scallop DAS permit categories (i.e., full-time, part-time, and occasional) for 2015 and 2016 (Table 3). Proposed 2015 DAS allocations are almost identical to those allocated to the LA fleet in 2014 (31 DAS for full-time, 12 DAS for part-time, and 3 DAS for occasional vessels). Fishing year 2016 DAS allocations are precautionary, and are set at 75 percent of what current biomass projections indicate could be allocated to each LA scallop vessel for the entire fishing year. This is to avoid over-allocating DAS to the fleet in the event that the framework that would set those allocations, if delayed past the start of the 2016 fishing year, estimates that DAS should be less than currently projected. The proposed allocations in Table 3 exclude any DAS deductions that are required if the LA scallop fleet exceeded its 2014 sub-ACL. In addition, these DAS values take into account a slight DAS reduction necessary for the implementation of another proposed measure discussed later on in this rule (See Adjustment to Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Declaration Procedures for Some Open Area Trips). If this measure, which would allow for vessels on specific trips to end their open area trip and DAS accrual sooner than they can under current regulations, is not approved, the DAS allocations in Table 3 would increase by 0.14 DAS and 0.06 DAS for full-time and part-time vessels, respectively (there would be no change for occasional vessels, and there are currently no vessels issued the occasional permit type in the LA scallop fleet). In addition, the Council requested that DAS allocations now be specified to the hundredth decimal place, rather than rounding up or down to whole DAS. This is consistent with DAS accounting as vessels use DAS throughout the year.

On March 1, 2015, full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels received 17, 7, and 1 DAS, respectively. These allocations would increase as soon as Framework 26 is implemented, if approved.

For fishing year 2015 and the start of 2016, Framework 26 would close all three Georges Bank Access Areas (i.e., Nantucket Lightship (NLS), Closed Area 1, and Closed Area 2 Access Areas) and open all three Mid-Atlantic Access Areas (i.e., Elephant Trunk, Delmarva, and Hudson Canyon Access Areas). This action proposes to extend the boundaries of the NLS Access Area that would close to the scallop fleet to include a concentration of small scallops near the existing boundary along the southeast corner, currently considered part of the open area. This proposed closure area, which would increase the NLS Access Area boundary by 158 square miles, would be reconsidered in a future framework action when the scallops are larger and ready for harvest.

As for the Mid-Atlantic Access Areas, this action proposes that all three access areas be open to both the LA and LAGC IFQ fleet, and be treated as one single area, which this rule will now refer to as the Mid-Atlantic Access Area. Scallop vessels would be able to fish across all three areas in a single access area trip. There is one the exception: This action proposes six 10-minute squares (i.e., 549 square nautical miles) in the northwest corner of the Elephant Trunk Access Area be closed to protect small scallops. This area constitutes roughly 35 percent of the current Elephant Trunk Access Area. The closure would allow for the small concentrations of scallops in this portion of the access area to be protected as they grow to a more harvestable size. This action proposes that no transiting be allowed across this small area due to its small size and the incentive to fish in the area is relatively high due to the high abundance of scallops.

Table 4 outlines the proposed LA allocations that can be fished from the Mid-Atlantic Access Area, which could be taken in as many trips as needed, so long as the trip possession limits (also in Table 4) are not exceeded. These proposed access area allocations for 2015 represent a 112-percent increase in access area allocations compared to 2014.

This action also proposes to modify access area trip reporting procedures by requiring that each LA vessel submit a pre-landing notification form through its VMS unit prior to returning to port at the end of each access area trip, including trips where no scallops were landed. These pre-landing notifications would replace the current broken trip and compensation trip procedures. Vessels would no longer be required to submit a broken trip notification form if they are unable to land their full possession limits on an access area trip. Vessels would also no longer need to apply to NMFS to receive, or wait for NMFS to issue, a compensation trip to fish their remaining access area scallop allocation.

For example, under Framework 26 access area allocations, a full-time vessel receives 51,000 lb (23,133 kg) in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area, which can be landed on as many or as few trips as needed, so long as the 17,000-lb (7,711-kg) possession limit is not exceeded on any one trip. The vessel may choose to fish its full allocation over the course of three trips, landing the maximum allowance of 17,000 lb (7,711 kg) on each trip, or it can choose to fish its full allocation over the course of four, five, or more trips, landing less than the trip possession limit on each trip. Regardless, the vessel must submit a pre-landing notification form prior to returning to port for each access area trip, and would not have to wait for NMFS to issue a compensation trip prior to starting its next access area trip.

This action would also modify the procedures for when scallop access area allocation can be carried over to the next fishing year. Under the current regulations, vessel may fish for a previous year's unharvested scallop access area allocation in the first 60 days of a fishing year if the vessel broke a trip in the last 60 days of the previous fishing year or open season for an access area. In many cases, vessels in the last 60 days of the fishing year simply crossed the VMS Demarcation Line, submitted a broken trip report through their VMS unit, and returned to port. This caused confusion and created a high number of cases for NMFS to review as the fishing year came to an end. Under the proposed measures, each vessel would automatically carry over unharvested access area allocation that the vessel could fish in the first 60 days of the subsequent fishing year, as long as the access area is open for scallop fishing during that time. This change would result in little change to the amount of carryover NMFS expects from year to year because most vessels took advantage of the broken trip provisions. Also, Framework 26 accounts for the uncertainty associated with carryover by setting the LA fishery's ACT lower than the fishery's ACL. This ensures that carryover would not cause an ACL to be exceeded from year to year.

Although vessel owners would ultimately be responsible for tracking their own scallop access area landings and ensuring they do not exceed their annual allocations, NMFS would match dealer-reported scallop landing records with access area trip declarations and make that information available on Fish-On-Line.

1. Crew Limit Restrictions in Access Areas. Similar to the crew limit restrictions NMFS implemented in Delmarva in 2014, this action proposes crew limits for all access areas. Currently, LA scallop vessels have crew size limits when fishing in open areas: Vessels are limited to seven individuals when fishing on a DAS, or five individuals if the vessel is on a DAS and participating in the small dredge program. These limits have been in place to restrict the shucking capacity of a vessel to help reduce landings per unit effort while on DAS. In an effort to protect small scallops and discourage vessels from high-grading (discarding smaller scallops in exchange for larger ones), Framework 26 would impose a crew limit of eight individuals per LA vessel, including the captain, when fishing in any scallop access area. If a vessel is participating in the small dredge program, it may not have more than six people on board, including the operator, on an access area trip. These crew limits may be reevaluated in a future framework action.

2. Delayed Harvesting of Default 2016 Mid-Atlantic Access Area Allocations. Although the Framework would include precautionary access area allocations for the 2016 fishing year (see 2016 allocations in Table 4), vessels would have to wait to fish these allocations until April 1, 2016. This precautionary measure is designed to protect scallops when scallop meat weights are lower than other times of the year (generally, this change in meat-weight is a physiological change in scallops due to spawning). However, if a vessel has not fully harvested its 2015 scallop access area allocation in fishing year 2015, it may still fish the remainder of its allocation in the first 60 days of 2016 (i.e., March 1, 2016, through April 29, 2016).

3. 2016 RSA Harvest Restrictions. This action proposes that vessels participating in RSA projects would be prohibited from harvesting RSA under default 2016 measures. At the start of 2016, RSA could only be harvested from open areas. This would be re-evaluated for the remainder of 2016 in the framework action that would set final 2016 specifications.

1. Sub-ACL for LAGC vessels with IFQ permits. For LAGC vessels with IFQ permits, this action proposes a 1,225-mt ACL for 2015 and an initial ACL of 1,545 mt for 2016 (Table 2). We calculate IFQ allocations by applying each vessel's IFQ contribution percentage to these ACLs. These allocations assume that no LAGC IFQ AMs are triggered. If a vessel exceeds its IFQ in a given fishing year, its IFQ for the subsequent fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the overage.

Because Framework 26 would not go into effect until after the March 1 start of fishing year 2015, the default 2015 IFQ allocations were automatically triggered. These default 2015 IFQ allocations are lower than those proposed in Framework 26. If approved, this action would increase the current vessel IFQ allocations. NMFS sent a letter to IFQ permit holders providing both March 1, 2015, IFQ allocations and Framework 26 proposed IFQ allocations so that vessel owners know what mid-year adjustments would occur if Framework 26 is approved.

2. Sub-ACL for LA Scallop Vessels with IFQ Permits. For LA scallop vessels with IFQ permits, this action proposes a 123 mt ACL for 2015 and an initial 154 mt ACL for 2016 (Table 2). We calculate IFQ allocations by applying each vessel's IFQ contribution percentage to these ACLs. These allocations assume that no LAGC IFQ AMs are triggered. If a vessel exceeds its IFQ in a given fishing year, its IFQ for the subsequent fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the overage.

3. LAGC IFQ Trip Allocations and Possession Limits for Scallop Access Areas. Framework 26 proposes that LAGC IFQ vessels would receive a fleetwide number of trips that could be taken in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area. Framework 26 would allocate 2,065 and 602 trips in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to this area. Under default 2016 measures, LAGC IFQ vessels must wait to fish these trips until April 1, 2016.

These trip allocations are equivalent to the overall proportion of total catch from access areas compared to total catch. For example, the total projected catch for the scallop fishery in 2015 is 20,865 mt, and 8,700 mt are projected to come from access areas, roughly 41.7 percent. If the same proportion is applied to total LAGC IFQ catch, the total allocation to LAGC IFQ vessels from access areas would be about 600 mt, roughly 44.5 percent of the total LAGC IFQ sub-ACL for 2015 (1,348 mt).

4. NGOM TAC. This action proposes a 70,000-lb (31,751-kg) annual NGOM TAC for fishing years 2015 and 2016. The allocation for 2015 assumes that there are no overages in 2014, which would trigger a pound-for-pound deduction in 2015 to account for the overage.

5. Scallop Incidental Catch Target TAC. This action proposes a 50,000-lb (22,680-kg) scallop incidental catch target TAC for fishing years 2015 and 2016 to account for mortality from this component of the fishery, and to ensure that F targets are not exceeded. The Council and NMFS may adjust this target TAC in a future action if vessels catch more scallops under the incidental target TAC than predicted.

This action proposes to adjust season regulations for the sea turtle deflector dredge (TDD) and area regulations for the sea turtle chain mat to make them consistent. Currently, turtle chain mats are required in the area south of 41°9′ N. lat. from May through November, and the TDD is required west of 71° W. long. from May through October. When used together, chain mats and TDDs are thought to increase the conservation benefit to sea turtles, because chain mats help reduce the impact to turtles from interactions occurring in the water column, and the TDD helps reduce the impact to turtles from interactions with the dredge frame on the sea floor (DuPaul et al. 2004; Smolowitz et al. 2010). By making the area and season for these two gear modifications consistent, west of 71° W. long. from May through November, the conservation benefit of the current chain mat and TDD requirements is maintained, while reducing the regulatory complexity of differing seasons and areas. Any reduction in the size of the area that chain mats would be required (east of 71° W. long. and south of 41°9′ N. lat.) is balanced by an extension of the season that TDDs would be required (the month of November). In addition, this action also proposes a very slight modification to the TDD gear regulations for safety purposes. When the Council first approved the TDD, it included the allowance of a flaring bar to ensure safe handling of the dredge. At the time, the Council specified that this flaring bar should only be attached to the dredge frame on one side. Since the TDD's implementation, there has been some interest to attach the flaring bar in a “u” shape, which could be attached on the inside or outside of the bale bar, but the current regulations unnecessarily prohibit this. This action proposes to adjust this regulation to allow for a bar or “u”-shaped flaring mechanism to support safety at sea. Allowing a u-shaped flaring mechanism should not have an impact on sea turtles and the effectiveness of the TDD because the flaring bar or mechanism would still be prohibited from being attached within 12 inches (30.5 cm) of the “bump out” of the TDD and not between the bale bars. This change would require that each side of the bar or mechanism be no more than 12 inches (30.5 cm) in length.

This action would not change any other regulatory requirements for the use of chain mats and TDDs.

This action would enable a vessel to declare out of a DAS trip at or south of Cape May, NJ (specifically, at or south of 39° N. lat.), once it goes inside the VMS demarcation line, and then, with scallops on board, steam seaward of the VMS demarcation line to ports south of Cape May, NJ, without being charged DAS. This measure does not apply to vessels that intend to land scallops in ports north of Cape May, NJ. Once this change in declaration to “declare out of fishery” has been made, vessels would be required to submit a scallop pre-landing notification form through VMS, return directly to port and offload scallops immediately, and stow all gear. In addition, such vessels would be prohibited from having on board any in-shell scallops.

The purpose of this measure is to help increase incentive for vessels to land scallops in the southern part of the mid-Atlantic by reducing some of the steaming time to return to those more distant ports. Due to the location of the access areas in the mid-Atlantic, which were at one point primary traditional open area fishing grounds, vessels from Virginia and North Carolina fishing on open area DAS trips have to steam for a long period of time to reach productive open area fishing grounds. Vessels are currently allowed to start their open area DAS trip landward of the VMS Demarcation Line, but not necessarily from port, but are required to accrue DAS when harvested scallops are on board, so their return steam from an open area trip counts against their DAS allocation. Over time, as DAS have been reduced dramatically and with increased fuel costs, vessels have more incentive to land near these primary fishing grounds (i.e., in New Bedford, MA, or Cape May, NJ) to avoid being charged for DAS steaming back to southern ports farther away that would most impact their DAS allocations. This decrease in landings to particular states over time has had a great impact on shoreside businesses that depend upon a stable stream of landings.

Because this change in when some vessels may “clock out” of their DAS could impact overall DAS allocations to the fleet, this action also proposes an overall DAS deduction to each LA scallop vessel. The proposed DAS adjustment (which has already been calculated into the DAS allocations proposed in Table 3) would be a decrease of 0.14 DAS for full-time vessels and 0.06 DAS for part-time vessels. This entire measure, including the appropriate DAS deductions, was supported by the Council's Advisory Panel.

Framework 26 proposes to modify the State Water Exemption Program to include a new exemption that would enable scallop vessels to continue to fish in state waters after the NGOM hard TAC is reached.

The current State Water Exemption Program has been in place since Framework 2 to the Scallop FMP (November 21, 1994; 59 FR 59967). At that time, the purpose of the program was to allow Federal permit holders to compete in the state waters fishery on a more equitable basis where Federal and state laws are inconsistent and to encourage vessels with general category permits (open access, at the time) to fish under the exemption program and continue to submit catch and effort data. This program specifies that a state with a scallop fishery may be eligible for state waters exemptions if it has a scallop conservation program that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the Scallop FMP. If a state is found to be eligible for the State Waters Exemption Program, federally permitted scallop vessels fishing in that state's waters may be exempted from a limited number of Federal scallop regulations: LA scallop vessels could fish in state waters outside of scallop DAS, and LA and LAGC scallop vessels could be exempt from Federal gear and possession limit restrictions.

This action proposes to expand the exemptions to include this new measure related to the NGOM. Specifically, states within the NGOM management area (i.e., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine) could request an exemption from the regulations requiring that scallop vessels must stop fishing in the state waters portion of the NGOM once the Federal TAC has been reached. States would have to apply for this exemption and specify to which vessels this would apply (i.e., vessels with NGOM permits, IFQ permits, incidental permits, and/or LA permits).

Currently, a vessel issued a NGOM or IFQ permit can declare a state-only NGOM scallop trip and fish for scallops exclusively in state waters without those landings being attributed to the Federal TAC, but must cease scallop fishing entirely for the remainder of the year, along with all other scallop vessels, once the Federal TAC is reached. To date this has not been an issue because the Federal NGOM catch has been well below the TAC. However, total catch in both Federal and state waters in this area is increasing, and Maine permit holders are concerned about their ability to fish in state waters when the state season is open in the winter if the NGOM TAC is reached. This measure would alleviate those concerns by giving the state the ability to apply for an exemption through the State Water Exemption Program. Because the NGOM Federal TAC is set based only on the Federal portion of the resource, NMFS does not expect this measure to compromise the FMP's limits on catch and mortality.

The process for applying to the State Waters Exemption Program, as outlined in the regulations, would remain the same. In order for NMFS to make a determination of whether or not a state waters exemption is warranted for a particular state's waters, a state must submit a request for the exemption so that we can fully evaluate the scope of the potential fishery in the state's waters. Such a request would need to include the following information: A complete description of scallop fishing regulations in state waters; the number of vessels and trips that could be expected in state waters; the average landings per trip for vessels fishing in state waters; and the average per-pound value of scallops landed by vessels fishing for scallops in state waters. If the information provided supports a conclusion that a particular state's scallop fishery is consistent with the FMP relative to the State Waters Exemption Program, NMFS would then publish the requested exemptions from DAS, gear, and possession limits, and NGOM closures, in a notice in the Federal Register, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Currently, all scallop vessels (i.e., LA and LAGC) fishing for scallops with dredges in open areas west of 71° W. long. are required to have their dredges configured so that no dredge has more than seven rows of rings in the apron (i.e., the area between the terminus of the dredge (clubstick) and the twine top) on the topside of the dredge. The twine top helps finfish (flatfish in particular) escape from the dredge during fishing and the maximum number of rows of rings prevents fishermen from making the twine top small and ineffective in reducing bycatch. Framework 26 proposes to extend this proactive accountability measure to all areas where scallop fishing occurs (i.e., all access and open areas). This increased spatial coverage may further reduce flatfish bycatch by preventing dredge configurations using more than seven rows of rings, which is currently required east of 71° W. long. for some scallop vessels fishing in open areas. This is considered to be a proactive AM because it may help the fishery stay below the sub-ACLs for flatfish (yellowtail flounder and windowpane flounder, currently). Additionally, this measure would enable vessels to voluntarily fish with an even shorter apron (less than seven rings), to proactively reduce flatfish bycatch in any area or season.

This proposed rule includes several revisions to the regulatory text to address text that is unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or otherwise could be improved. NMFS proposes these changes consistent with section 305(d) of the MSA which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the MSA. Two revisions clarify how to apply and measure gear modifications to ensure compliance. The first revision at § 648.51 would clarify where to measure meshes to ensure twine top compliance. The second revision at § 648.53 clarifies an example on how the hanging ratio should be applied and measured if the windowpane reactive AM implemented through Framework 25 (June 26, 2014; 79 FR 34251) is triggered.

This action would also modify the VMS catch report requirements at § 648.10(f)(4)(i) to only include the information actually used by NMFS to monitor flatfish bycatch. The form currently requires that the amount of yellowtail flounder discards be reported daily. This requirement has been in place since Amendment 15 (76 FR 43746; July 21, 2011), which established the yellowtail flounder AMs in the FMP. However, since Amendment 15, the scallop fishery now has other bycatch sub-ACLs and AMs (e.g., SNE/MA windowpane flounder) which are not captured in this form. In addition, current bycatch monitoring relies solely on observer reports to determine bycatch discards for these species. In order to minimize confusion and because this information is not necessary for bycatch monitoring, we propose to remove the reference to reporting yellowtail discards. Instead, the vessels will report daily scallop catch and the amount of all other species kept.

In addition, this action would adjust the regulations at § 648.53(a) to clarify that the values for ABC/ACL stated in the regulations reflect the levels from which ACTs are set, thus they do not include estimates of discards and incidental mortality. This regulatory clarification is at the request of the Council and would more accurately reflect the process for establishing ABCs and ACLs in the scallop fishery.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law. In making the final determination, NMFS will consider the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.

This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

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

An IRFA has been prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of Framework 26 analyses, its draft IRFA, and the preamble to this action.

This action proposes the management measures and specifications for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery for 2015, with 2016 default measures. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in Framework 26 and the preamble of this proposed rule and are not repeated here.

The proposed regulations would affect all vessels with LA and LAGC scallop permits. The Framework 26 document provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that would be affected by the proposed regulations, by port and state (see ADDRESSES). There were 313 vessels that obtained full-time LA permits in 2013, including 250 dredge, 52 small-dredge, and 11 scallop trawl permits. In the same year, there were also 34 part-time LA permits in the sea scallop fishery. No vessels were issued occasional scallop permits. NMFS issued 212 LAGC IFQ permits in 2013 and 155 of these vessels actively fished for scallops that year (the remaining permits likely leased out scallop IFQ allocations with their permits in Confirmation of Permit History). The RFA defines a small business in shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, with receipts of up to $5.5 M annually. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity,” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis.

On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership dataset is based on the calendar year 2013 permits and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2011 through 2013. Matching the potentially impacted 2013 fishing year permits described above (LA and LAGC IFQ) to calendar year 2013 ownership data results in 172 distinct ownership entities for the LA fleet and 115 distinct ownership entities for the LAGC IFQ fleet. Of these, and based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, 154 of the LA distinct ownership entities and all 115 of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as small. The remaining 18 of the LA entities are categorized as large entities, all of which are shellfish businesses.

The proposed action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Two requirements will be submitted to OMB for approval under the NMFS Northeast Region Scallop Report Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0491).

Under the proposed action, all 347 LA vessels would be required to submit a pre-landing notification form for each access area trip through their VMS units. This information collection is intended to improve access area trip monitoring, as well as streamline a vessel's ability to fish multiple access area trips. Although this is a new requirement, it would replace other reporting procedures currently required for breaking an access area trip and receiving permission to take a compensation trip to harvest remaining unharvested scallop pounds from an access area trip. The proposed action also includes a new requirement for some LA vessels to report a pre-landing notification form through their VMS unit before changing their open area trip declaration to a “declared out of fishery declaration,” which is expected to add a burden to a very small portion of the fleet. This requirement would only apply to a few vessels that intend to land open area scallops at ports south of Cape May, NJ, and want to steam to those ports while not using DAS. This new pre-landing requirement is necessary to enforce a measure intended to assist shoreside businesses in southern ports by providing an incentive for vessels to steam to ports far away from popular open area fishing grounds.

Notification requires the dissemination of the following information: Operator's permit number; amount of scallop meats and/or bushels to be landed; the estimated time of arrival; the landing port and state where the scallops will be offloaded; and the vessel trip report (VTR) serial number recorded from that trip's VTR. This information would be used by the Office of Law Enforcement to monitor vessel activity and ensure compliance with the regulations.

The burden estimates for these new requirements apply to all LA vessels. In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that for access area reporting, each of the 313 full-time LA vessels would submit a pre-landing report 5 times (1,565 responses) and each of the 34 part-time LA vessel would submit a pre-landing report up to 3 times (102 responses), for a total of 1,667 responses. Public reporting burden for submitting these pre-landing notification forms is estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25, that includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Therefore, 1,667 responses would impose total compliance costs of $2,084. While this is a new requirement, it would replace current trip termination and compensation trip reporting procedures, which were estimated to cost a total of $300 annually, so the additional burden for this new pre-landing requirement would be $1,785 ($2,085−$300), or $5.14 per vessel. This is likely an overestimate, but would account for the potential of higher access area scallop allocations in future fishing years. For the new DAS pre-landing requirements, NMFS estimates that this would likely impact 30 vessels and result in each of those vessels reporting one time a year. Public reporting burden for submitting these pre-landing notification forms is also estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25. Therefore, the total cost of this would impose total compliance costs of $38 (30 vessels × $1.25). The total additional burden from both of these new pre-landing requirements would be $1,823.

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 shall 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 the collection of information, including through 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 the Regional Administrator (See ADDRESSES above), and email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

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

This action contains no other compliance costs. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal law.

The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with any state regulations or other federal laws.

The preferred alternative for LA allocations, which would allocate includes 30.86 DAS and 23,133 kg of scallops to be harvested in access areas to full-time vessels, as well as close a portion of the Elephant Trunk Access Area and extend the NLS closure, is expected to positively impact profitability of small entities regulated by this action. The estimated revenues and net revenue for scallop vessels and small business entities under all considered allocations alternatives, including the preferred alternative, are expected to be higher than both the No Action alternative (i.e., 2015 default measures conservatively set through Framework 25) and status quo levels (i.e., assuming same level of access as 2014). There are four different LA allocation alternative in Framework 26. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative which would allocate scallops based on the conservative default measures in Framework 25. Alternative 2 is the basic run alternative and it would have allocated the fleet access area trips similar to past years (one access area per trip; split trips for the fleet). Alternative 3 (preferred alternative) combines all three Mid-Atlantic Access Areas and allows vessels to fish their trips in the combined area. Under Alternative 3 there are multiple options for closures to protect small scallops. The preferred alternative includes the options for a closure inside the combine Mid-Atlantic Access Area and an extension of the NLS. Finally, Alternative 4 would have set allocations similar to the basic run alternative, but reduced the overall F. The preferred alternative would have the largest revenue compared to all other alternatives in the 2015 fishing year, which would translate to higher profits (Table 5).

Overall LAGC IFQ allocations for the preferred alternative will be 5.8 percent higher than the No Action (i.e., 2015 default allocations) and is 23 percent higher than the 2014 fishing year allocations. As a result, the preferred alternative is expected to have positive economic impacts on LAGC IFQ fishery. There are no other alternatives that would generate higher economic benefits for the scallop fishery as a whole, including the small business entities in the LAGC IFQ fishery. As for LAGC IFQ access area allocations, the preferred alternative would provide proportional access for LA and LAGC IFQ within the Mid-Atlantic Access Area (i.e., the LAGC fishery is projected to catch roughly 6.5 percent of the total 2015 projected catch of the fishery, so roughly 6.5 percent of the total access area catch available to the entire fishery could be landed on IFQ fleetwide trips), which should have positive impacts on the small business entities of the LAGC IFQ fishery by increasing flexibility and lowering costs. The preferred alternative would have higher economic benefits than No Action and compared to the 2014 access area fleetwide IFQ trip allocations, but would have lower allocations than the alternative that would have increased the number of fleetwide trips to 10.4 percent of the total access area catch.

Because the NGOM and incidental TACs are unchanged from previous years, those proposed allocations are not expected to directly impact small business entities.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 648 are proposed to be amended as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions read as follows: