Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam (Surfclam) and Ocean Quahog Fishery, 76351-76352 [2010-30874]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
reducing risk. Covered railroads will be
specifically required to evaluate
components of the program that were
not audited by FRA that year. These
evaluations will likely be required to
utilize valid mathematical tests or
methods that conform to the standards
of the American Evaluation Association.
a. How often should a railroad be
required to evaluate the effectiveness of
its RRP?
b. What other standards could a
railroad use to evaluate the effectiveness
of its RRP?
28. Should FRA allow a railroad to
hire a contractor to evaluate its RRP? If
so, what qualifications or certifications
should this contractor have?
29. What documentation/certification
must a railroad maintain so that FRA
can verify that the railroad has properly
evaluated the effectiveness of its RRP?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Cost/Benefits
30. What are the initial and recurrent
costs of establishing and maintaining
RRP processes (e.g., internal auditing
and evaluation, data collection,
employee training, computer software,
personnel hiring and training)?
31. How could railroads maximize
benefits associated with a risk reduction
program without unjustified or
unnecessary costs?
32. What new knowledge, skills, and
abilities would your organization need,
if any, to operate successfully within a
risk reduction framework?
33. What are practical ways a small
business could apply the elements of an
RRP?
34. What business benefits are created
by a risk reduction program?
35. Are there special costs or loss of
benefits of scale for small businesses? If
so, how can they be minimized?
General/Background
36. FRA may require a railroad to
develop and submit an RRPP for
approval six months after publication of
the final rule. Is this timeline
appropriate? If not, why? What
additional problems does the six month
deadline create?
37. FRA may require a railroad to
establish a full initial implementation of
an RRP six months after the RRPP has
been approved by FRA.
a. Is this timeline appropriate? If not,
explain why it is not appropriate.
b. Should FRA permit a railroad to
implement its RRP in phases? What
should those phases be? Explain.
38. Has your organization
implemented an official safety risk
reduction program (or other programs
that could qualify as risk reduction)?
Please describe your implementation
experience.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
a. How has this program impacted
organizational safety and compliance
with existing Federal statutes and
regulations?
b. How have the resources required to
implement and maintain the program
affected your organization?
c. If you do not represent a railroad,
how do you think your risk reduction
activities would apply in a railroad
context?
d. How has this program improved
your organization’s corporate safety
culture?
39. Has your railroad undertaken a
risk reduction pilot project? If so, please
tell us how successful that pilot project
has been and how any data or
information obtained through the
project could assist in the development
of an RRP regulation.
40. What areas of FRA’s current
regulations do you believe already
incorporate risk reduction principles?
How would you suggest the FRA avoid
any duplicative requirements in any risk
reduction rulemaking effort?
Public Meetings
41. After the ANPRM comment period
has closed, FRA may hold one or more
public hearings on the announced risk
reduction rulemaking. Decisions
regarding public meetings will be made
based upon the content of the
comments. As such, all interested
entities should, to the best of their
ability, respond fully in writing to the
questions presented in this ANPRM.
a. How many public meetings, if any,
should FRA hold?
b. Where should any public
meeting(s) be held? Are there certain
meeting locations that would increase
participation?
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2,
2010.
Karen J. Hedlund,
Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–30836 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76351
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 100526227–0256–01]
RIN 0648–AY71
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Surfclam (Surfclam) and Ocean
Quahog Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
NMFS withdraws the
proposed rule published on June 30,
2010, which proposed to open a portion
of the Georges Bank (GB) Closed Area to
the harvest of surfclams and ocean
quahogs. The previously published
proposed rule will not be issued as a
final rule and will not become effective
or enforceable. The current GB Closed
Area remains in effect.
DATES: The withdrawal of the proposed
rule to open a portion of the GB Closed
Area to the harvest of surfclams and
ocean quahogs (75 FR 37745, June 30,
2010) is effective December 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Macan, Fishery Management
Specialist, phone (978) 281–9165, fax
(978) 281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
NMFS is withdrawing a proposed rule
to open a portion of the GB Closed Area
to the harvest of surfclams and ocean
quahogs that was published on June 30,
2010 (75 FR 37745), with public
comments accepted through July 30,
2010. The background and full details
on the development of the June 30, 2011
proposed rule are contained in the
preamble of the proposed rule and are
only summarized here.
The GB Closed Area, located in the
Exclusive Economic Zone east of 69°00’
W. long. and south of 42°20′ N. lat., has
been closed to the harvest of surfclams
and ocean quahogs since 1990 due to
red tide blooms that cause paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP). The closure
was implemented based on advice from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), after samples tested positive for
toxins (saxotoxins) that cause PSP. PSP
toxins are produced by the alga,
Alexandrium fundyense, which can
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76352
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
form blooms commonly referred to as
red tides, or harmful algal blooms
(HABs), and can produce toxins that
accumulate in water column filterfeeding shellfish. Shellfish
contaminated with the toxin, if eaten in
large enough quantity, can cause illness
or death in humans.
Due to inadequate testing or
monitoring of the GB Closed Area for
the presence of PSP-causing toxins, the
closure was made permanent in 1999,
under Amendment 12 to the Atlantic
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). Since the
implementation of the permanent
closure, NOAA’s National Ocean
Service (NOS) has provided grants to
the FDA; the States of Maine, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts; and a
clam industry representative to collect
water and shellfish samples from
Federal waters off of southern New
England. The FDA, in consultation with
NMFS and several States, also
developed the Protocol for Onboard
Screening and Dockside Testing in
Molluscan Shellfish (Protocol), which is
designed to test and verify that clams
harvested from GB are safe. NMFS first
issued an Exempted Fishing Permit
(EFP) on January 9, 2008, to Truex
Enterprises of New Bedford, MA, to
allow for testing the efficacy of
harvesting surfclams and ocean quahogs
from a portion of the GB Closed Area
using the Protocol. The EFP was
subsequently renewed on January 22,
2009, and December 10, 2009.
On January 21, 2010, NMFS received
a letter from the FDA requesting that
NMFS open a portion of the GB Closed
Area, as specified at 648.73(a), to the
harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs
for human consumption. The FDA
indicated that testing of clams from the
portion of the GB Closed Area known as
Cultivator Shoal had demonstrated that
PSP toxin levels were well below the
regulatory limit established for public
health and safety. This information
contributed to the FDA’s determination
that harvesting of surfclams and ocean
quahogs from this area is once again
safe. In response to the FDA’ s request,
NMFS published the aforementioned
proposed rule to solicit public
comments on the FDA’s request to open
a portion of the GB Closed Area.
Basis for Withdrawal
During the public comment period,
NMFS received substantive comments
from leading experts in PSP, who
questioned the validity of the data on
which the proposed re-opening is based,
and strongly cautioned against reopening the area without a rigorous
testing protocol designed to protect the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
public health. Several other comments
were also received in support of a reopening, but with the use of the FDAapproved Protocol.
Upon review of public comments,
NMFS agrees that testing is necessary to
ensure clams harvested from the area
are safe for human consumption. The
proposed rule did not propose any
additional requirements such as a
testing protocol. The Regional
Administrator does not have the
authority to implement a testing
protocol under the existing regulations
for the FMP. Therefore, NMFS is
withdrawing the proposed rule.
Comments and Responses
During the public comment period on
the proposed rule, 11 comments were
received. Two comments were in
support of the re-opening; six comments
supported the re-opening, but with the
use of the FDA-approved Protocol; two
comments were opposed to the action,
due to lack of a monitoring requirement;
and one comment was opposed to the
re-opening but did not supply any
significant rationale for the opposition.
Comment 1: Two experts questioned
the validity of the data on which the
proposed opening of the GB Closed Area
is based, and strongly cautioned NMFS
against re-reopening the area without a
rigorous testing protocol to ensure the
clams harvested from the area are safe.
Six comments were in support of the reopening, but with the use of the FDA
approved Protocol.
Response: NMFS agrees that testing is
necessary; however, the proposed rule
only proposed to re-open an area, and
did not propose any additional
requirements such as a testing protocol.
The Regional Administrator does not
have the authority to implement a
monitoring requirement under the
existing regulations implementing the
FMP.
Comment 2: One commenter
supported the re-opening, since the FDA
determined that clams from the area
were safe. This commenter stated that
the industry should be permitted to
harvest clams from the area. The
commenter further supported the reopening because a large portion, roughly
50 percent of the surfclam and ocean
quahog biomass, is located in GB and
opening a portion of the GB Closed Area
would alleviate fishing pressure on
areas that are experiencing declines in
landings per unit of effort.
Response: NMFS recognizes that reopening a portion of the GB Closed Area
may help address problems associated
with localized depletion. However,
given the significant health risk
associated with opening the area
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
without a sufficient monitoring program
to ensure that clams harvested from the
area are safe for human consumption,
NMFS will not take action to re-open
the area. NMFS does not have the
authority to implement a monitoring
requirement under the existing
regulations implementing the FMP.
NMFS would consider supporting a
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council action to open the area,
provided a sufficient monitoring
program was included as part of the
action.
Comment 3: One commenter
supported the proposed opening, but
expressed concern as to whether there
were enough data to support the finding
that ocean quahogs harvested from GB
are safe.
Response: NMFS agrees this is a valid
concern. Based on the significant
comments received on this action, and
given the significant risk associated
with opening the area without a testing
protocol, NMFS is withdrawing the
proposed rule.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 2, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–30874 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 101126522–0522–02 ]
RIN 0648–XZ89
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska;
Proposed 2011 and 2012 Harvest
Specifications for Groundfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes 2011 and
2012 harvest specifications,
apportionments, and Pacific halibut
prohibited species catch limits for the
groundfish fishery of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary to
establish harvest limits for groundfish
during the 2011 and 2012 fishing years
and to accomplish the goals and
objectives of the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76351-76352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30874]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 100526227-0256-01]
RIN 0648-AY71
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Surfclam (Surfclam) and Ocean Quahog Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS withdraws the proposed rule published on June 30, 2010,
which proposed to open a portion of the Georges Bank (GB) Closed Area
to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs. The previously published
proposed rule will not be issued as a final rule and will not become
effective or enforceable. The current GB Closed Area remains in effect.
DATES: The withdrawal of the proposed rule to open a portion of the GB
Closed Area to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs (75 FR 37745,
June 30, 2010) is effective December 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Macan, Fishery Management
Specialist, phone (978) 281-9165, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS is withdrawing a proposed rule to open a portion of the GB
Closed Area to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs that was
published on June 30, 2010 (75 FR 37745), with public comments accepted
through July 30, 2010. The background and full details on the
development of the June 30, 2011 proposed rule are contained in the
preamble of the proposed rule and are only summarized here.
The GB Closed Area, located in the Exclusive Economic Zone east of
69[deg]00' W. long. and south of 42[deg]20' N. lat., has been closed to
the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs since 1990 due to red tide
blooms that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). The closure was
implemented based on advice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), after samples tested positive for toxins (saxotoxins) that cause
PSP. PSP toxins are produced by the alga, Alexandrium fundyense, which
can
[[Page 76352]]
form blooms commonly referred to as red tides, or harmful algal blooms
(HABs), and can produce toxins that accumulate in water column filter-
feeding shellfish. Shellfish contaminated with the toxin, if eaten in
large enough quantity, can cause illness or death in humans.
Due to inadequate testing or monitoring of the GB Closed Area for
the presence of PSP-causing toxins, the closure was made permanent in
1999, under Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog
Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Since the implementation of the
permanent closure, NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) has provided
grants to the FDA; the States of Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts; and a clam industry representative to collect water and
shellfish samples from Federal waters off of southern New England. The
FDA, in consultation with NMFS and several States, also developed the
Protocol for Onboard Screening and Dockside Testing in Molluscan
Shellfish (Protocol), which is designed to test and verify that clams
harvested from GB are safe. NMFS first issued an Exempted Fishing
Permit (EFP) on January 9, 2008, to Truex Enterprises of New Bedford,
MA, to allow for testing the efficacy of harvesting surfclams and ocean
quahogs from a portion of the GB Closed Area using the Protocol. The
EFP was subsequently renewed on January 22, 2009, and December 10,
2009.
On January 21, 2010, NMFS received a letter from the FDA requesting
that NMFS open a portion of the GB Closed Area, as specified at
648.73(a), to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs for human
consumption. The FDA indicated that testing of clams from the portion
of the GB Closed Area known as Cultivator Shoal had demonstrated that
PSP toxin levels were well below the regulatory limit established for
public health and safety. This information contributed to the FDA's
determination that harvesting of surfclams and ocean quahogs from this
area is once again safe. In response to the FDA' s request, NMFS
published the aforementioned proposed rule to solicit public comments
on the FDA's request to open a portion of the GB Closed Area.
Basis for Withdrawal
During the public comment period, NMFS received substantive
comments from leading experts in PSP, who questioned the validity of
the data on which the proposed re-opening is based, and strongly
cautioned against re-opening the area without a rigorous testing
protocol designed to protect the public health. Several other comments
were also received in support of a re-opening, but with the use of the
FDA-approved Protocol.
Upon review of public comments, NMFS agrees that testing is
necessary to ensure clams harvested from the area are safe for human
consumption. The proposed rule did not propose any additional
requirements such as a testing protocol. The Regional Administrator
does not have the authority to implement a testing protocol under the
existing regulations for the FMP. Therefore, NMFS is withdrawing the
proposed rule.
Comments and Responses
During the public comment period on the proposed rule, 11 comments
were received. Two comments were in support of the re-opening; six
comments supported the re-opening, but with the use of the FDA-approved
Protocol; two comments were opposed to the action, due to lack of a
monitoring requirement; and one comment was opposed to the re-opening
but did not supply any significant rationale for the opposition.
Comment 1: Two experts questioned the validity of the data on which
the proposed opening of the GB Closed Area is based, and strongly
cautioned NMFS against re-reopening the area without a rigorous testing
protocol to ensure the clams harvested from the area are safe. Six
comments were in support of the re-opening, but with the use of the FDA
approved Protocol.
Response: NMFS agrees that testing is necessary; however, the
proposed rule only proposed to re-open an area, and did not propose any
additional requirements such as a testing protocol. The Regional
Administrator does not have the authority to implement a monitoring
requirement under the existing regulations implementing the FMP.
Comment 2: One commenter supported the re-opening, since the FDA
determined that clams from the area were safe. This commenter stated
that the industry should be permitted to harvest clams from the area.
The commenter further supported the re-opening because a large portion,
roughly 50 percent of the surfclam and ocean quahog biomass, is located
in GB and opening a portion of the GB Closed Area would alleviate
fishing pressure on areas that are experiencing declines in landings
per unit of effort.
Response: NMFS recognizes that re-opening a portion of the GB
Closed Area may help address problems associated with localized
depletion. However, given the significant health risk associated with
opening the area without a sufficient monitoring program to ensure that
clams harvested from the area are safe for human consumption, NMFS will
not take action to re-open the area. NMFS does not have the authority
to implement a monitoring requirement under the existing regulations
implementing the FMP. NMFS would consider supporting a Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council action to open the area, provided a
sufficient monitoring program was included as part of the action.
Comment 3: One commenter supported the proposed opening, but
expressed concern as to whether there were enough data to support the
finding that ocean quahogs harvested from GB are safe.
Response: NMFS agrees this is a valid concern. Based on the
significant comments received on this action, and given the significant
risk associated with opening the area without a testing protocol, NMFS
is withdrawing the proposed rule.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 2, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-30874 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
