        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 040713206-4206-01; I.D. 070704F]
        RIN 0648-AR77
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to the Annual Harvest Specifications Process for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Amendment 48 to the FMP for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) (Amendments 48/48). If approved, Amendments 48/48 would revise the administrative process used to establish annual harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the GOA and the BSAI and would update the FMPs by revising the description of the groundfish fisheries and participants, revising the name of the BSAI FMP, revising text to simplify wording and correct typographical errors, and revising the description of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Groundfish Plan Teams' responsibilities. This action is necessary to manage fisheries based on the best scientific information available, to provide for adequate prior public review and comment to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on Council recommendations, to provide for additional opportunity for Secretarial review, to minimize unnecessary disruption to fisheries and public confusion, and to promote administrative efficiency. The proposed rule would revise regulations to implement the new harvest specifications process in Amendments 48/48 and would revise the name of the BSAI FMP. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by September 10, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802;
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
          • E-mail to 4848PR-0648-AR77@noaa.gov and include in the subject line of the e-mail comments the document identifier: 48/48 Proposed Rule. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • FAX to 907-586-7557; or
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendments 48/48 and the proposed rule may be obtained from the same mailing address above or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the GOA and the BSAI are managed under the FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

        The Council has submitted Amendments 48/48 for Secretarial review and a notice of availability (NOA) of the FMP amendments was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42128) with comments on the FMP amendments invited through September 13, 2004. A complete description of the amendments is in the NOA. This proposed rule describes the FMP amendments and proposed implementing regulations.
        Comments may address the FMP amendments, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by September 13, 2004, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendments. All comments received by that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendments.
        Background
        Amendments 48/48 were unanimously recommended by the Council in October 2003. If approved by NMFS, these amendments would revise the administrative process used to establish annual harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. Harvest specifications establish specific limits on the commercial harvest of groundfish and are used to manage the groundfish fisheries. Harvest specifications include total allowable catch (TAC), acceptable biological catch, overfishing levels, and prohibited species catch (PSC) amounts, and apportionments thereof, which have been recommended by the Council. The current regulations authorize annual harvest specifications that are applicable January 1 through December 31. The goals in revising the harvest specifications process are to: (1) manage fisheries based on the best scientific information available, (2) provide for adequate prior public review and comment to the Secretary on Council recommendations, (3) provide for additional opportunity for Secretarial review, (4) minimize unnecessary disruption to fisheries and public confusion, and (5) promote administrative efficiency.

        The current harvest specifications process involves proposed, interim, and final rulemaking. Each October, the Council recommends proposed harvest specifications for the next year. NMFS reviews the Council's recommendations and publishes a notice of proposed specifications in the Federal Register for public comment in December. In November, new biological information regarding the groundfish target species becomes available and is used to develop the Council's final harvest specifications recommendations for the fishing year starting in January. The Council makes its final harvest specifications recommendations to NMFS in December. NMFS reviews these recommendations and publishes a notice of final specifications in the Federal Register in February or March of the following year.
        Starting in January of the new fishing year, groundfish fisheries are managed using interim harvest specifications, pending publication of the final harvest specifications. These interim harvest specifications remain in place until superseded by final harvest specifications in approximately February or March each year. The interim harvest specifications are required by § 679.20(c)(2) to be 25 percent or the first seasonal apportionment of the proposed TAC amounts for most groundfish target species and 25 percent of the proposed PSC amounts.

        A number of statutory requirements must be met by NMFS to implement annual harvest specifications. National standard 2 in section 301(a)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires management of the groundfish fisheries to be based on the best scientific information available. Each year in October, proposed harvest specifications for the following year are developed based on either TAC amounts used in the current year for some species or on projections from the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports written the previous year. The SAFE reports written in the previous year often comprise the best scientific information available in October for supporting the harvest specifications for the following year. The new SAFE reports completed in November are used by the Council to recommend final harvest specifications in mid-December, usually after publication in the Federal Register of the proposed harvest specifications.

        The proposed and final specifications process normally requires six months to complete, yet only two weeks exist between the time the new final SAFE reports are available (mid- December) and the start of the fishing year on January 1. The Council's Groundfish Plan Teams develop the SAFE reports in November for the following fishing year based on the summer survey data and new analysis. These November SAFE reports are reviewed and approved by the Council in December and used as the scientific basis for its recommended harvest specifications. Because of this time constraint, the proposed harvest specifications are completed before the new information supporting the final harvest specifications is available. The proposed harvest specifications and supporting information available for public review and comment can differ from the final harvest specifications and their supporting information.
        For some species, the harvest specifications change little among years, such as TAC amounts for certain long-lived target groundfish species in the GOA. For other species, harvest specifications can change greatly between the proposed and final harvest specifications for various reasons. In some cases, adjustments are made based on the new information developed in the November SAFE reports. In the BSAI, the need to maximize the harvest of a particular groundfish species can cause changes between proposed and final TACs for a number of groundfish species to maintain the overall harvest at or below the 2 million metric ton optimal yield specified at § 679.20(a)(1)(i). Because the proposed harvest specifications and supporting information can differ from the final harvest specifications and supporting information, the current specifications process may not provide adequate opportunity in some cases for prior public review and comment on the annual harvest specifications or on the supporting information used for the annual harvest specifications.

        Subject to certain exceptions, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires prior public review and comment on a proposed rule, including public review and opportunity for comment on the information used as the basis for the proposed rule (see 5 U.S.C. 553). Prior public review and comment on the interim specifications have been routinely waived for “good cause” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). However, recent case law has raised legal concerns under the APA regarding this practice of annual waiver of notice and comment because of generic data collection and timing constraints. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans, 316 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, as a practical consideration, the interim harvest specifications also may provide inadequate TAC and PSC amounts for those fisheries that are prosecuted in the early part of the year (i.e., rock sole).
        Amendments 48/48 would provide a process that allows for prior public review and comment on the annual harvest specifications and supporting information and would allow the groundfish fisheries to be managed based on the best available scientific information. Each year in October, the Council would recommend to NMFS proposed harvest specifications for up to two years. The rationale for providing for up to two years of harvest specifications is further explained later in this document.

        In consideration of the current stock assessment survey schedules, regulatory procedures, and quality of stock assessment information for the GOA and BSAI target species, the proposed harvest specifications process would authorize specifications that would be effective for up to 24 months. NMFS would review the recommendations and publish in the Federal Register proposed harvest specifications in November or early December, including detailed descriptions of what the final harvest specifications are likely to be and the new information anticipated to support them. In November, the new SAFE reports would be forwarded to the Council by the Council's Groundfish Plan Teams. The Council would consider the new SAFE reports, public comments on the proposed harvest specifications, and public testimony and then develop recommendations for the final harvest specifications in December. NMFS would review those recommendations and public comments on the proposed harvest specifications, and specifically determine if the final harvest specifications are a logical outgrowth of the proposed harvest specifications. If the final harvest specifications recommendations are consistent with applicable law and are a logical outgrowth of the proposed harvest specifications, the final harvest specifications may be published without additional public review and comment.
        If the final harvest specifications recommendations are not a logical outgrowth of the proposed harvest specifications, an additional publication of proposed harvest specifications may be needed to provide an additional opportunity for prior public review and comment under the APA. In May or June of the following year, the final harvest specifications would be published based on the additional proposed harvest specifications and after consideration of public comment. Alternatively, depending on the particular circumstances, NMFS may find “good cause” to waive the publication of proposed harvest specifications for prior public review and comment. In this case, the final harvest specifications likely would become effective in March.
        To provide opportunity for a potential additional public comment period after the Council's final harvest specifications recommendation in December, the groundfish fisheries in the new fishing year would be managed on the specifications that had been published previously. Each year, the latter January through June portion of the harvest specifications would be superseded by the new annual harvest specifications. This proposed specification process would eliminate the need for the interim harvest specifications. Having harvest specifications effective into the second fishing year would allow time for NMFS to complete an additional public review and comment period, if needed, while preventing disruption of the fisheries.
        To provide consistency between the groundfish FMPs for the harvest specifications process and to provide flexibility during the harvest specifications process, Amendments 48/48 would allow specifications to be effective for up to two fishing years. The stock assessment models used for determining the harvest specifications would use two-year projections for biomass and acceptable biological catch. The frequency of fishery resource surveys also affects whether specifications should be done on a more or less frequent basis. Allowing specifications to be effective for up to two years would fit well with the frequency of stock projections that must be used for the harvest specifications, and would provide the Council and NMFS the flexibility to adjust the specifications time periods in response to potential changes in the frequency of stock assessment surveys or other stock assessment data or administrative issues.
        The Council recommended that harvest specifications for the hook-and-line gear and pot gear sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) fisheries be limited to the succeeding fishing year to ensure those fisheries are conducted concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery. Having the sablefish IFQ fisheries concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery would reduce the potential for discards of halibut and sablefish in these fisheries. The sablefish IFQ fisheries would remain closed at the beginning of each fishing year, until the final harvest specifications for the sablefish IFQ fisheries are in effect. The trawl sablefish fishery would be managed using harvest specifications for up to two years with the remaining target species in the BSAI and with GOA pollock, Pacific cod, and the “other species” complex.

        Regulation Revisions
        Amendment 48 to the BSAI FMP would revise the title of the FMP. The GOA FMP title is a more concise description of the document compared to the title used for the BSAI FMP. Definitions at § 679.2 describe the BSAI as the “Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area.” Consistency between the names of the groundfish FMPs and with the groundfish fishery regulations would reduce confusion for users of the documents. The BSAI FMP title would be revised to “The Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.” In § 679.1(b), the title of the BSAI FMP would be revised to reflect the new title that would result from approval of Amendment 48 to the BSAI FMP.
        Sections 679.20 and 679.21 would be revised to implement the new administrative process for harvest specifications under Amendments 48/48. In §§ 679.20(c)(1) and (c)(3), and §§ 679.21(d)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iii), and (e)(6)(i), the revisions would allow proposed and final harvest specifications to remain in effect for up to two fishing years. These revisions would allow flexibility for harvest specifications to be effective for more than 12 months, allowing time to comply with APA rulemaking requirements and ensuring that management would be based on the best scientific information available.
        Section 679.20(c)(1) would be further revised to remove the requirement to address the U. S. harvesting and processing capacity in the proposed harvest specifications. This was necessary when foreign groundfish fishing occurred before the 1990s. Harvesting and processing groundfish in Alaskan waters is performed exclusively by U. S. owned and operated vessels and processors under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the American Fisheries Act (AFA). Amendments 48/48 would remove references to allocations to foreign fishing in the FMPs and this revision would make the regulations consistent with the FMPs.
        The proposed rule would allow NMFS to specify the length of the public comment period for the proposed harvest specifications when the proposed specifications are published. Current regulations require a public comment period of 30 days (§§ 679.20(c)(1), 679.21(d)(2), and 679.21(e)(6)(ii)). The proposed rule would afford NMFS the discretion to specify a comment period of appropriate length under the circumstances present when the proposed specifications are published.
        The proposed rule would rescind provisions for interim harvest specifications at § 679.20(c)(2) on April 1, 2005. However, as NMFS implements the new harvest specification process, interim harvest specifications would be needed in the first year until the new harvest specifications are effective. The use of interim harvest specifications until April 1, 2005, would ensure no disruption to the groundfish fisheries until the final harvest specifications are effective. Once the new process is in place, interim harvest specifications would no longer be needed, and therefore, the applicable regulatory provision would be rescinded on April 1, 2005.
        The species listed for seasonal allowances for the final harvest specifications under §§ 679.20 (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) would be revised by the proposed rule. The Steller sea lion protection measures (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003) require the seasonal apportionment of the harvest of Pacific cod, pollock, and Atka mackerel in the BSAI and of Pacific cod and pollock in the GOA. The current regulations reference seasonal harvest specifications only for pollock in the BSAI and GOA. The proposed rule would add Pacific cod and Atka mackerel seasonal allowances to the BSAI harvest specifications and Pacific cod seasonal allowances to the GOA harvest specifications. Paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) also would be revised to be consistent with (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) so that proposed and final harvest specifications contents would be consistent.
        The proposed rule would revise §§ 679.20(c)(5), 679.20(c)(6), and 679.62(a)(3) to remove references to interim harvest specifications. Interim harvest specifications would not be used once the new harvest specifications process is effective. This revision would be effective April 1, 2005, when the regulations for interim harvest specifications at § 679.20(c)(2) are no longer effective.
        Classification
        NMFS has not yet determined whether the amendments that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to evaluate alternative regulatory actions that would change the way the annual harvest specifications are established for the GOA and BSAI groundfish fisheries. The IRFA examines the impacts of the alternative actions on small fishing entities, and addresses the statutory requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The IRFA requirements are given at 5 U.S.C. 603.
        The current harvest specifications process provides a very short period of time in which to develop and implement annual harvest specifications. The key biomass survey data become available in September and October. The fishing year begins on the following January 1. This leaves only a short time to evaluate the survey data and update fishery models, obtain peer review of this work, receive review and comment from the Council's SSC and AP, develop the Council's recommendations, provide for public notice and comment, publish a final rule, and meet the APA requirement for a 30-day delay of effectiveness.
        The goals in revising the harvest specifications process are to: (1) manage fisheries based on the best scientific information available, (2) provide for adequate prior public review and comment to the Secretary on Council recommendations, (3) provide for additional opportunity for Secretarial review, (4) minimize unnecessary disruption to fisheries and public confusion, and (5) promote administrative efficiency.
        The entities directly regulated by this action are those that commercially harvest federally managed groundfish in the BSAI and GOA. These entities include the groundfish catcher vessels and catcher/processor vessels active in these areas. They also include organizations to whom direct allocations of groundfish are made. In the BSAI, this includes the CDQ groups and the AFA fishing cooperatives.

        Pursuant to the Small Business Administration criteria and NMFS guidelines, fishing vessels, including catcher vessels and catcher/processors, are considered “small entities” if they gross less than $3.5 million in a year, when all their affiliated elements are taken together. Catcher vessel gross revenues are measured at the ex-vessel level. Catcher/processor revenues are the first wholesale value of the processed product. About 832-838 catcher vessels, 30-33 catcher/processors, and six CDQ groups were estimated to be small entities under this criterion.
        The proposed regulatory amendments do not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on the regulated small entities.
        The EA/RIR/IRFA did not reveal any federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed action.
        Four alternatives to the preferred alternative were considered. Alternative 1 would require NMFS to publish proposed specifications, followed by interim and final specifications, under the status quo schedule. This alternative is the most constraining of the alternatives with respect to small businesses' access to the decision-making process. Alternative 1 may result in larger harvests than Alternatives 2 through 4, and thus, potentially higher average revenues for small entities. This alternative fails to achieve the objectives of the proposed action in that it does not provide opportunity for prior public review and comment on interim specifications and does not guarantee meaningful opportunity for public comment on the proposed specifications to the Secretary. For this reason, this alternative was not chosen.
        Alternative 2 would eliminate interim harvest specifications, and would require NMFS to issue proposed and final harvest specifications before the start of the fishing year. This alternative would introduce an additional year's lag between the time fishery survey data become available and the time harvest specifications based on those data are implemented. This alternative would improve opportunities for small businesses' access to the decision making process. However, the alternative may result in reductions in groundfish harvests and revenues and with increased year-to-year variation in harvests. These changes could reduce small entities' revenues, but disproportionate impacts on small entities are not identified. These potential adverse effects to small entities outweigh the benefits from an enhanced rulemaking process. The potential for revenue reductions caused this alternative to be rejected.
        Alternative 3 would postpone the start of the fishing year by six months to provide enough time for proposed and final harvest specifications. An option to this alternative would postpone the start of the fishing year for most species by six months, but would not change the fishing year for sablefish IFQ fisheries. This option would protect the IFQ management of the sablefish fisheries. This alternative would have revenue impacts very similar to those for Alternative 5, but was not preferred to Alternative 5 due to the administrative problems for managers and fishermen that might be associated with a change in the fishing year.
        Alternative 4 would use stock assessment projections to prepare biennial harvest specifications, while setting PSC limits annually. This alternative would improve opportunities for small business access to the decision making process. The two options for this alternative are likely to result in larger potential reductions in harvests and revenues than Alternative 2, and more potential for year-to-year variation in harvests. The changes could reduce small entities' revenues, but disproportionate impacts on small entities are not identified. The potential adverse effects outweigh the enhanced rulemaking process in the alternative. This is no better for directly regulated small entities than Alternative 5.
        Alternative 5 is the preferred alternative. Under this alternative, harvest specifications would be set for up to two years. Harvest specifications would be superseded by new harvest specifications typically published between March and June of the second year. This alternative would provide increased opportunities for notice and comment under the APA. This alternative would introduce relatively modest lags between biological surveys and subsequent harvest specifications, thus creating relatively modest adverse revenue impacts compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. If a second proposed rule is required, the revenue effects would be similar to Alternative 3; if not, they may be similar to those for Alternative 1.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: July 20, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

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

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); Pub. L. 105-277, Title II of Division C; Pub L. 106-31, Sec. 3027; and Pub. L.106-554, Sec. 209.

        2. In § 679.1, the introductory heading of paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.1
          Purpose and scope.

          (b) Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. * * *

        3. In § 679.20, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), and the introductory paragraph to (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:

          § 679.20
          General limitations.

          (c) Annual specifications. --(1) Proposed specifications--(i) Notification. As soon as practicable after consultation with the Council, NMFS will publish proposed specifications for the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and the GOA.
          (ii) Public comment. NMFS will accept public comment on the proposed specifications established by this section and by § 679.21 for a period specified in the notice of proposed specifications published in the Federal Register.
          (iii) GOA. The proposed specifications will specify for up to 2 fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the “other species” category and apportionments thereof, halibut prohibited species catch amounts, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific cod.
          (iv) BSAI. The proposed specifications will specify for up to 2 fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the “other species” category and apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited species catch allowances, seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ reserve amounts.
          (2) Interim specifications. (Applicable until April 1, 2005.) Interim harvest specifications will be in effect on January 1 and will remain in effect until superseded by the filing of the final specifications by the Office of the Federal Register. Interim specifications will be established as follows:

          (3) Final specifications--(i) Procedure and notification. NMFS will consider comments received on the proposed specifications and, after consultation with the Council, will publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal Register unless NMFS determines that the final specifications would not be a logical outgrowth of the notice of proposed specifications. In that event, NMFS will either:

          (A) Publish a revised notice of proposed specifications in the Federal Register for public comment, and after considering comments received on the revised proposed specifications, publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal Register; or
          (B) Publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal Register without an additional opportunity for public comment based on a finding that good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act justifies waiver of the requirement for a revised notice of proposed specifications and opportunity for public comment thereon.
          (ii) GOA. The final specifications will specify for up to 2 fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the “other species” category and apportionments thereof, halibut prohibited species catch amounts, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific cod.
          (iii) BSAI. The final specifications will specify for up to 2 fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the “other species” category and apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited species catch allowances, seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ reserve amounts.

          (5) BSAI Pacific cod gear allocations. (Effective April 1, 2005.) The proposed and final specifications will specify the allocation of BSAI Pacific cod among gear types as authorized under paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
          (6) BSAI Atka mackerel allocations. (Effective April 1, 2005.) The proposed and final specifications will specify the allocation of BSAI Atka mackerel among gear types and HLA fisheries as authorized under paragraph (a)(8) of this section.

        4. In § 679.21, paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(2), and (e)(6), and introductory paragraphs to (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii), are revised to read as follows:

          § 679.21
          Prohibited species bycatch management.

          (d) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) Proposed and final limits and apportionments. NMFS will publish in the Federal Register proposed and final halibut PSC limits, and apportionments thereof, in the notification required under § 679.20.

          (2) Public comment. NMFS will accept public comment on the proposed halibut PSC limits, and apportionments thereof, for a period specified in the notice of proposed halibut PSC limits published in the Federal Register. NMFS will consider comments received on proposed halibut PSC limits and, after consultation with the Council, will publish notification in the Federal Register specifying the final halibut PSC limits and apportionments thereof.

          (e) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) Red king crab in Zone 1. The PSC limit of red king crab caught by trawl vessels while engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in Zone 1 during any fishing year will be specified for up to 2 fishing years by NMFS, after consultation with the Council, based on abundance and spawning biomass of red king crab using the criteria set out under paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. The following table refers to the PSC limits for red king crab that you must follow in Zone 1:

          (iii) Tanner crab (C. bairdi). The PSC limit of C. bairdi crabs caught by trawl vessels while engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in Zones 1 and 2 during any fishing year will be specified for up to 2 fishing years by NMFS under paragraph (e)(6) of this section, based on total abundance of C. bairdi crabs as indicated by the NMFS annual bottom trawl survey, using the criteria set out under paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.

          (6) Notification--(i) General. NMFS will publish in the Federal Register, for up to 2 fishing years, the annual red king crab PSC limit, and, if applicable, the amount of this PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC limit, the annual C. opilio PSC limit, the proposed and final PSQ reserve amounts, the proposed and final bycatch allowances, the seasonal apportionments thereof, and the manner in which seasonal apportionments of nontrawl fishery bycatch allowances will be managed, as required by paragraph (e) of this section.
          (ii) Public comment. Public comment will be accepted by NMFS on the proposed annual red king crab PSC limit and, if applicable, the amount of this PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC limit, the annual C. opilio PSC limit, the proposed and final bycatch allowances, seasonal apportionments thereof, and the manner in which seasonal apportionments of nontrawl fishery bycatch allowances will be managed, for a period specified in the notice of proposed specifications published in the Federal Register.

        5. In § 679.62, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.62
          Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.
          (a) * * *
          (3) Conversion of quota share percentage to TAC allocations. (Effective April 1, 2005) Each inshore pollock cooperative that receives a quota share percentage for a fishing year will receive an annual allocation of Bering Sea and/or Aleutian Islands pollock that is equal to the cooperative's quota share percentage for that subarea multiplied by the annual inshore pollock allocation for that subarea. Each cooperative's annual pollock TAC allocation may be published in the proposed and final BSAI harvest specifications notice.

      [FR Doc. 04-16957 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 000511131-0131-01; I.D. 021500A]
        RIN 0648-AM75
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Amendment 12

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement Amendment 12 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Amendment 12). This rule would extend the current moratorium on the issuance of commercial vessel permits for king mackerel through October 15, 2005. The intended effects of this proposed rule are to prevent speculative entry into the fishery and provide stability in the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on July 3, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Dr. Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
          Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule should be sent to Edward E. Burgess, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).
          Copies of Amendment 12, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review (RIR), may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Suite 1000, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Tampa, FL 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-225-7015; e-mail: Gulf.Council@noaa.gov; or from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Southpark Building, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366; fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail: Safmc@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Steve Branstetter; telephone: 727-570-5305; fax: 727-570-5583; e-mail: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic resources are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared jointly by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Councils), approved by NMFS, and implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background
        Amendment 8 to the FMP, implemented in March 1998 (63 FR 10561, March 4, 1998), established a moratorium on commercial king mackerel permits through October 15, 2000. To obtain a king mackerel permit under the moratorium, a vessel owner must have owned a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel on or before October 16, 1995, the control date for the king mackerel fishery (60 FR 53576, October 16, 1995). The intent of the moratorium is to prevent further increases in effort, to stabilize the economic performance of current participants, and possibly to reduce the number of permittees in the king mackerel fishery. The Councils noted that the number of commercial vessel permits for mackerel had increased from 1,280 to 2,754 between the 1987-88 and 1997-98 fishing years. As of March 25, 1999, the number of king and Spanish mackerel permits has declined to 2,109.

        Under section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils are precluded from submitting to NMFS, prior to October 1, 2000, an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program or an individual transferable quota (ITQ) program for agency review, approval, and implementation. The Gulf Council's development of Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, which was to establish a limited entry program for the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf (i.e., an ITQ system), required more than one year to complete. Based on this experience, the Councils have concluded that there would be insufficient time to develop a limited access program for the commercial king mackerel fishery prior to the expiration of the current moratorium.
        Currently, the commercial king mackerel fisheries of both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are valued at approximately $7 million annually and are subject to closures when the quotas are filled. For the western Gulf zone, the fishery is open for approximately 6 weeks, beginning on July 1 of each year. For the eastern Gulf zone, the Florida west coast gillnet fishery closes in a matter of days after the fishery begins in January; the Florida west coast hook-and-line fishery for Gulf group king mackerel has usually closed in February or March, after a July 1 opening. The Florida east coast fishery for Gulf group king mackerel has usually closed in March after a November 1 opening; and the commercial hook-and-line fishery for Atlantic group king mackerel has reached its quota in two of the last 3 years. These annual closures indicate that fleet size and fishery effort are still excessive to harvest the allowable quotas.
        The Atlantic stocks of king mackerel have rebounded from an overfished status and are no longer considered overfished and overfishing is not occurring. This upturn in status is the result of recent restrictions on fishing effort (i.e., adjustment of size, bag, and trip limits; the prohibition of net gear in Florida state waters; and the imposition of a moratorium on the number of permits issued in the fishery.) In response to the current status of the Atlantic king mackerel stock the South Atlantic Council has recommended a modest quota increase for this group, giving fishers the opportunity to harvest more fish and realize an increased economic benefit. This increase in quota is within the range recommended by the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel and the Scientific and Statistical Committee. Such a relaxation of restrictions on the harvest, and thus the insurance of the increased availability of long term benefits for users, can be achieved by maintaining other measures currently in place.
        Both the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils agree that allowing the moratorium to expire would result in an increased number of participants in these mackerel fisheries, most likely negating any reductions in effort that have been achieved as a result of the current moratorium. Any increase in participants would: Exacerbate the current derby fisheries that occur in the western Gulf zone and in the Florida west coast gillnet fishery, lead to even earlier closures, probably result in closures of the Atlantic group king mackerel fishery, and have an impact on the economic performance of the current participants. Increased participation would also compound the complexity of the Council's future actions to develop a controlled access system for this fishery. For example, new entrants may lose a good part of their new investments if the future assignment of fishing privileges is weighted more toward historical rather than current participation.
        The Councils concluded that an extension of the existing moratorium on the issuance of commercial vessel permits for king mackerel is necessary to avoid these negative impacts and to provide adequate time for the Councils to evaluate and develop an alternative limited access or limited entry program. Therefore, this proposed rule would extend the expiration date of the existing moratorium from October 16, 2000, through October 15, 2005, or to the date of implementation of a license limitation, limited access, and/or IFQ or ITQ program that replaces the moratorium, whichever occurs first.
        Changes Proposed by NMFS
        To simplify the regulations, NMFS proposes to delete language in § 622.4 regarding implementation of the original moratorium on issuance of commercial vessel permits for king mackerel that is no longer pertinent.
        Consistent with a recent change of the name of Dade County, FL, to Miami-Dade County, FL, NMFS proposes to revise all references to Dade County, FL, to read Miami-Dade County, FL, throughout 50 CFR part 622.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment this rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on Amendment 12.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        This rule includes collection-of-information requirements that are subject to the PRA. The first collection-of-information pertains to applications for commercial vessel permits. That collection is currently approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0205 and its public reporting burden is estimated at 20 minutes per response. The second collection-of-information pertains to fishing records of vessels permitted in the commercial king or Spanish mackerel fisheries. That collection is currently approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0016 and its public reporting burden is estimated at 15 minutes per response. These burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The proposed rule contains a single provision to extend the commercial king mackerel permit moratorium from its current expiration date of October 15, 2000, to October 15, 2005, or until replaced with a license limitation, limited access, and/or individual fishing quota or individual transferable quota system, whichever occurs earlier. The action covers both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Federal waters. The moratorium on new permits was first instituted in March 1998 and will expire on October 15, 2000. There is a need to extend the current moratorium on new permits because progress toward designing and implementing the intended limited access system has not been as rapid as originally envisioned. Comprehensive limited access systems are difficult to develop and implement; at this point, there is insufficient time to institute a new limited access system for the king mackerel fishery by October 15, 2000. Hence, the current action is being proposed to provide the Councils with additional time to develop a new limited access system and to ensure that the current permit moratorium does not lapse before they have completed this task.
          The entities that could be affected by changes in the current system governing the ability of individual firms to engage in the lawful harvest of king mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic consist of those firms holding commercial harvest permits. There are currently about 2,100 commercial permit holders and all could be potentially affected by the proposed action. Also, all the firms holding the permits qualify as small business entities per the definition used by the Small Business Administration. Hence, a substantial number of small business entities could be affected by the action.
          The concept of status quo has a somewhat unusual context in terms of this particular proposed action. Specifically, the status quo (taking no action) means that the current permit moratorium would expire, the fishery would revert to open access, and the number of permitted fishermen would likely increase. Conversely, under the proposed action, the permit moratorium, which has existed since 1998, would remain in effect until replaced by a new limited access system.
          If the status quo alternative (let the current permit moratorium expire) is taken, then there would be a number of economic effects related to a reversion of the fishery to open access. For example, given that there were over 2,600 permitted entities based on the original control date for the fishery, and about 2,100 currently, it is obvious that additional vessel owners would apply for and receive permits if the moratorium is lifted. While some of these new entrants would likely obtain a permit with the intention of only establishing fishing rights in the king mackerel fishery and would not actively participate in the fishery, other new entrants would likely participate in the fishery for one or more reasons. Some new entrants might land a minimum quantity of king mackerel on the basis that having a permit, in combination with a history of at least some level of landings, would further enhance their claim to future fishery participation rights. Other new entrants would likely become active participants in the fishery. This is probable based on the fact that a number of permit transfers occur each year, and a market has developed for these transferable king mackerel permits. The price range associated with an existing permit is not known, but permits for other species in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic are known to be valued at several thousand dollars. With the moratorium lifted, new entry would be possible by paying only the administrative permit fee, currently $50 for a new permit or $20 for a king mackerel endorsement to an existing permit for another species. The value conferred on current permits by the moratorium will be lost.
          It is noted that at the present time under the permit moratorium, the entity giving up a permit by transfer must exit the fishery, and current exit behavior is clearly influenced by a number of factors, including the current value of a permit. Recently available logbook data for this fishery indicates that some of the current participants do not land a large amount of king mackerel on an annual basis. These are the participants who are most likely to sell their existing permits to new entrants under the continuing condition of a permit moratorium. The reasoning is that the expected net present value of their profits (net revenues) derived from their small catches are exceeded by the current market value of their king mackerel permit. As such, the permit moratorium has resulted in a reduction in the number of permits in the king mackerel fishery.
          New entrants in the king mackerel fisheries will not necessarily result in a large overall increase in catch. This is because the commercial king mackerel fishery operates under an annual quota that is enforced through fishery closures. The quota for the Gulf of Mexico fishery has typically been met each year. Although not met in recent years, the quota for the South Atlantic fishery historically has been met. However, even if the new entrants do not result in a significant increase in overall landings, an increase in the rate at which king mackerel is harvested should result, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico fishery. This scenario would exacerbate the existing derby fishery in the Gulf and would tend to lead to lower overall exvessel prices because the quota would be landed in a shorter period of time.
          In summary, maintaining the status quo and thereby allowing the permit moratorium to expire would result in an increase in the number of permits, a possible increase in the annual catch, a likely decrease in exvessel prices, and a loss of the existing transfer value of existing permits. The result would be a negative economic impact on all the current permit holders, including those permit holders who might otherwise be expected to sell their permits and exit the fishery under the current system. There would also be positive impacts for at least some of the new entrants because they could obtain a permit for $20 to $50 instead of paying the existing higher market price for a permit. Some of these new entrants would be expected to participate in the fishery at a significant and profitable level. In addition to these rather straightforward impacts on current and potential new entrants, the increase in the rate at which king mackerel are harvested, especially in the Gulf where a restrictive quota pertains, would intensify the existing derby fishery and the attendant loss in economic benefits typically associated with such fisheries. Reverting to an open access fishery also means that the Councils would once again have to undertake the preliminary steps necessary to establish a comprehensive limited access system. It is likely that repeating these steps would have additional negative economic impacts on at least some of those participants who are currently permitted. For example, they may have to reestablish a fishing history or take other actions necessary to continue fishing under any new limited access system.
          The overall conclusion is that if the status quo alternative was chosen and the permit moratorium allowed to expire on October 15, 2000, there would be a number of negative impacts on existing participants in the king mackerel fishery in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. While there would likely be some positive economic impacts for a portion of any new entrants, the negative impacts of the status quo action are expected to exceed the positive impacts. An increased number of king mackerel permits would likely create a derby fishery, particularly in the Gulf where current annual quotas constrain harvests. Taking action to extend the current permit moratorium means that the likely negative economic impacts of the status quo alternative will not occur. In other words, the proposed action of extending the permit moratorium until October 15, 2005, should forestall adverse economic changes and impacts associated with the status quo scenario of letting the moratorium expire. For these reasons, it follows that the proposed action will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.

        As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required. A copy of the RIR is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: May 24, 2000.
          Andrew A. Rosenberg,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
          1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1801 et
              seq.

          2. In § 622.4, the last two sentences of paragraph (a)(2)(iii), the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(iv), and paragraph (q) are revised to read as follows:

            § 622.4
            Permits and fees.
            (a) * * *
            (2) * * *

            (iii) * * * To obtain or renew a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel, at least 25 percent of the applicant's earned income, or at least $10,000, must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale of fish) or from charter fishing during one of the 3 calendar years preceding the application. See paragraph (q) of this section regarding a moratorium on commercial vessel permits for king mackerel, transfers of permits during the moratorium, and limited exceptions to the earned income or gross sales requirement for a permit.
            (iv) * * * To obtain or renew a commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel, at least 25 percent of the applicant's earned income, or at least $10,000, must have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale of fish) or from charter fishing during one of the 3 calendar years preceding the application.

            (q) Moratorium on commercial vessel permits for king mackerel. This paragraph (q) is effective through October 15, 2005.
            (1) NMFS will not accept applications for additional commercial vessel permits for king mackerel. Existing vessel permits may be renewed, are subject to the restrictions on transfer or change in paragraphs (q)(2) through (q)(5) of this section, and are subject to the requirement for timely renewal in paragraph (q)(6) of this section.
            (2) An owner of a permitted vessel may transfer a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel to another vessel owned by the same entity.
            (3) An owner whose percentage of earned income or gross sales qualified him/her for a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel may request that NMFS transfer that permit to the owner of another vessel, or to the new owner when he or she transfers ownership of the permitted vessel. NMFS may issue a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel to such owner of another vessel, or new owner. NMFS may renew the permit through April 15 following the first full calendar year after the permit is transferred, without the owner meeting the percentage of earned income or gross sales requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. However, to further renew the commercial vessel permit, the owner of the other vessel, or new owner, must meet the earned income or gross sales requirement not later than the first full calendar year after the permit is transferred.
            (4) If a permit is based on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that person is the operator of the vessel, the owner of the vessel may request that NMFS transfer the permit to the income-qualifying operator if such operator becomes an owner of a vessel.
            (5) If a permit is based on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that person is the operator of the vessel, the owner of the vessel may request that NMFS remove the operator qualification on the permit by returning the original permit to the RA with an application for the changed permit. NMFS may renew the permit without such qualification through April 15 following the first full calendar year after NMFS removes the operator qualification, without the owner meeting the earned income or gross sales requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. However, to further renew the commercial vessel permit, the owner must meet the earned income or gross sales requirement not later than the first full calendar year after NMFS removes the operator qualification.
            (6) NMFS will not reissue a commercial vessel permit for king mackerel if the permit is revoked or if the RA does not receive an application for renewal within 1 year of the permit's expiration date.

            §§ 622.2, 622.6, 622.41, 622.44
            [Amended]
            3. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 50 CFR part 622, remove the word “Dade” and add, in its place, the words “Miami-Dade” in the following places:
            (a) Section 622.2, in paragraph (2) of the definition of “Migratory group”;
            (b) Section 622.6(b)(2);
            (c) Section 622.41(c)(3)(ii)(B); and
            (d) Section 622.44(a)(1)(iii).

      [FR Doc. 00-13572 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        48 CFR Part 252
        [DFARS Case 2000-D027]
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Tax Exemptions (Italy)

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update requirements pertaining to tax exemptions for DoD contracts performed in Italy.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to the address shown below on or before November 20, 2001, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Respondents may submit comments directly on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. As an alternative, respondents may e-mail comments to: dfars@acq.osd.mil. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D027 in the subject line of e-mailed comments.
          Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Susan Schneider, OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D027.

          At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Susan Schneider, (703) 602-0326.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        DoD uses the contract clause at DFARS 252.229-7003, Tax Exemptions (Italy), when contract performance will be in Italy. This rule proposes amendments to the clause at DFARS 252.229-7003 to update the information pertaining to tax exemptions that contractors must include on their invoices.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule makes minor changes in invoicing requirements that apply only to DoD contracts performed in Italy. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2000-D027.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The rule does not add any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 252 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          2. Section 252.229-7003 is revised to read as follows:

            252.229-7003
            Tax exemptions (Italy).
            As prescribed in 229.402-70(c), use the following clause:

              Tax Exemptions (Italy) (XXX 2001)
              (a) The Contractor represents that the contract price, including the prices in subcontracts awarded under this contract, does not include taxes from which the United States Government is exempt.
              (b) The United States Government is exempt from payment of Imposta Valore Aggiunto (IVA) tax in accordance with Article 72 of the IVA implementing decree on all supplies and services sold to United States Military Commands in Italy.
              (1) The Contractor shall include the following information on invoices submitted to the United States Government:
              (i) The contract number.
              (ii) The IVA tax exemption claimed pursuant to Article 72 of Decree Law 633, dated October 26, 1972.
              (iii) The following fiscal code(s): [Contracting Officer must insert the applicable fiscal code(s) for military activities within Italy: 80028250241 for Army, 80156020630 for Navy, or 91000190933 for Air Force].

              (2)(i) Upon receipt of the invoice, the paying office will include the following certification on one copy of the invoice: “I certify that this invoice is true and correct and reflects expenditures made in Italy for the Common Defense by the United States Government pursuant to international agreements. The amount to be paid does not include the IVA tax, because this transaction is not subject to the tax in accordance with Article 72 of Decree Law 633, dated October 26, 1972.” An authorized United States Government official will sign the copy of the invoice containing this certification.
              (ii) The paying office will return the certified copy together with payment to the Contractor. The payment will not include the amount of the IVA tax.
              (iii) The Contractor shall retain the certified copy to substantiate non-payment of the IVA tax.
              (3) The Contractor may address questions regarding the IVA tax to the Ministry of Finance, IVA office, Rome (06) 520741.
              (c) In addition to the IVA tax, purchases by the United States Forces in Italy are exempt from the following taxes:
              (1) Imposta di Fabbricazione (Production Tax for Petroleum Products).
              (2) Imposta di Consumo (Consumption Tax for Electrical Power).
              (3) Dazi Doganali (Customs Duties).
              (4) Tassa di Sbarco e d'Imbarco sulle Merci Transportate per Via Aerea e per Via Maritima (Port Fees).
              (5) Tassa de Circolazione sui Veicoli (Vehicle Circulation Tax).
              (6) Imposta di Registro (Registration Tax).
              (7) Imposta di Bollo (Stamp Tax). (End of clause)

      [FR Doc. 01-23689 Filed 9-20-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5000-04-U


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 080502D]
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico; Draft Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico to Establish a Red Snapper Rebuilding Plan (Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment); Scoping Meetings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS); notice of scoping meetings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) intends to prepare a DSEIS to describe and analyze management alternatives associated with establishing a red snapper rebuilding plan based on biomass-based stock rebuilding targets and thresholds.  The red snapper rebuilding plan will be implemented through an amendment to the FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico.  The purpose of this notice of intent is to solicit public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DSEIS, which will be submitted to NMFS for filing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for publication of a notice of availability for public comment.

          DATES:

          Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DSEIS must be received by the Council by September 18, 2002.  A series of scoping meetings will be held late August through early October 2002.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on the scope of the DSEIS and requests for additional information on the Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment should be sent to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, The Commons at Rivergate, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619; telephone:  813-228-2815; fax:  813-225-7015.  Comments may also be sent by e-mail to Peter.Hood@gulfcouncil.org.

          Eight scoping meetings will be held throughout the Gulf, in the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the specific locations, dates, and times of those meetings.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood; phone:  813-228-2815; fax:  813-225-7015; e-mail: Peter.Hood@gulfcouncil.org or Phil Steele; phone:  727-570-5305; fax:  727-570-5583; e-mail: Phil.Steele@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council is preparing to amend the FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico to establish a red snapper rebuilding plan that is based on biomass-based stock rebuilding targets and thresholds.  The Council will develop a DSEIS to describe and analyze management alternatives considered in the Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment.
        The DSEIS will evaluate biomass-based stock rebuilding targets and thresholds, and will consider various rebuilding schedules, consistent with the legal mandate provided by Section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to rebuild overfished stocks in as short a time period as possible, taking into account other factors, including the status and biology of the overfished stock and the needs of fishing communities.  The DSEIS will also consider various alternatives to achieve the rebuilding goal based on a constant catch scenario and/or a constant fishing mortality rate scenario.
        In an earlier version of the Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment (Draft Regulatory Amendment to the Reef Fish FMP to Set a Red Snapper Rebuilding Plan through 2032), the Council proposed a 31-year stepwise rebuilding strategy based on a combination of the constant catch and constant fishing mortality rate scenarios.  That rebuilding strategy would maintain the current total allowable catch (TAC) quota set at 9.12 million lb (4.14 kg) under a constant catch scenario for years 2001-2005, with a minimum 40-percent bycatch reduction requirement.  Thereafter, the rebuilding plan would shift to a constant fishing mortality rate strategy.  In addition to annual monitoring to ensure quota compliance, the status of the stock would be reviewed every 5 years to evaluate the need for additional management measures.  That strategy will be considered in the Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment, as will other strategies that may require immediate adjustments to existing management measures.
        Management alternatives considered by the Council could include, but would not be limited to, adjustments to red snapper TAC quotas, minimum size limits, and bag limits, and changes to existing bycatch reduction requirements in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery.

        Written comments on the range of alternatives and scope of issues to be addressed in the DSEIS may be sent to the Council (see ADDRESSES).  The Council has scheduled the following eight scoping meetings to provide the opportunity for additional public input:
        1.  Monday, August 26, 2002:  Four Points Sheraton, 3777 North Expressway, Brownsville, TX (956-547-1500);
        2.  Tuesday, August 27, 2002:  Palacios Recreation Center, 2401 Perryman, Palacios, TX (361-972-2387);
        3.  Wednesday, August 28, 2002:  San Luis Resort, 5222 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston Island, TX (409-744-1500);
        4.  Monday, September 23, 2002:  New Orleans Airport Hilton, 901 Airline Highway, Kenner, LA (504-469-5000);
        5.  Tuesday, September 24, 2002:  Isle of Capri Casino Hotel, 151 Beach Boulevard, Biloxi, MS (228-436-8720);
        6.  Wednesday, September 25, 2002:  Adams Mark Hotel, 64 South Water Street, Mobile, AL (251-438-4000);

        7.  Tuesday, October 1, 2002:  Franklin County Courthouse, 33 Market Street, Apalachicola, FL (850-653-8861); and
        8.  Wednesday, October 2, 2002:  Tampa Airport Hilton, 2225 Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL (813-877-6688).

        At these scoping meetings, the Council will also take public comments on the DSEIS being developed to support proposed Amendment 13 to the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 13).  The notice of intent for that action can be found at Notice I.D. 080502E published in the Notices section of this issue of the Federal Register, and contains more information on the purpose and scope of Amendment 13, which would establish stock status determination criteria for managed shrimp stocks in the Gulf.  Amendment 13 may also include, but would not be limited to, alternatives related to: (1) adding rock shrimp to the management unit of the shrimp FMP, (2) requiring endorsements for vessels harvesting rock shrimp and royal red shrimp in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico, (3) requiring vessel monitoring systems aboard shrimp trawl vessels fishing in or transiting all or some portions of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ, (4) improving bycatch reporting, and (5) further reducing bycatch in the shrimp fishery.

        All scoping meetings will begin at 6 p.m.  The first portion of each meeting will be allocated to taking public comments on proposed Amendment 13.  Scoping for the Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment will commence immediately following the conclusion of public comments on Amendment 13.  The meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Peter Hood at the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        Once the Council completes the DSEIS associated with the Draft Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment, it will submit the document to NMFS for filing with the EPA.  The EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DSEIS for public comment in the Federal Register.  The DSEIS will have a 45-day comment period.  This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.
        The Council will consider public comments received on the DSEIS in developing the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) and before adopting final management measures for the Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment.  The Council will submit both the final Amendment and the supporting FSEIS to NMFS for Secretary of Commerce review, approval, and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the Federal Register, the availability of the final Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment for public review during the Secretarial review period.  During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FSEIS with the EPA for a final 30-day public comment period.  This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment.
        NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the Federal Register, all public comment periods on the final Red Snapper Rebuilding Amendment, its proposed implementing regulations, and its associated FSEIS.  NMFS will consider all public comments received during the public comment periods, whether they are on the final Amendment, the proposed regulations, or the FSEIS, prior to final agency action.

          Dated:  August 14, 2002.
          Virginia M. Fay,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-21024 Filed 8-16-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 171128999-8625-01]
        RIN 0648-BH43
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Permit Renewal Applications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to make administrative revisions to the renewal process for Federal vessel permits, licenses, and endorsements, and dealer permits (hereafter referred to collectively as permits) in the NMFS Southeast Region. This proposed rule would remove the regulatory requirement that NMFS must mail a renewal application to a permit holder (vessel or dealer) whose Federal permit is expiring. NMFS will continue to provide notice of the upcoming expiration date to the permit holder. This proposed rule would also remove the regulatory requirement that NMFS must notify an applicant of any deficiency in a renewal application only through sending a letter via traditional mail, such as through the U.S. Postal Service, which would allow NMFS expanded options for notifying permit holders. The purpose of this proposed rule is to reduce the administrative costs and burden to NMFS of renewing Federal permits, while still maintaining the needed information and services to the public.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by August 31, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0064” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0064, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit all written comments to Sarah Stephenson, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirement contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see mailing address above), by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-5806.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sarah Stephenson, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: sarah.stephenson@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the U.S. southeast region, NMFS and regional fishery management councils manage fisheries in Federal waters under the under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and through regulations implemented by NMFS at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background
        NMFS issues permits, licenses, or endorsements to vessel owners and seafood dealers for species managed under multiple fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. These permits are valid for 1 year from the date of issuance by NMFS. Current regulations require the Regional Administrator (RA) for the NMFS Southeast Region to mail a paper renewal application with instructions to a permit holder whose Federal permit is expiring approximately 2 months prior to the expiration date (50 CFR 622.4(g)(1)).
        This requirement creates an administrative cost and time burden on NMFS, and other more efficient methods to obtain an application exist. The vessel permit application form with instructions totals nine pages, double sided, and the dealer permit application form with instructions totals five pages, double sided. Each of the application renewals incurs unnecessary labor and material costs for the printing and mailing of the renewal forms. In 2017, a total of 5,269 permit holders were estimated to collectively hold 18,188 permits that must be renewed annually. Depending on the renewal application package required, the corresponding number of pages mailed by the Southeast Permits Office each year for these renewals is between 26,345 and 47,421 pages.
        Additionally, the current regulation for permit renewals requires NMFS to notify an applicant of any deficiency in a renewal application by a letter, which NMFS sends through traditional mail (50 CFR 622.4(g)(1)). In 2017, the NMFS Southeast Permits Office received approximately 8,060 separate applications for vessel permits, licenses, or endorsements, and dealer permits, of which NMFS subsequently mailed letters to 4,305 applicants (53 percent) to address application deficiencies. These notifications also incur unnecessary labor and material costs for the printing and mailing of these letters.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule

        This proposed rule would remove the requirement that the RA mail a renewal application to a permit holder whose Federal permit is expiring. Instead, the RA would notify the permit holder approximately 2 months prior to the expiration date of the permit through a letter, email, or other appropriate means that may be available. NMFS would continue to mail applications upon request from an applicant, and applications to renew a Federal vessel permit, license, or endorsement, and dealer permit are currently available for download from the NMFS Southeast Permits Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/operations_management_information_services/constituency_services_branch/permits/index.html. NMFS is also continuing to expand the number of applications that applicants can submit online. As of July 1, 2018, applicants can access and submit applications online to renew 13 permits.
        This proposed rule would also remove the requirement that the RA notify an applicant of any deficiency in a renewal application only by a letter sent through traditional mail.
        NMFS expects this proposed rule to reduce administrative labor and material costs associated with mailing permit renewal applications and letters of application deficiency to permit holders by allowing NMFS the flexibility to use more efficient means to provide the permit renewal applications and notifications of application deficiency.
        NMFS does not expect this proposed rule to affect the overall number of annual permit renewals that NMFS receives or change the average time necessary for an applicant to complete an application. This proposed rule would not result in any change to fisheries operations.
        Additional Change not Contained in This Proposed Rule
        Although not a regulatory requirement, NMFS has historically mailed renewal applications for Federal operator cards to vessel operators prior to the expiration date. If NMFS implements this proposed rule, a renewal application would not automatically be mailed to individuals with an operator card prior to the expiration date; however, similar to the notification of permit holders with Federal permits discussed in this proposed rule, NMFS intends to continue providing notification to a vessel operator with an operator card of its upcoming expiration prior to that date. Additionally, NMFS may use methods other than by letter to notify applicants that a renewal application contains deficiencies.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the applicable FMPs in the Gulf and South Atlantic, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this proposed rule and its purpose and need are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
        This proposed rule would directly apply to businesses that operate in the commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411), charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) fishing (NAICS code 487210), and fish and seafood market industries (NAICS code 445220) that are required to renew permits, licenses, and endorsements to continue to participate in fisheries managed by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.
        For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing. A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The SBA's annual revenue threshold for a business involved in either the for-hire fishing, or fish and seafood marketing industry is $7.5 million. It is initially expected that almost all to all of the businesses directly affected by this action are small.
        In 2017, 5,269 unique entities were estimated to collectively hold 18,188 permits, licenses, or endorsements that must be renewed annually, and these unique entities are expected to represent up to 5,269 unique small businesses.
        The proposed rule would eliminate the requirement that the RA print and mail renewal applications to every applicable permit, license, or endorsement holder every year. Instead, the RA would notify small businesses whose permits are expiring and instruct them of the various alternative methods of acquiring the renewal application, which are: submit an electronic application form online, if available; download and print an application form; call the NMFS Southeast Permits Office toll-free number and request an application form by mail; or acquire an application form in person from the NMFS Southeast Permits Office.
        Currently, all small businesses can acquire a paper renewal application by either waiting for the application in the mail, downloading and printing one, or coming to the Permits Office. An increasing number of applicants can access and submit an electronic renewal application online, but this service is not available for all applicants because not all renewal applications can be submitted online at this time. As of July 1, 2018, applicants can access and submit applications online to renew 13 permits (of the 27 permits issued under the FMPs), and NMFS is working to increase the number of permits that can be renewed in this manner.
        This action would have no impact on any small businesses that currently submit an online application to renew their permit, download and print an application, or get an application in-person from the Permits Office. However, it would have impacts on those small businesses that currently rely on or otherwise use the application automatically mailed to them.
        NMFS expects that this proposed rule would divide those latter small businesses into four subgroups depending on which option to obtain an application they prefer and are able to choose. The number of small businesses that would choose any particular option is unknown. All options would require the same average amount of time to complete an application.

        As NMFS continues to expand the number of permit applications that are available to submit online, small businesses that presently cannot submit their permit renewal applications online would receive multiple direct and indirect benefits. These include the convenience and efficiency of accessing and submitting an application online, eliminating the cost of mailing a completed paper application (estimated to be, on average, $0.91 per application annually), and a small business' ability to pay the renewal fee(s) by either credit card or electronic check via Pay.gov accessed through the Southeast Fisheries Online Permit System, rather than by check or money order. Benefits of paying electronically include, but are not restricted to, higher transaction speed, reduced check-associated costs, and greater transaction transparency.
        The existing option to download and print out a paper application would have added benefits and costs to those who currently do not choose this option. These include the flexibility to acquire the application at their convenience and the additional direct cost of downloading and printing each application form (expected to vary from $1 to $10). This option would not change baseline mailing costs ($0.91) or payment options. Payment submitted with paper applications must be made by either check or money order.
        The proposed rule would also give small businesses the option to call the NMFS Southeast Permits Office toll-free to request that NMFS mail a paper application to them. This would require a small business to take the time to call NMFS to request the application be mailed. This option is essentially a no-action alternative; there would be no change in baseline mailing costs or payment options to small businesses for each application.
        A fourth option would be for an applicant to travel to the NMFS Southeast Permits Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, to obtain an application. However, NMFS expects that most small businesses would not select this option because of time and travel costs.
        The added cost to acquire an application by telephone request, download, online access and submission, or traveling to the Permits Office is expected to be minimal. In conclusion, NMFS expects this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0205. Public reporting burden for renewal applications in the Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms is estimated to vary between 30 and 55 minutes, depending on the applicable form. The estimated reporting burdens are based on an individual response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This proposed rule would not change existing collection-of-information requirements or estimated reporting burdens. Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES), by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-5806.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person will be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved collections of information may be viewed at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Commercial, Dealer, Endorsement, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, License, Permit, South Atlantic.

          Dated: July 27, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 622.4, revise paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

          § 622.4
           Permits and fees—general.

          (g) * * *
          (1) Vessel permits, licenses, and endorsements, and dealer permits. Unless specified otherwise, a vessel or dealer permit holder who has been issued a permit, license, or endorsement under this part must renew such permit, license, or endorsement on an annual basis. The RA will notify a vessel or dealer permit holder whose permit, license, or endorsement is expiring approximately 2 months prior to the expiration date. A vessel or dealer permit holder who does not receive a notification is still required to submit an application form as specified below. The applicant must submit a completed renewal application form and all required supporting documents to the RA prior to the applicable deadline for renewal of the permit, license, or endorsement, and at least 30 calendar days prior to the date on which the applicant desires to have the permit made effective. Application forms and instructions for renewal are available online at sero.nmfs.noaa.gov or from the RA (Southeast Permits Office) at 1-877-376-4877, Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time. If the RA receives an incomplete application, the RA will notify the applicant of the deficiency. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30 calendar days of the notification date by the RA, the application will be considered abandoned. A permit, license, or endorsement that is not renewed within the applicable deadline will not be reissued.

      [FR Doc. 2018-16462 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P