        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028; FF09M21200-123-FXMB1231099BPP0L2]
        RIN 1018-AY61
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Copper-Clad Iron Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of application for nontoxic shot approval.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce that Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, Oregon, has applied for our approval of shot composed of copper and iron as nontoxic for waterfowl hunting in the United States. The shot contains a maximum of 44.1 percent copper by weight, with iron composing the rest of the shot. We have initiated review of the shot under the criteria we have set out in our nontoxic shot approval procedures in our regulations.

          DATES:

          This notice announces the initiation of our review of a Tier 1 application submitted in accordance with 50 CFR 20.134. We will complete the review of the application by August 20, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may view the application by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028.
          • Request a copy by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          George Allen, at 703-358-1825.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect most migratory bird species from take, except as permitted under the Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. We prohibit the use of shot types other than those listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up aggregate bag limits.
        Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We have approved nontoxic shot types and added them to the migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR 20.21(j). We will continue to review all shot types submitted for approval as nontoxic.
        Current Application
        Environ-Metal has submitted its application to us with the counsel that it contained all of the specified information required by 50 CFR 20.134 for a complete Tier 1 submittal, and has requested unconditional approval pursuant to the Tier 1 timeframe. Having determined that the application is complete, we have initiated a comprehensive review of the Tier 1 information under 50 CFR 21.134. After review, we will either publish a notice of review to inform the public that the Tier 1 test results are inconclusive, or we will publish a proposed rule to approve the candidate shot.
        If the Tier 1 tests are inconclusive, the notice of review will indicate what other tests we will require before we will again consider approval of the shot as nontoxic. If the Tier 1 data review results in a preliminary determination that the candidate material does not pose a significant toxicity hazard to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats, the Service will commence with a rulemaking proposing to approve the candidate shot and add it to our list at 50 CFR 20.21(j).

          Authority:
          We publish this notice under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) and in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 134(b)(2)(i)(D)(3).

          Dated: June 12, 2012.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-14956 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-BB40
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Amendment To Simplify Vessel Baselines

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils have submitted an Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Northeastern United States to simplify vessel baselines. This amendment incorporates a draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is requesting comments from the public. The Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines would eliminate the one-time limit on vessel upgrades and remove gross and net tonnages from vessel baseline specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. Implementing these measures would reduce the administrative burden to permit holders and NMFS, and would have little effect on fleet capacity. This action would also remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213, by any one of the following methods.

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

            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).

          Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) approved this Baseline Amendment, which would simplify vessel baseline requirements, at their November 18, 2014, and October 8, 2014, meetings, respectively. NMFS prepared the amendment on behalf of the Councils and declared a transmittal date May 12, 2015. Both Councils have reviewed the Baseline Amendment proposed rule regulations as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the MSA. If approved by NMFS, this amendment would simplify the specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes developed by the MAFMC and NEFMC.
        Background
        The MAFMC developed the first limited entry program in 1977 for the surfclam/quahog fishery, which included restrictions on replacement vessels. This program required that a replacement vessel be of “substantially similar capacity” in an effort to maintain and not increase the harvest capacity of the fleet at that time. Over the following two decades, the MAFMC and NEFMC implemented additional limited entry programs. By 1998, there were four different sets of vessel upgrade and replacement restrictions among the various FMPs. The upgrade restrictions became confusing for fishing industry members with more than one limited access permit, because each permit had the potential to have different vessel upgrade regulations apply. In addition, some vessels added limited access permits to their vessel that originally qualified on another vessel that was a different size and/or horsepower. This results in a vessel having multiple baselines. Thus, in 1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in consultation with NMFS, developed an amendment to Achieve Regulatory Consistency on Permit Related Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited Access Federal Fishery Permits (64 FR 8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency Amendment) to streamline and make consistent baseline provisions and upgrade restrictions across FMPs.
        The Consistency Amendment standardized definitions and restrictions for vessel baselines, upgrades, and replacements across all limited access fisheries. It simplified regulations for vessel replacements, permit transfers, and vessel upgrades, making them consistent and less restrictive in order to facilitate business transactions. Although the Consistency Amendment did standardize the vessel baseline requirements for the fisheries of the northeast, some burdensome requirements remain. Under current restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined by vessel length overall, gross tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower. We determine the baseline for a limited access permit based on the size (length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and horsepower of the first vessel issued a limited access permit for that fishery or, for fisheries that adopted baseline restrictions through the Consistency Amendment, the permitted vessel at the time the final rule became effective.

        Current baseline regulations require that a replacement vessel or an upgrade made to an existing vessel with a limited access permit be within 10 percent of the size and 20 percent of the horsepower of the permit's baseline vessel. To respect the NEFMC and the MAFMC's intended baseline restrictions of individual fisheries, for vessels with multiple baselines, we use the most restrictive of the baselines to judge the approval of a replacement vessel or upgrade, unless the permit holder chooses to relinquish the more restrictive permit. In addition, current baseline regulations limit permit holders to a one-time upgrade of the vessel size and horsepower specifications. For example, we limit a vessel owner that has a 60-ft (18.3-m) baseline length to upgrading to a vessel of up to 66 ft (20.1 m). However, if he moves his permit to a 62-ft (18.9-m) vessel for any reason, it would constitute his one-time size upgrade and he would lose the ability to later upgrade to a vessel of 66 ft (20.1 m). He would only be able to move his permit to a vessel of 62 ft (18.9 m) or less. Because he used his one-time size upgrade, he would not be able upgrade the vessel's tonnages. He would still be able to use his horsepower upgrade to upgrade his horsepower by 20 percent, but only once.
        The Baseline Amendment would:
        1. Eliminate gross and net tonnage from the baseline specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. Both the Councils and NMFS consider tonnages the most variable of vessel baseline specifications and, therefore, they have little effect on limiting vessel capacity when compared to length and horsepower restrictions. There is more than one acceptable method of determining tonnages, and the tonnages of a vessel can vary significantly depending on whether an exact measurement or simplified calculation is used. In addition, vessel owners can circumvent net tonnage limits by modifying internal bulkheads. Eliminating tonnages would simplify the vessel baseline verification and replacement process. In addition, it could reduce the cost burden on the industry if they only need horsepower verification because this would eliminate the need for a marine survey prior to any permit transactions.
        2. Remove the one-time limit on vessel upgrades. Eliminating the one-time upgrade limit would provide more flexibility for vessel owners in the selection of replacement vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. Some vessel owners have been constrained by the one-time limit because they or a previous owner did not maximize the one-time upgrade with a previous vessel replacement, due to cost or availability or for other reasons, and have since been unable to further upgrade the vessel. Eliminating the one-time limit would also simplify the baseline verification and vessel replacement process for vessel owners and NMFS by eliminating the need to research and document whether a vessel owner used the one-time upgrade during the vessel's entire limited access history.

        This rule proposes to remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. This was not part of the Baseline Amendment, but is the result of an internal review of the trip-level reporting requirements conducted by the joint Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office-Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fishery Dependent Data Committee (FDDC) during the past year. The division of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), in the interest of reducing compliance costs for small businesses, noted a potential cost savings for fishermen if we remove the DNF report and asked that we investigate the possibility of removing it. As a result of that review, the FDDC has recommended that the negative fishing reports are no longer necessary because the ability to determine if a vessel has engaged in fishing activity and submitted required trip reports has increased in recent years due to improved trip-level data matching and the expansion of other monitoring systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems). Therefore, in order to simplify the regulations and reduce reporting burdens for the industry, we are proposing to eliminate the requirement in this action under the Secretary's authority at section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Vessel owners would still be required to report all fishing trip activity on a monthly or weekly basis, depending on the requirements associated with their vessel permits.

        We are soliciting public comments on the Baseline Amendment and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement the revised Baseline Amendment will be published in the Federal Register for additional public comment. NMFS will evaluate the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of the Baseline Amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by July 17, 2015, whether specifically directed to the Baseline Amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the revised Baseline Amendment, including those postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: May 12, 2015.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-11902 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
        [Docket No. 000616184-0184-01; I.D. 050500A]
        RIN 0648-AK74
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibition of Groundfish Fishing and Anchoring in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), and to make changes to the regulations governing the halibut fishery. This action would designate a 2.5 square nautical mile (nm) area of Federal ocean water above and surrounding the Pinnacles off Cape Edgecumbe in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) as the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. This area, which is an unusually productive and highly fragile marine habitat, would be closed to fishing for groundfish or anchoring by vessels holding a Federal fisheries permit. The area would also be closed to commercial or sport fishing for Pacific halibut, and to anchoring by sport or commercial halibut vessels. The intent of this action is to protect an area containing important fish habitat from degradation due to fishing and anchoring impacts, and to create a groundfish reserve.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by August 10, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments must be sent to Susan Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet. Courier or hand delivery of comments may be made to NMFS in the Federal Building, Room 453, Juneau, AK. Copies of Amendment 59 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for the amendment by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS are available from the Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone 907-271-2809.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nina Mollett, 907-586-7462, fax 907-586-7465, e-mail nina.mollett@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations governing the domestic groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. Regulations governing the domestic halibut fisheries appear at 50 CFR 300.60 to 300.65. These regulations supplement the annual fishery management measures adopted by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.

        The Council has submitted Amendment 59 to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) of the FMP amendment on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30559), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through July 11, 2000. Written comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by July 11, 2000, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
        Management Background and Need for Action
        The Sitka Pinnacles area, in the Southeast Outside District of the GOA near Cape Edgecumbe, provides highly productive habitat for many species at different stages of their life cycles. Information collected during manned submersible surveys of groundfish habitat by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) indicates that the diversity and density of fish in that area is much greater than is typical of the eastern continental shelf. The area could easily be overfished because of the concentration of fishes in a relatively small, compact space. State and Federal biologists have recommended that the Sitka Pinnacles and surrounding waters be given protective status as a marine refuge.
        Accomplishing this requires cooperation among NMFS, ADF&G, and the IPHC, because different species are managed under different jurisdictions (see Table 1).

          Table 1. Agency Actions to Close Fisheries off Cape Edgecumbe

            Species
            Agency
            Law

            Commercial and recreational fishing for lingcod and black rockfish
            ADF&G
            These fisheries are closed under 5 AAC 28.150.

            Groundfish
            NMFS
            Would be accomplished by proposed Amd. 59 and proposed regulatory amendments at 50 CFR 679.2 and 679.22.

            Halibut
            NMFS and IPHC
            Would be accomplished by proposed regulatory amendments at 50 CFR 300.63 and 679.22.

            Scallops
            ADF&G
            Under Amd. 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for Scallop Fisheries off Alaska, NMFS delegates responsibility to the State for managing the scallop fishery. Scallop dredging has been closed under 5 AAC 38.120 in the “Central Southeast Outside” area, which includes the proposed reserve, since July, 1994.

            Commercial and Recreational Salmon
            NMFS and ADF&G
            The Alaska State Board of Fish considered closure to salmon fishing at its February 2000 meeting and rejected the proposal.

        The Sitka Pinnacles (also called the Cape Edgecumbe Pinnacles) consist of two large volcanic cones that rise abruptly off the seafloor. The top of one is less than 70 meters below the sea surface, and the other is less than 40 meters below the sea surface. The area from the sea surface to the seafloor provides a variety of rich habitat suitable for different species. Large numbers of juvenile and adult bottom-dwelling rockfish find shelter among the algae, anemones, and other flora and fauna that cover portions of the rock walls. The field of boulders on the bottom provides a spawning bed for lingcod and refuge for large numbers of commercially valuable species like yelloweye and tiger rockfish, along with non-commercial species such as prowfish.
        Juvenile and adult rockfish and huge concentrations of lingcod use the flat, irregular tops of the pinnacles as a feeding platform. Schooling species, such as yellowtail and widow rockfish, feed along the pinnacle walls and in the water column between the top of the pinnacles and the surface. The area has been used for fishing, especially with hook-and-line gear, for decades. In the late 1980s, a directed fishery for lingcod developed on the pinnacles. The high density and aggressive feeding behavior of lingcod made them extremely susceptible to capture; hourly catch rates of lingcod at the site exceeded catch rates in the surrounding area by threefold. In 1991, the State of Alaska began attempting to preserve lingcod populations in nearby State waters (the Sitka Pinnacles are in Federal waters) through closures during winter when male lingcod are nest guarding, and, in 1994, through spring/summer in-season closures of State-regulated fishing in areas that included the pinnacles. In 1995, ADF&G included the pinnacles area in the winter closure as well. In 1997, ADF&G issued an emergency order closing the area to all State-regulated groundfish fishing for the entire season. However, the sport fishing industry was not affected by any of the State's management actions and continued to take lingcod and Pacific halibut. In May of 1998, the commercial and sportfish divisions of ADF&G submitted joint proposals to the Alaska State Board of Fish and the Council to close the Sitka Pinnacles area. The Board of Fish closed the area to fishing for lingcod and black rockfish, which are species under its jurisdiction. It took up the question of closing the area to commercial and recreational salmon fishing in February 2000, but decided against such a closure.
        This action would complement State regulations by designating a 2.5 square nm area of Federal waters above and surrounding the Sitka Pinnacles as the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. The area would be closed to fishing or anchoring by vessels required to have a Federal fisheries permit under § 679.4(b). The area would also be closed to fishing for halibut or anchoring by vessels required to have on board an individual fishing quota (IFQ) halibut permit under § 679.4(d). In addition, the area would be closed to sport fishing for halibut as defined at § 300.61, or anchoring by vessels having halibut on board. The IPHC manages Pacific halibut under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. The Act states that the Regional Fishery Management Council may develop regulations governing U.S. waters “which are in addition to, and not in conflict with, regulations adopted by the Commission” (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)).
        The combined effect of State and Federal regulations would be to allow the Sitka Pinnacles ecosystem to maintain its natural levels of production by eliminating the harvest or bycatch of fish during critical portions of their life cycle. The prohibition on anchoring would eliminate a source of potential degradation of the area's fragile habitat.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.

        Nothing in this proposed action would result in any changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The analysis for this proposed action did not reveal any existing Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the actions proposed in the alternatives.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS has prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, may have on small entities. NMFS estimates the total number of entities to which this rule would apply to be 2,618, which includes 1,048 fixed gear groundfish vessels and 1,570 halibut vessels, based on 1998 data for vessels that fished in the GOA. This figure does not include trawl vessels, which are already prohibited from fishing in this area under Amendment 41 (63 FR 8356, February 19, 1998). Of the non-trawl vessels, the great majority (90 percent) are catcher vessels under 60 feet in length overall. Although this rule would apply to all vessels that can fish in the GOA, only a portion of these vessels have fished in the statistical area (S.A.) the rule would affect. Therefore, NMFS estimates that it is likely that, at most, only 688 entities could be affected. This number represents 224 commercial groundfish vessels, 67 halibut IFQ vessels, and 397 charter companies that fished in the area in 1998. NMFS lacks the necessary data on ownership, affiliation, contractual relationships, etc., to determine which of these operations are “small entities” for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, and some of these 2,618 vessels might not qualify under Small Business Administration criteria. However, for the purposes of the IRFA analysis, NMFS assumes all of these groundfish and commercial halibut vessels to be small entities, given the nature of the fisheries they participate in and the unlikelihood that many of them would reach annual gross revenues in excess of $3 million.
        The actual number of vessels affected by this proposed rule would likely be even smaller. Few commercial fishing vessels currently use the area. Most, if not all, groundfish longliners, and halibut fishermen as well, have voluntarily avoided the pinnacles area for the past 2 years, since ADF&G regulations prohibiting the take of groundfish species under its jurisdiction took effect.
        Even if a few vessels were still fishing in the proposed reserve, it is unlikely that any of them would be adversely affected by the closure to any significant extent, as the area constitutes less than 1 percent of the grounds in S.A. 355631, and less than a thousandth of 1 percent of the total available fishing grounds in the GOA (about 340,000 square nm). To the extent that any halibut IFQ vessels may be displaced, similar opportunities to fish for halibut exist throughout the area. It is unlikely that any lost fishing opportunity or increase in fuel costs would be incurred. For groundfish vessels, however, there are no comparable fishing grounds that offer the density of groundfish that occur on the pinnacles. To the extent that there are any groundfish vessels targeting rockfish other than those prohibited by the State, this rule could result in an unquantifiable loss of fishing opportunity.
        In addition to the commercial fishing vessels, 588 charter vessels, owned by 397 businesses, fished for halibut in 1998 in IPHC Area 2C, in which the Sitka Pinnacles are located. Of the charter vessels, 364 were homeported in Sitka, and 191 of the Sitka vessels targeted bottomfish, including Pacific halibut. Although the opportunity of charter boat operators, as well as individual anglers, to fish for Pacific halibut could be affected by this proposed action, few, if any, of these charter boats have been fishing on the pinnacles since the State closed the area to lingcod and to State-managed rockfish species in the summer of 1998. The aggregations of lingcod present on the pinnacles were an incentive to travel to this site. Although halibut do occur on the pinnacles, they do not aggregate there in any greater numbers than elsewhere in S.A. 355631. Thus, as is the case for halibut IFQ vessels, these vessels are not expected to experience negative economic impacts as a result of displacement from the pinnacles.
        In summary, the cost to small entities of the proposed closure and prohibition on anchoring is expected to be quite low, as the area being proposed for closure constitutes an extremely small percentage of available fishing grounds. Few, if any, vessels have been fishing in the area since ADF&G promulgated regulations prohibiting fishing for groundfish species under its jurisdiction in 1998. Lingcod was the primary incentive for charter vessels to fish in this area, which congregated on the pinnacles and created an easy target. For species that may be found in the area but not in special concentrations, such as halibut and some groundfish species, little if any cost would be incurred to those vessels targeting these species to avoid this area. There are ample fishing grounds nearby that require no additional fuel or other costs.
        The prohibition on anchoring would protect from damage the fragile structures growing on the pinnacles.
        NMFS considered one alternative that could have had less economic impact on small entities--maintaining the status quo. Maintaining the status quo could minimize economic impacts on small entities. This alternative would not affect small entities except that some fishermen who have been avoiding the area because of local support for the marine reserve might resume fishing on the pinnacles. Some small economic advantage might be gained by small entities, on the theory that increasing the options for business entities always increases the potential for making profit-maximizing decisions. As previously stated, the proposed reserve is small and other productive fishing grounds are available and equally accessible.

          List of Subjects
          50 CFR Part 300
          Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, marine resources.
          50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: June 20, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 are proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS
          1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

          2. In subpart E, Pacific Halibut Fisheries, § 300.63, is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

            § 300.63
            Catch sharing plans, local area management plans, and domestic management measures.

            (e) Prohibition on halibut fishing and anchoring in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. (1) For purposes of § 300.63(e), the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve means an area totaling 2.5 square nm off Cape Edgecumbe, defined by straight lines connecting the following points in a counterclockwise manner:
            56°55.5'N lat., 135°54.0'W long;
            56°57.0'N lat., 135°54.0'W long;
            56°57.0'N lat., 135°57.0'W long;
            56°55.5'N lat., 135°57.0'W long.
            (2) No person shall engage in sport fishing, as defined in § 300.61, for halibut within the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve.
            (3) No person shall anchor a vessel having halibut on board in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve.

          PART 679-FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          3. 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.

          4. In § 679.2, a new definition for the “Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve” is added in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

            § 679.2
            Definitions.

              Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve means an area totaling 2.5 square nm in the GOA, off Cape Edgecumbe, in Statistical Area 650. See Figure 18 to this part.

            5. In § 679.22, paragraph (b)(5) is added to read as follows:

            § 679.22
            Closures.

            (b)* * *
            (5) Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. (i) No vessel required to have a Federal fisheries permit under § 679.4(b) may fish for groundfish or anchor in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve, as described in Figure 18 to this part.
            (ii) No vessel required to have on board an IFQ halibut permit under § 679.4(d) may fish for halibut or anchor in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve, as described in Figure 18 to this part.

            6. In part 679, Figure 18 is added to read as follows:

            BILLING CODE 3510-22-F

              EP26JN00.000

            a. Map
            b. Coordinates
            An area totaling 2.5 square nm off Cape Edgecumbe, defined by straight lines connecting the following points in a counterclockwise manner:
            56°55.5'N lat., 135°54.0'W long;
            56°57.0'N lat., 135°54.0'W long;
            56°57.0'N lat., 135°57.0'W long;
            56°55.5'N lat., 135°57.0'W long.

      [FR Doc. 00-16114 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 120416016-2151-01]
        RIN 0648-BB96
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Silky Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This rule would implement the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendation 11-08, which prohibits retaining, transshipping, or landing of silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. In order to improve domestic enforcement capabilities, the National Marine Fisheries Service is also proposing to prohibit the storing, selling and purchasing of the species. This rule would affect the commercial HMS pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This rule would not affect commercial fishermen fishing for sharks with bottom longline, gillnet, or handgear; nor would the rule affect recreational fishermen as harvesting silky sharks is already prohibited in the recreational fishery. This action implements the ICCAT recommendation, consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and furthers domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, on July 23, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0116, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0116 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Sarah de Flesco or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          • Fax: 301-713-1917; Attn: Sarah de Flesco.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. 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.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah de Flesco or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-427-8503 or by fax: 301-713-1917.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The U.S. Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The U.S. Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. ICCAT is responsible for the conservation of tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. ICCAT recommendations are binding on Contracting Parties, unless Parties object pursuant to the treaty. All ICCAT recommendations are available on the ICCAT Web site at http://www.iccat.int/en/. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA. The implementing regulations for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) are at 50 CFR part 635.

        At the 22nd Regular Meeting of ICCAT in 2011, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 11-08, which requires the United States to initiate rulemaking in order to fulfill obligations as a Contracting Party to the Convention. The “Recommendation on the Conservation of Silky Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries (11-08),” requires fishing vessels operating in ICCAT fisheries to release all silky sharks whether dead or alive, and prohibits retaining on board, transshipping, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis). The recommendation cites the fact that silky sharks were ranked as the species with the highest degree of vulnerability in the 2010 ecological risk assessment for Atlantic sharks.
        In this proposed rule, NMFS considers changes to the Atlantic HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635, consistent with the ICCAT recommendation and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such changes would affect only commercial vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard that fish for tunas and tuna-like species. Harvesting silky sharks is already prohibited in the recreational fishery. While silky sharks could be caught on handgear, bottom longline, or gillnet gear commercially, these gears target sharks directly and are not used in association with ICCAT fisheries; therefore, we are not considering action to prohibit the retention of silky sharks from these gears.

        We prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of each alternative contained in this proposed rule. The complete list of alternatives and related analyses are provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, and are not repeated here in their entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        In this action, we propose to prohibit the retention of silky sharks on Atlantic HMS commercially-permitted vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board. Additionally, we propose to prohibit the storing, selling, or purchasing of silky sharks to ensure domestic enforcement ability.
        Silky sharks were last assessed as part of the Large Coastal Shark complex, which was assessed during the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 11 process. Silky sharks are part of the complex, and the stock status of silky sharks is unknown.
        Silky sharks were included in the 2010 ecological risk assessment conducted for the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. In the risk assessment, silky sharks were ranked as the Atlantic shark species with the highest degree of vulnerability to fishing. Given the low productivity and high susceptibility of silky sharks to pelagic longline fisheries as noted in the ecological risk assessment, the implementation of the ICCAT silky shark recommendation could benefit the status of this stock by reducing mortality in the Atlantic Ocean.
        We considered three alternatives for the proposed action. Alternative 1 would maintain the status quo and would not implement ICCAT Recommendation 11-08. Alternative 2 would prohibit retaining, transshipping, and landing silky sharks. The proposed action is alternative 3, which would prohibit retaining, transshipping, and landing as well as prohibiting the storing, selling, and purchasing of silky sharks.

        An analysis of the 2006 through 2010 HMS logbook data, which covers the HMS pelagic longline fishery, indicates that under status quo (alternative 1) on average a total of 60 silky sharks are kept per year and a total of 1,417 are discarded dead (742) or alive (676) each year in U.S. fisheries. Thus, from these figures, only about 4 percent of all silky sharks caught by pelagic longline vessels are retained.
        Under both alternative 2 and alternative 3 (the proposed alternative), all live and dead silky sharks would have to be released by pelagic longline fishermen. According to the pelagic longline observer program and HMS logbook data, on average each year, 60 silky sharks were retained, of which 17 were caught alive and 43 caught dead. Therefore, under these two alternatives, of the 60 silky sharks kept per year, 17 would be released alive. Although silky sharks are not caught in large numbers in the pelagic longline fishery (i.e., less than 12 percent of pelagic longline trips between 2006-2010 caught silky sharks), these alternatives would have minor, beneficial ecological impacts for silky sharks because mortality would be reduced somewhat in the pelagic longline fishery.
        Under both alterative 2 and alternative 3 (the proposed action), approximately 785 would be discarded dead (43 sharks discarded from those that would be retained under the status quo plus 742 that would be discarded dead under the status quo). The actual number of silky sharks expected to be caught (1,477 per year on average) in the pelagic longline fishery is not expected to change as a result of this action. Because few silky sharks are currently retained in proportion to the total number of silky sharks caught, the prohibition against retention would have minor beneficial ecological impacts although it may provide some additional incentive to avoid the species. Any reduction of mortality for silky sharks could be expected to also have beneficial impacts due to low productivity and high susceptibility of silky sharks to pelagic longline fisheries as noted in the 2010 ICCAT ecological risk assessment.
        Atlantic HMS commercial permit holders with pelagic longline gear on board would no longer be authorized to retain silky sharks and could experience minor, adverse socioeconomic impacts. The current HMS pelagic longline fleet consists of 242 vessels as of October 2011. However, according to HMS logbook data, on average, seven pelagic longline vessels combined landed 60 silky sharks weighing 2,671 lb per year from 2006 through 2009. Using the median, ex-vessel price per pound of $0.75 for silky shark meat and $11.11 for shark fins, this is equivalent to $3,392 ($1,489 for fins and $1,903 for meat) in average annual gross revenues from landings of silky sharks from pelagic longline vessels or $485 per vessel that landed silky sharks. Because the proposed action would prohibit the retention of silky sharks from pelagic longline vessels, it would likely result in minor, adverse socioeconomic impacts to commercial pelagic longline fishermen because, even though there are small amounts of silky sharks landed, fishermen would no longer be able to land this species and could potentially lose annual revenues of $3,392 for all vessels or $485 per vessel. However, it is unlikely that commercial fishermen would alter fishing practices for tuna and tuna-like species, because silky shark landings constitute such a small portion of pelagic longline catch, landings, and revenues.

        Under alternative 3 (the proposed action), the pelagic longline fishery would be prohibited against the storing, selling, and purchasing of silky sharks in addition to prohibiting the retaining, transshipping, and landing of silky sharks. The proposed action would provide consistency with current regulations for oceanic whitetip and hammerhead (except for Sphyrna tiburo) sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species and would simplify compliance, for fishermen and for dealers, as well as enforcement. The measureable ecological impacts of the proposed action (alternative 3) remain the same as alternative 2. However, the proposed action might have additional ecological benefits by reducing mortality of silky sharks. Additionally, under the proposed action, Atlantic HMS commercial permit holders with pelagic longline gear on board would no longer be authorized to retain silky sharks and could experience minor, adverse socioeconomic impacts. The measureable economic and social impacts of the proposed action are similar to those of alternative 2. However, under the proposed action, a pelagic longline vessel operator would not be allowed to store or sell silky shark products and a dealer could not buy silky sharks from a pelagic longline vessel owner or operator. Adding additional prohibitions beyond those called for under alternative 2 would also be consistent with the approach we have taken for oceanic whitetip sharks and scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species. We feel that adding the prohibitions against storing, selling and purchasing silky sharks under the specified circumstances would make them easier to remember by making the regulations consistent with those in place for oceanic whitetip and scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead sharks, and thus, would help fishermen and dealers and improve compliance. The addition would also allow for enforcement of the prohibition even in cases where the violation is not detected at sea or during landing. Finally, the extension of the prohibition against the sale and purchase should help to eliminate the market for silky sharks and encourage compliance with the prohibition on retention. Although there would be some minor adverse socioeconomic impacts under the proposed action due to a slight loss of revenue by pelagic longline vessel operators similar to that of alternative 2, the proposed action would provide minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts by providing a rule that is consistent with the current regulations and easier with which to comply and enforce.
        In conclusion, the proposed action of prohibiting the retention of silky sharks in the pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species is likely to have minor beneficial ecological impacts because of the potential reduction in mortality, and minor adverse socioeconomic impacts because this species constitutes a low percentage of the total pelagic longline landings.
        Public Hearing

        Comments on this proposed rule, Draft Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax, and comments may also be submitted at a public hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES). NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by July 23, 2012. NMFS will hold a public hearing via conference call for this proposed rule. The hearing location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Sarah de Flesco at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

            Location
            Date
            Time
            Address

            Conference call
            July 9, 2012
            1-3 p.m
            Conference line: 800-857-3903; Passcode: 6059057.

        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the hearing.
        Classification
        Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        NMFS prepared an environmental assessment that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. In this proposed action, NMFS is considering prohibitions against retaining, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or purchasing of silky sharks in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species. A copy of the environmental assessment is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments to implement recommendations of ICCAT pursuant to ATCA and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the objectives of this proposed rulemaking are to consider changes to the HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635 consistent with an ICCAT recommendation. NMFS proposes to implement the 2011 ICCAT silky shark recommendation in the Atlantic HMS fisheries that target tuna and tuna-like species because NMFS considers these fisheries to be ICCAT-managed fisheries. The regulatory changes would affect HMS vessels that catch sharks in association with tuna and tuna-like species on commercial vessels that deploy pelagic longline gear. This proposed action is necessary to implement an ICCAT recommendation pursuant to ATCA. In compliance with the ATCA, NMFS is required to implement domestic regulations consistent with recommendations adopted by ICCAT as necessary and appropriate.
        Section 603(b)(3) requires Federal agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. In accordance with the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, NMFS used the following thresholds to determine if an entity regulated under this action would be considered a small entity: average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood processors. Using these thresholds, NMFS determined that all HMS permit holders are small entities. Specifically, this proposed action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline commercial fishery that targets tuna and tuna-like species. As of October 2011, 242 vessels held a commercial Tuna Longline permit and can be reasonably assumed to use pelagic longline gear. All of the vessels holding these permits could be affected by this action.
        This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule would not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and other participants in this fishery must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS does not believe that the proposed regulations would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.
        Under section 603(c), agencies are required to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are discussed below and in the draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed action. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
        In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first, second, and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationale for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objective.

        NMFS prepared this IRFA to analyze the impacts on small entities of the alternatives for implementing the ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 for pelagic longline vessels that target tuna and tuna-like species, all of which are considered small entities. NMFS considered and analyzed three alternatives including Alternative 1 (no action); Alternative 2 (implementing ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species); and Alternative 3 (implementing ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and additional prohibitions against storing, selling and purchasing of silky sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species).
        Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, there would be no additional economic impacts to HMS pelagic longline vessels fishing for tuna and tuna-like species. Commercial pelagic longline vessels that fish for tuna and tuna-like species that are also currently authorized to land silky sharks would be able to continue that practice. Commercial pelagic longline fishermen would continue to be able to land silky sharks and could potentially earn $485 per vessel. Additionally, each vessel is predicted to earn a total of $190,986 per year in revenue from swordfish and tuna ($96,525 from swordfish and $94,461 from tuna). Therefore, revenues from silky shark sales are minor (<1 percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue.
        Under Alternative 2, pelagic longline vessel operators and owners could not retain, transship, or land silky sharks, consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 11-08. Thus, on average, each vessel would lose approximately $485 annually in gross revenues, which is minor (<1 percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue from swordfish and tunas ($190,986 total revenues).
        Under Alternative 3, pelagic longline vessel owners and operators could not retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and other domestic regulations. This alternative is essentially the same as alternative 2 but would improve domestic enforcement capabilities. Thus, on average, each vessel would lose approximately $485 annually in gross revenues, which is minor (<1 percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue from swordfish and tunas ($190,986 total revenues). We prefer Alternative 3 at this time, because it would implement ICCAT Recommendation 11-08, would likely have minor ecological benefits, would have minor socioeconomic impacts on the pelagic longline fishery, and would provide enhanced enforcement abilities. Additionally, we believe this alternative would be unlikely to change fishing practices or effort.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: June 19, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
          1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2. In § 635.21, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.21
            Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (ii) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel may not possess, retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks.

            3. In § 635.24, paragraph (a)(9) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.24
            Commercial retention limits for sharks and swordfish.

            (a) * * *
            (9) Notwithstanding other provisions in this subsection, possession, retention, transshipment, landing, sale, or storage of silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, and scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead sharks is prohibited on vessels issued a permit under this part that have pelagic longline gear on board.

            4. In § 635.31, paragraph (c)(6) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.31
            Restrictions on sale and purchase.

            (c) * * *
            (6) A dealer issued a permit under this part may not purchase silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel with pelagic longline gear on board. A dealer issued a permit under this part may not purchase oceanic whitetip sharks or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks from the owner of a fishing vessel issued both a HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel, offloaded from the vessel, or being offloaded from the vessel.

            5. In § 635.71, paragraph (d)(19) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.71
            Prohibitions.

            (d) * * *
            (19) Retain, possess, transship, land, store, sell or purchase silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead sharks as specified in § 635.21(c)(1)(ii), § 635.22(a)(2), § 635.24, and § 635.31(c)(6).

      [FR Doc. 2012-15348 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P