        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 39
        [Docket No. FAA-2021-0364; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00274-R]
        RIN 2120-AA64
        Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:

          The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Leonardo S.p.a. (Leonardo) Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters with a certain part-numbered vertical fin vibration absorber installation installed. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the vertical fin vibration absorber installation and the surrounding structure and depending on the inspection results, removing certain parts from service. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing certain part-numbered vertical fin vibration absorber installations. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks and damage detected on the vertical fin absorber installation and surrounding structure during scheduled inspections. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

          DATES:
          The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 28, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          • Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

        Examining the AD Docket
        You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0364; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kristin Bradley, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email Kristin.Bradley@faa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Comments Invited

        The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0364; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00274-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

        Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.
        Confidential Business Information

        CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kristin Bradley, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email Kristin.Bradley@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
        Background
        EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD 2014-0150, dated June 18, 2014 (EASA AD 2014-0150), to correct an unsafe condition for certain AgustaWestland S.p.A. (now Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters) (formerly Agusta S.p.A.) Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters, with absorber part number (P/N) 109-B810-79-101installed. EASA advises that during a scheduled inspection on Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters, cracks and damage were detected on the vertical fin vibration absorber installation and the surrounding structure. EASA states investigation results determined the cracks and damage were likely related to the design of the vertical fin vibration absorber installation and incorrect installation. Accordingly, EASA AD 2014-0150 required repetitive inspections and removal of the affected part.
        After EASA AD 2014-0150 was issued, EASA determined certain helicopters were not included in the applicability and may also be subject to the unsafe condition. Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0294, dated December 4, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0294), which supersedes EASA AD 2014-0150. EASA AD 2019-0294 retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0150, and expands the applicability, prohibits vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 from being installed on any helicopter, and considers removal of the affected part to constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections. EASA states this condition if not detected and corrected could affect the structural integrity of the helicopter.
        FAA's Determination
        These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs.
        Related Service Information

        The FAA reviewed AgustaWestland S.p.A. Bollettino Technico (BT) No. 109S-58 for Model A109S helicopters, and AgustaWestland S.p.A BT No. 109SP-074 for Model AW109SP helicopters, each dated May 7, 2014. This service information specifies instructions for removing the vertical fin vibration absorber installation, inspecting the rib assembly and vertical fin vibration absorber installation and depending on the inspection results, removing certain parts from service.

        Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM
        This proposed AD would require within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter every 100 hours TIS, removing the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101, and using a mirror and light source, inspecting the rib assembly and depending on the inspection results, removing certain parts from service. This proposed AD would also require inspecting the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 for hole elongation; for fretting between the plate and the masses, and in-between the masses; for fretting on the doubler; and the bolts for scratches and corrosion. Depending on the inspection results, this proposed AD would require removing the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 from service. This proposed AD would also require, within 12 months TIS after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished, removing the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 from service. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an affected part on any helicopter, and would provide a terminating action for the 100 hour TIS repetitive inspections.
        Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD
        EASA AD 2019-0294 applies to certain serial-numbered Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to all serial-numbered Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters with a certain part-numbered vertical fin vibration absorber installation installed.
        Costs of Compliance
        The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 96 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
        Removing and inspecting the vertical fin vibration absorber installation and surrounding structure would take about 8 work-hours for an estimated cost of $680 per helicopter per inspection cycle and $65,280 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
        Replacing the rib assembly, shim, doubler, and bracket would take about 16 work-hours and parts would cost about $10,000 for an estimated cost of $11,360 per helicopter.
        According to Leonardo some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage by Leonardo. Accordingly, all costs are included in this cost estimate.
        Authority for This Rulemaking
        Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
        The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
        Regulatory Findings
        The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
        1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
        2. Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
        3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
          Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

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

          PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

        1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

          § 39.13
          [Amended]

        2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:

            Leonardo S.p.a.: Docket No. FAA-2021-0364; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00274-R.
          (a) Comments Due
          The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 28, 2021.
          (b) Affected ADs
          None.
          (c) Applicability
          This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109S helicopters and AW109SP helicopters, certificated in any category, with vertical fin vibration absorber installation part number (P/N) 109-B810-79-101 installed.
          (d) Subject
          Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2740, Stabilizer Control System.
          (e) Unsafe Condition
          This AD defines the unsafe condition as cracks or damage on the vertical fin vibration absorber installation and surrounding structure. This condition could affect the structural integrity of the helicopter and lead to subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
          (f) Compliance
          Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
          (g) Required Actions
          (1) Within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS:
          (i) Remove the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101, and using a mirror and light source, visually inspect the rib assembly P/N 109-0372-53-201 for hole elongation, fretting, and cracks. If there is any hole elongation, fretting, or cracks, before further flight, remove rib assembly P/N 109-0372-53-201, shim P/N 109-0372-53-211, doubler P/N 109-0372-53-213, and bracket P/N 109-0373-02-113 from service and replace with airworthy parts.

          (ii) Inspect the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 for hole elongation; for fretting between the plate and the masses and in-between the masses; for fretting on doubler P/N 109-0372-53-213; and the bolts for scratches and corrosion. If there is any hole elongation; fretting between the plate and the masses or in-between the masses; fretting on doubler P/N 109-0372-53-213; or bolts with scratches or corrosion, before further flight, remove the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 from service.
          (2) Within 12 months TIS after the effective date of this AD unless already accomplished per paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, remove the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 from service.
          (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 on any helicopter.
          (4) Removing the vertical fin vibration absorber installation P/N 109-B810-79-101 from service, as described in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) or (2) of this AD provides a terminating action for the 100 hour TIS repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
          (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

          (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov.

          (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
          (i) Related Information

          (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kristin Bradley, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email Kristin.Bradley@faa.gov.

          (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

          (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0294, dated December 4, 2019. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-0364.

          Issued on May 6, 2021.
          Gaetano A. Sciortino,
          Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-09992 Filed 5-12-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095; FRL-8309-4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA proposes to approve an amendment to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action approves an amendment to the SIP-approved Doe Run Herculaneum Consent Judgment to remove language specifying the exact bag technology to be used in the baghouses. Related performance standard requirements will remain unchanged. This action is independent and does not affect the revision to the Missouri SIP due in April 2007, in response to the SIP Call issued April 14, 2006, to bring the area of Herculaneum into compliance with the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by June 4, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0095 by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.

          3. Mail: Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
          4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gwen Yoshimura at (913) 551-7073, or by e-mail at yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. The revisions will not increase emissions and do not affect the stringency of the control requirement. Additionally, the revisions have gone through the Missouri approval process, including a public hearing and opportunity for public comment. EPA was the only party to provide comments during Missouri's comment period. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: April 26, 2007.
          John B. Askew,
          Regional Administrator, Region 7.

       [FR Doc. E7-8566 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No.; 000906253-0253-01; I.D. 061500E]
        RIN   0648-AL51
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 14

          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 portions of Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP).

          Amendment 14, which was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on June 12, 2000, to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, brings the Salmon FMP into compliance with the Sustainable Fisheries Act’s (SFA) 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Amendment 14 includes designation of essential fish habitat (EFH) and new requirements to reduce bycatch, prevent overfishing, and rebuild overfished stocks.  This proposed rule to implement Amendment 14 would make minor changes to language regarding escapement and management goals; implement a new recreational allocation to the Port of La Push and adjust the Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add preseason flexibility for recreational port allocations north of Cape Falcon; and implement preseason flexibility in setting recreational port allocation or recreational and commercial allocations North of Cape Falcon to take advantage of selective fishing opportunities for marked hatchery fish.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by December 4, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, fax: 206-526-6376; or to Rebecca Lent,  Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, fax: 562-980-4018.  Send comments regarding any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule to Donna Darm or Rebecca Lent.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via email or Internet. -
          Copies of Amendments 14 and the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS)/regulatory impact review (RIR)/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), along with the appendices and the Review of 1999 Ocean Salmon Fisheries are available from Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR  97201.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Christopher L. Wright at 206- 526-6140, Svein Fougner at 562-980-4040, or Dr. Donald O. McIsaac at 503-326-6352.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Secretary approved the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., in 1978.  The Council has amended the Salmon FMP 13 times since 1978.  The regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H.  The Salmon FMP was amended annually from 1979 to 1983; however, in 1984, a framework amendment was implemented that provided the mechanism for making preseason and inseason adjustments in the regulations without annual amendments. -
        The Council prepared Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP and submitted it on June 12, 2000, for Secretarial review.  NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 14 in the Federal Register on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39584), announcing a 60-day public comment period, which ended on August 28, 2000.  NMFS approved Amendment 14 on September 27, 2000. -
        Amendment 14 has multiple parts.  The major parts of the amendment revise the Salmon FMP to bring it into compliance with the 1996 SFA amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act; establish a new recreational allocation for the Port of La Push, WA, and add flexibility to deviate from specified recreational Port allocations with the agreement of representatives from the affected Ports; and establish preseason flexibility to deviate from commercial and recreational gear allocations and recreational port allocations North of Cape Falcon, OR in order to access marked hatchery salmon in selective fisheries.  -
        With the approval by the Secretary, Amendment 14 revises the Salmon FMP to bring it into compliance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The most significant changes include a new definition of optimum yield (OY); a bycatch definition and new requirements to reduce bycatch; new requirements designed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; and the designation of EFH, with a discussion of threats to EFH and recommended measures to conserve and enhance EFH.  A new section in chapter 1 entitled “What this Plan Covers” was added to the Salmon FMP to provide a clear description of management actions included in the document.  In addition, the amendment provides information on fishery-specific stock impacts and updates the fishery description to reference new appendices. -
        Only some of the changes made by Amendment 14 are intended to be codified in the regulations.  Specifically, this proposed rule would make minor changes to language regarding escapement and management goals; implement a new recreational allocation to the Port of La Push and adjust the Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add preseason flexibility for recreational port allocations North of Cape Falcon; and implement preseason flexibility in setting recreational port allocation or recreational and commercial allocations North of Cape Falcon to take advantage of selective fishing opportunities. -
        The former Escapement and Management goals section,  § 660.410(a), was changed to a new Conservation Objectives section.  The SFA amendments require the Council to manage each year to achieve the maximum sustained yield (MSY) or maximum sustainable production (MSP), MSY proxy, or rebuilding schedule.  The control rule triggers an overfishing concern when individual stocks fail to meet conservation objectives for three consecutive years (§ 660.410(b)(1)).  Conservation objectives are summarized in Table 3-1 of the Salmon FMP. -
        Amendment 14 establishes a recreational allocation for the La Push Port area separate from the Neah Bay port area, and the Annual Actions section (660.408(c)(v)) would be modified accordingly.  The La Push subarea allocation would be set at 5.2 percent, which is approximately 20 percent of the former combined Neah Bay/La Push allocation.  This portion is equal to the level provided to La Push during the annual preseason process beginning in 1990.  In addition, during years when there is an Area 4B add-on fishery inside Washington internal waters (which benefits only Neah Bay).  Twenty-five percent of the numerical value of that fishery shall be added to the recreational allowable ocean harvest north of Leadbetter Point prior to applying the sharing percentages for Westport and La Push.  The increase to Westport and La Push will be subtracted from the Neah Bay ocean share to maintain the same total harvest allocation north of Leadbetter Point.  Therefore, La Push would receive 2.6 percent of the basic coho allocation plus 1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on. -
        Section 660.408(c)(v)(A) would be modified to allow flexibility to deviate from Salmon FMP subarea quotas in order to meet recreational fishery objectives, if those measures are agreed to by representatives of the affected ports.  In addition, the regulation would establish a Council process to deviate from the non-Indian recreational and/or commercial allocations north of Cape Falcon to selectively harvest hatchery-produced coho salmon, while not increasing impacts to natural stocks. -
        Minor changes to the regulatory language in 50 CFR part 660 necessary to implement Amendment 14 would also be made.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with the national standards and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  -
        The Council prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) describing the economic impacts to small entities of all the alternatives considered in the this proposed rule.  A copy of the analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).  A summary of the analysis follows: -
        The proposed rule would make five changes to the existing regulations.  Only items 2-5 have regulatory effects that are subject to analysis under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).  The regulatory changes include: -

        1. Minor changes to the description of escapement and   management goals.- -
        2. Providing a specific recreational allocation to the Port of La Push. -
        3. Adjusting the recreational port allocations when there is an Area 4B add-on fishery to account for the specific allocation to the Port of La Push. -
        4. Providing preseason flexibility for recreational port allocations to allow for deviation from subarea allocations to meet recreational objectives, if agreed to by representatives of affected ports. -
        5.  Adding preseason flexibility for setting recreational port allocations, or recreational and commercial allocations North of Cape Falcon, to selectively target hatchery-origin stocks. -
        All of these changes address management of coho and chinook fisheries that operate in ocean waters north of Cape Falcon, OR to the U.S.-Canada Border (Cape Falcon is south of the Columbia River mouth, between the Ports of Garibaldi and Astoria, OR).  Therefore, this proposed rule directly affects the non-tribal commercial troll fisheries and recreational fisheries in these waters.  These fisheries are a component of the North of Cape Falcon Forum, in which Federal, state, and Tribal co-managers work directly with commercial and recreational harvesting groups to resolve management and allocation issues involving both ocean and inside salmon fisheries in the region.  Inside fisheries occur in Puget Sound, Washington coastal rivers and estuaries, and the Columbia River.  Therefore, the Council’s decisions concerning these non-tribal fisheries indirectly affect Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor gillnet fisheries; Puget Sound, Washington coastal and Columbia River tribal fisheries; and Puget sound non-tribal commercial and recreational fisheries.  In addition to coho and chinook, these inside fisheries also harvest chum, sockeye, and pink salmon.  Management of West Coast ocean salmon fisheries is also subject to international catch sharing agreements because West Coast salmon stocks are among those harvested in Alaska and Canadian salmon fisheries.  Salmon harvest allocations and regulations also affect salmon processors and wholesalers, as well as associated support industries including tourism, hotels, bait and tackle shops, and marinas. -
        The economic effects that these proposed regulations would have are described in the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s “Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (May 2000)”  and supporting documents including “Appendix B - Description of the Ocean Salmon Fishery and Its Social and Economic Characteristics (August 1999),” “Review of 1999 Ocean Salmon Fisheries (February 2000) and “Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (1997) [Errata].”  A summary of the economic impacts of this proposed rule follows: -
        A fish harvesting or hatchery business is considered a small business if it is independently owned and operated, it does not dominate its field of operations, and if it has annual receipts that are not in excess of $3 million.  For charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts that are not in excess of $5 million.  The proposed changes to existing salmon regulations directly affect the operations of non-tribal commercial ocean troll and charter boat vessels.  Although total salmon and non-salmon fishery revenue is not discussed, for commercial ocean troll and charter boat sectors the economics of this industry suggest that they are considered small entities under the RFA thresholds for a single firm. -
        During 1997, the north of Cape Falcon ocean recreational salmon harvest was 31,200 coho and the non-tribal commercial harvest was 0 coho and 6,400 chinook.  Ocean recreational private and charter boat trips numbered approximately 102,000 in 1997, and the 57 vessels that participated in the ocean commercial troll fishery landed $1.2 million of salmon.  Approximately 82 charter boats operated out of the major ports, including Neah Bay, La Push, Westport, Ilwaco, and Astoria, associated with north of Cape Falcon ocean fisheries.  These charter vessels undertook a total of approximately 14,000 angler trips in 1997, and fished for salmon, tuna, bottomfish, sturgeon.  About 70 of these vessels are considered salmon charter boats.  The combined regional income produced by the north of Cape Falcon salmon fisheries was approximately $2.1 million in 1997.  Approximately $200,000 of that amount was generated by commercial trolling, and recreational charter and private boat trips generated the remainder. -

        The economic effects of the proposed regulations are expected to be generally positive.  The proposed regulatory changes are intended to reallocate fish among small entities with the intent of increasing overall harvest.  The Port of La Push regulations formalize practices that have been employed for a number of years; La Push would receive 2.6 percent of the basic coho allocation plus 1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on.  Flexibility to deviate from subarea allocations in order to meet recreational objectives is expected to result in only positive economic effects because such management decisions require approval by representatives of affected ports.  Flexibility in setting preseason recreational port allocations or recreational and commercial allocations north of Cape Falcon for selective fishing on hatchery stock coho would likely lead to positive economic effects on ocean fisheries because such measures result in increased fishing opportunities when such fish are available.   These selective fisheries are open primarily in August and September, although the Council may consider opening selective fisheries at other times.  Compared to the original allocation scheme the selective fishery regime does not increase the mortality of natural stocks.  Other allocation objectives (i.e., treaty, Indian, or ocean and inside allocations) are addressed during the negotiations in the North of Cape of Falcon Forum. -
        The general effects of the proposed regulatory changes are to provide flexibility to the Council’s decision making processes and allow increased fish harvest levels, when possible, through pre-season allocation setting procedures.  User groups (non-tribal ocean troll and ocean recreational fisheries) participate directly in the consultative processes, so it is unlikely that any single group will suffer economically while some or all user groups may benefit.  The consultation process is designed to provide the maximum economic benefits to all user groups. -
        The intended effect of this proposed rule is to employ management measures that minimize impacts to species, stocks, or size/age classes of concern, while maximizing access to harvestable fish.  This is accomplished through management measures including gear restrictions, time/area closures, and catch or retention restrictions that allow fishermen to harvest marked hatchery salmon and release natural-origin fish.  -
        Analysis of 1996 fishery information shows that selective ocean coho harvest could be increased by over 300 percent without impacting natural stocks.  Without such selective fisheries, total salmon harvest would have to be sharply reduced to protect depressed natural stocks.  These procedures also allow managers to make in-season trades between ocean fisheries and other fisheries, and between user groups in order to increase harvest opportunities for all user groups.   -

        Insufficient data preclude a quantitative analysis; however, the Council’s qualitative cost-benefit summary in support of Executive Order 12866 assesses the direct and indirect economic effects of the proposed regulatory changes.  This analysis shows that these changes would allow increased numbers of recreational and charter boat salmon fishing trips; however, recreational catch rates and retained catch rates would decline.  The ocean troll fishery quotas would not be directly reduced as a result of proposed regulatory changes, but cost per unit of harvest may increase because of the selective fishery regulations.  Indirect economic effects on inside fisheries may be positive or negative, depending on which selective fisheries are employed in the ocean and inside fisheries.  The State of Washington has adopted selective fishing practices for inside coho fisheries.  Selective practices for inside chinook fisheries are still under development because of the difficulty in modeling selective fishery impacts on chinook stocks.  However, ocean harvests of inside chinook stocks are minimal and managing such stocks will be primarily driven by Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and State of Washington decisions concerning the future of its fisheries. -
        In developing these regulations the Council tried to minimize impacts on small entities.  For example, the Council was aware of the allocative effects of selective fisheries on small entities participating in ocean fisheries, and developed regulations to enhance selective fishing options in August and September.  This limits the amount of reallocation between inside and outside fisheries and therefore reduces impacts on such small entities.  The public is invited to comment on the IRFA and the economic analysis, whether there are additional economic impacts that should be considered, and whether there are ways to reduce any adverse effects on small entities. -
        The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. -
        The NMFS Northwest Region has completed a Section 7 informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of Amendment 14 on listed salmon stocks.  Amendment 14 does not by itself authorize any fishing or other activity that would result in the take of listed fish.  It modifies certain aspects of the current Salmon FMP but in no way affects the existing Salmon FMP requirements that management measures comply with NMFS ESA consultation standards for listed species.  Three of the Amendment 14 components (overfishing, EFH, and bycatch) will result in neutral effects or in more conservative management of non-listed salmon stocks, and should therefore provide greater protection to natural stocks of listed and non-listed species.  While there are some uncertainties regarding the effects of selective fisheries on naturally spawning stocks, NMFS retains the authority and responsibility for ensuring that annual management measures developed under the Salmon FMP comply with ESA consultation standards, and that analysis of these measures is based on the best available science.  The remaining elements of the amendment, including recreational allocation, definition of OY, and various editorial changes will have no effect on management of listed stocks. -
        Based on these considerations, NMFS concluded that Amendment 14 and its implementing regulations are not likely to adversely affect any of the salmon stocks presently listed under ESA or their critical habitat. --

        The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 14.  The FSEIS has been incorporated in the Amendment 14 document and may be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).  A notice of availability of the FSEIS was published on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49237). -

        The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations.  To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule (see ADDRESSES).

           List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 13, 2000.
          Clarence Pautzke,
          Acting Assistant Administrator,  National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For   the   reasons   set   out   in   the   preamble,   NMFS   proposes   to   amend   50   CFR   part   660   as   follows:

            PART   660— FISHERIES   OFF   WEST   COAST   STATES   AND   IN   THE   WESTERN   PACIFIC

          1.    The   authority   citation   for   part   660   continues   to   read   as   follows:

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

          2.    In   §   660.402,   the   definition   “Pacific   Coast   Salmon   Plan”   is   added   in   alphabetical   order   to   read   as   follows:

            § 660.402
            Definitions.

              Pacific   Coast   Salmon   Plan   (PCSP   or   Salmon   FMP) means   the   Fishery   Management   Plan,   as   amended,   for   commercial   and   recreational   ocean   salmon   fisheries   in   the   Exclusive   Economic   Zone   (EEZ)(3   to   200   nautical   miles   offshore)   off   Washington,   Oregon,   and   California.    The   Salmon   FMP   was   first   developed   by   the   Pacific   Fishery   Management   Council   (PFMC   or   Council)   and   approved   by   the   Secretary   in   1978.    The   Salmon   FMP   was   amended   on   October   31,   1984,   to   establish   a   framework   process   to   develop   and   implement   fishery   management   actions.    Other   names   commonly   used   include:    Pacific   Coast   Salmon   Fishery   Management   Plan,   West   Coast   Salmon   Plan,   West   Coast   Salmon   Fishery   Management   Plan.

          3.    In   §   660.408,   the   first   two   sentences   in   paragraph   (c)(1)(ii),   paragraph   (c)(1)(v),   paragraph   (c)(1)(v)(A),   and   the   last   sentence   in   paragraph   (c)(1)(vi)   are   revised;   paragraph   (c)(1)(viii)   is   redesignated   as   paragraph   (c)(1)(ix),   and   paragraph   (c)(1)(ix)   is   redesignated   as   paragraph   (c)(1)(x)   and   a   new   paragraph   (c)(1)(viii)   is   added   to   read   as   follows:

            §   660.408
            Annual   actions.

           (c)   *   *   *
          (1)   *   *   *
          (ii) Deviations   from   allocation   schedule.    The   initial   allocation   may   be   modified   annually   in   accordance   with   paragraphs   (c)(1)(iii)   through   (viii)   of   this   section.    These   deviations   from   the   allocation   schedule   provide   flexibility   to   account   for   the   dynamic   nature   of   the   fisheries   and   better   achieve   the   allocation   objectives   and   fishery   allocation   priorities   in   paragraphs   (c)(1)(ix)   and   (x)   of   this   section.   *   *   *

          (v) Recreational   allocation.    The   recreational   allowable   ocean   harvest   of   chinook   and   coho   derived   during   the   preseason   allocation   process   will   be   distributed   among   the   four   major   recreational   subareas   as   described   in   the   coho   and   chinook   distribution   in this section.    The   Council   may   deviate   from   subarea   quotas   to   meet   recreational   season   objectives   based   on   agreement   of   representatives   of   the   affected   ports   and/or  in   accordance   with   Section   6.5.3.2   of   the   Pacific   Coast   Salmon   Plan   with   regard   to   certain   selective   fisheries.    Additionally,   based   upon   the   recommendation   of   the   recreational   Salmon   Advisory   Subpanel   representatives   for   the   area   north   of   Cape   Falcon,   the   Council   will   include   criteria   in   its   preseason   salmon   management   recommendations   to   guide   any   inseason   transfer   of   coho   among   the  recreational   subareas   to   meet   recreational   season   duration   objectives.
          (A)  Coho   distribution.    The   preseason   recreational   allowable   ocean   harvest   of   coho   north   of   Cape   Falcon   will   be   distributed   to   provide   50   percent   to   the   area   north   of   Leadbetter   Point   and   50   percent   to   the   area   south   of   Leadbetter   Point.    In   years   with   no   fishery   in   Washington   State   management   area   4B,   the   distribution   of   coho   north   of   Leadbetter   Point   will   be   divided   to   provide   74   percent   to   the   subarea   between   Leadbetter   Point   and   the   Queets   River   (Westport),   5.2   percent   to   the   subarea   between   Queets   River   and   Cape   Flattery   (La   Push),   and   20.8   percent   to   the   area   north   of   the   Queets   River   (Neah   Bay).    In   years   when   there   is   an   Area   4B   (Neah   Bay)   fishery   under   state   management,   25   percent   of   the   numerical   value   of   that   fishery   shall   be   added   to   the   recreational   allowable   ocean   harvest   north   of   Leadbetter   Point   prior   to   applying   the   sharing   percentages   for   Westport   and   La   Push.    The   increase   to   Westport   and   La   Push   will   be   subtracted   from   the   Neah   Bay   ocean   share   to   maintain   the   same   total   harvest   allocation   north   of   Leadbetter   Point.    Each   of   the   four   recreational   port   area   allocations   will   be   rounded   to   the   nearest   hundred   fish,   with   the   largest   quotas   rounded   downward   if   necessary   to   sum   to   the   preseason   recreational   allowable   ocean   harvest   of   coho   north   of   Cape   Falcon.
          *   *   *   *   *
           (vi) Inseason   trades   and   transfers.   *   *   *  Inseason   trades   or   transfers   may   vary   from   the   guideline   ratio   of   four   coho   to   one   chinook   to   meet   the   allocation   objectives   in   paragraph   (c)(1)(ix)   of   this   section.
          *   *   *   *   * - (viii) Selective   Fisheries.    Deviations   from   the   initial   gear   and   port   area   allocations   may   be   allowed   to   implement   selective   fisheries   for   marked   salmon   stocks   as   long   as   the   deviations   are   within   the   constraints   and   process   specified   in   Section   6.5.3.2   of   the Pacific   Coast   Salmon   Plan.
          *   *   *   *   *

           4.    In   §   660.410,   the   section   heading,   paragraphs   (a)   and   (b)(1)   are   revised   to   read   as   follows:

             §   660.410
            Conservation   objectives.

          (a)   The   conservation   objectives   are   summarized   in   Table 3-1 of the   Pacific   Coast   Salmon   Plan.
          (b)   *   *   *
          (1)   A   comprehensive   technical   review   of   the   best   scientific   information   available   provides   conclusive   evidence   that,   in   the   view   of   the   Council,   the   Scientific   and   Statistical   Committee,   and   the   Salmon   Technical   Team,   justifies   modification   of   a   conservation   objective;   except   that   the   35,000   natural   spawner   floor   for   Klamath   River   fall   chinook   may   only   be   changed   by   FMP   amendment.

      [FR Doc. 00-26935 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE:  3510-22 -S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 160229159-7990-01]
        RIN 0648-BF85
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework 2 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan

          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 Framework Adjustment 2 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. Framework Adjustment 2 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to improve and simplify the administration of the golden tilefish fishery. These changes include removing an outdated reporting requirement, proscribing allowed gear for the recreational fishery, modifying the commercial incidental possession limit, requiring commercial golden tilefish be landed with the head and fins attached, and revising how assumed discards are accounted for when setting harvest limits.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 7, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0024, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0024, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Tilefish Framework 2.”

            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 part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

          Copies of Framework 2, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341, Douglas.Potts@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        This action proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 2 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed this framework to improve and simplify management measures for the golden tilefish fishery in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The proposed management measures contained in Framework 2 are summarized below, with additional information and analysis are provided in the EA (see ADDRESSES).
        The Council's original FMP for the golden tilefish fishery became effective in 2001 (66 FR 49136; September 26, 2001). The FMP established Total Allowable Landings (TAL) as the primary control on fishing mortality, and implemented a limited entry program with a tiered commercial quota allocation of the TAL. Amendment 1 to the FMP replaced the previous management system with an individual fishing quota (IFQ) system that allocated the TAL to individual quota shareholders rather than different permit categories (74 FR 42580; August 24, 2009). The Council developed this action to address several minor issues and inefficiencies that have been identified since the implementation of the IFQ system.
        Proposed Framework Adjustment 2 Measures
        Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) Reporting Requirement Removal
        Commercial fishing vessels that land golden tilefish under the IFQ system are currently required to report each trip within 48 hours of landing through our IVR system. The Council originally created this reporting requirement when the fishery was managed under three permit categories, each with a sector-specific annual landings limit. The IVR system provided timely landing reports to track quota use and allowed managers to close a permit category if the annual landings cap was reached. When the Council changed the management of the fishery to an IFQ system, it retained the IVR system to allow additional monitoring of landings. Improvements in electronic dealer-reported landings and other data streams have rendered this IVR report redundant, and the data are no longer used to monitor quotas. We propose to eliminate this unnecessary reporting requirement.
        Recreational Fishing Gear Limit
        In recent years, there have been reports of recreational fishermen using “mini-longline” gear with a large number of hooks to target tilefish. The Council is concerned the use of this gear could result in dead discards if fishermen catch more than the eight-fish per person bag limit using this type of gear setup. The Magnuson-Stevens Act list of authorized gear types at 50 CFR 600.75(v) already restricts the recreational fishery to rod and reel and spear gear. However, to avoid any potential confusion and clarify the amount of gear allowed, the Council has recommended and we propose that rod and reel with a maximum of five hooks per rod should be the only authorized recreational tilefish gear for use in the Mid-Atlantic. Anglers could use either a manual or electric reel.
        Commercial Golden Tilefish Landing Condition

        The commercial tilefish fishery typically lands fish in a head-on, gutted condition. However, quotas and possession limits are in whole (round) weight. This requires the fishing industry to use a conversion factor to change landed weight to whole weight to comply with incidental possession limits and IFQ allocations. We proposed to require commercially caught golden tilefish to be landed with the head and fins attached, although they could be gutted. By requiring this, we can more reliably specify and monitor landing limits and quotas without requiring any conversion. This would simplify catch accounting and improve compliance for individuals participating in the commercial tilefish fishery.
        Commercial Golden Tilefish Possession Limit
        When the Council created the tilefish IFQ system, it allocated a separate quota and commercial possession limit of 500 pounds (lb) (227 kilograms (kg)) to allow small landings of tilefish caught by non-IFQ vessels targeting other species. In recent years, there have been increasing reports of non-IFQ vessels specifically targeting golden tilefish to land the maximum commercial incidental possession limit. In an effort to ensure that the incidental fishery functions as originally intended, the Council approved changes to the commercial possession limit to ensure that vessels are targeting species other than golden tilefish. Through this action, we propose to modify the commercial golden tilefish landing limit to 500 lb (227 kg) or 50 percent, by weight, of all fish on board the vessel, whichever is less.
        Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Authorized Vessels
        Tilefish IFQ allocation holders may authorize one or more vessels to land tilefish under their allocation. All golden tilefish landed by those vessels are then deducted from that allocation. We do not currently have a mechanism for a vessel to attribute golden tilefish landings from a single trip to more than one IFQ allocation. To create such a system would increase reporting burden on vessels and dealers, and add complexity to the IFQ accounting and cost recovery systems. In order to maintain simple and efficient administration of the IFQ fishery, we propose prohibiting a vessel from being authorized to land tilefish under multiple IFQ allocations on the same trip. A vessel could still change IFQ allocations over the course of the year while only being authorized by one IFQ allocation at a time. In addition, IFQ allocation holders could lease quota to maintain flexibility in harvesting their allocation.
        Assumed Discards in Quota-Setting Process
        The current process for setting annual specifications for the golden tilefish fishery deducts assumed discards of golden tilefish from the Annual Catch Target (ACT) to generate the TALs. The incidental sector is then allocated 5 percent of the TAL and the remaining 95 percent of the TAL is divided among the IFQ shareholders based on their individual quota holdings. However, discarding golden tilefish is prohibited in the IFQ fishery. As a result, observed discards are almost entirely from the incidental sector of the fishery. We propose to adjust the specification process to allocate the ACT between the incidental and IFQ sectors of the fishery using the 5- and 95-percent split. Sector-specific assumed discards would then be deducted to establish sector-specific TALs. The IFQ TAL would be allocated to the individual IFQ shareholders. This change would likely result in a lower TAL for the incidental fishery compared to the current system. However, the amount of golden tilefish discards is small and the incidental fishery typically lands 40 to 50 percent of the TAL. Therefore, this proposed change is not expected to negatively impact the incidental fishery.
        Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council has deemed that this proposed rule is necessary and appropriate for the purpose of implementing Framework 2.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        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 Council prepared an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the action, which is included in the draft EA for this action and supplemented by information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule.
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, the NMFS has established a size standard for small businesses, including their affiliated operations, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as small 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 has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including defining for-hire fishing firms (NAICS code 487210) as small when their receipts are less than $7.5 million. Using these definitions, during the 2013-2015 period, there are 4 large and 158 small commercial fishing entities that landed golden tilefish, and 210 small recreational for-hire firms that had a tilefish charter/party permit.
        During 2013-2015, the 158 small commercial fishing entities had average annual receipts of $871,966, while their golden tilefish revenues averaged $35,068. Over the same period, the 210 small recreational for-hire firms had average annual receipts of $138,380 from all charter/party fishing activity for all species combined. Revenue data were not available by species, so it is not possible to determine how much is attributable to golden tilefish verses the numerous other fish species those recreational for-hire vessels may target.
        The proposed management measures are not expected to change the amount of fishing effort or the spatial and/or temporal distribution of fishing effort in the tilefish fishery. These proposed changes would improve the management of the fishery, but have limited impact on the operation of the fishery. Some of the proposed measures would codify how the fishery already operates, including landing commercial tilefish with the head attached, limiting IFQ vessels to fish for one IFQ allocation at a time, and limiting recreational fishing to rod and reel gear. The proposed change to the incidental commercial possession limit could reduce landings for some vessels.

        Analysis of data from 2011-2015 shows that for fishing trips that landed golden tilefish under the incidental possession limit, the tilefish comprised just 0.3 percent of the weight and 0.8 percent of the value of the total landings on those trips. The incidental landings of golden tilefish were approximately 34,000 lb (15,400 kg) worth $82,000 per year. If this proposed measure had been in place during that time, it would have prevented the landing of approximately 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) of golden tilefish worth $21,600 per year from trips where golden tilefish was more than 50 percent of the total catch. This reduction would have been spread over 28 fishing vessels that landed those trips, resulting in an average impact of less than $1,000 per vessel per year. Vessels potentially affected by this proposed measure may be able to offset some of this impact by participating in another fishery.
        Given the low number of small entities involved in the tilefish fishery, and the small potential economic impact of the management measures proposed, this action will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

        This proposed rule would reduce a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0590. Public reporting burden for the IVR reporting requirement is estimated to average 2 minutes for each IVR 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. The proposed change would remove this reporting burden. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall 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.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 16, 2017.
          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 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

          § 648.7
           [Amended]

        2. In § 648.7, paragraph (a)(2)(ii), is removed and reserved.
        3. In § 648.14, paragraphs (u)(2)(vi) and (viii) are revised and paragraph (u)(2)(ix) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (u) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (vi) Land or possess golden tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid tilefish permit under this part, after the incidental golden tilefish fishery is closed pursuant to § 648.295(a)(3), unless fishing under a valid tilefish IFQ allocation permit as specified in § 648.294(a), or engaged in recreational fishing.

          (viii) Land or possess golden or blueline tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid commercial tilefish permit under this part, that do not have the head and fins naturally attached to the fish.
          (ix) Engage in recreational fishing for golden tilefish with fishing gear that is not compliant with the gear restrictions specified at § 648.296.

        4. In § 648.291, paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.291
          Tilefish Annual Catch Targets (ACT).
          (a) Golden tilefish. The Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall identify and review the relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend ACTs for the individual fishing quota (IFQ) and incidental sectors of the fishery as part of the golden tilefish specification process. The Tilefish Monitoring Committee recommendations shall identify the specific sources of management uncertainty that were considered, technical approaches to mitigating these sources of uncertainty, and any additional relevant information considered in the ACT recommendation process.
          (1) ACT Allocation. (i) The ACT shall be less than or equal to the ACL.
          (ii) The Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall include the fishing mortality associated with the recreational fishery in its ACT recommendations only if this source of mortality has not already been accounted for in the ABC recommended by the SSC.
          (iii) The Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall allocate 5 percent of the ACT to the incidental sector of the fishery and the remaining 95 percent to the individual fishing quota (IFQ) sector.

        5. In § 648.292, paragraphs (a) through (d), are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.292
          Tilefish specifications.
          (a) Annual specification process. The Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall review the ABC recommendation of the SSC, golden tilefish landings and discards information, and any other relevant available data to determine if the golden tilefish ACL, ACT, or total allowable landings (TAL) for the IFQ and/or incidental sectors of the fishery require modification to respond to any changes to the golden tilefish stock's biological reference points or to ensure any applicable rebuilding schedule is maintained. The Monitoring Committee will consider whether any additional management measures or revisions to existing measures are necessary to ensure that the IFQ and/or incidental TAL will not be exceeded. Based on that review, the Monitoring Committee will recommend golden tilefish ACL, ACTs, and TALs to the Tilefish Committee of the MAFMC. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received, the Tilefish Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC the appropriate golden tilefish ACL, ACT, TAL, and other management measures for both the IFQ and the incidental sectors of the fishery for a single fishing year or up to 3 years. The MAFMC shall review these recommendations and any public comments received, and recommend to the Regional Administrator, at least 120 days prior to the beginning of the next fishing year, the appropriate golden tilefish ACL, ACT, TAL, the percentage of TAL allocated to research quota, and any management measures to ensure that the TAL will not be exceeded, for both the IFQ and the incidental sectors of the fishery, for the next fishing year, or up to 3 fishing years. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental and economic impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator shall review these recommendations, and after such review, NMFS will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register specifying the annual golden tilefish ACL, ACT, TAL and any management measures to ensure that the TAL will not be exceeded for the upcoming fishing year or years for both the IFQ and the incidental sectors of the fishery. After considering public comments, NMFS will publish a final rule in the Federal Register to implement the golden tilefish ACL, ACTs, TALs and any management measures. The previous year's specifications will remain effective unless revised through the specification process and/or the research quota process described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section. NMFS will issue notification in the Federal Register if the previous year's specifications will not be changed.
          (b) Total Allowable Landings (TAL). (1) The TALs for both the IFQ and the incidental sectors of the fishery for each fishing year will be specified pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
          (2) The sum of the sector-specific TAL and the estimated sector-specific discards shall be less than or equal to the ACT for that sector of the fishery.
          (c) TAL allocation. For each fishing year, up to 3 percent of the incidental and IFQ TALs may be set aside for the purpose of funding research. The remaining IFQ TAL will be allocated to the individual IFQ permit holders as described in § 648.294(a).
          (d) Adjustments to the quota. If the incidental harvest exceeds the incidental TAL for a given fishing year, the incidental trip limit specified at § 648.295(a)(2) may be reduced in the following fishing year. If an adjustment is required, a notification of adjustment of the quota will be published in the Federal Register.

        6. In § 648.293, paragraph (a)(1), is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.293
          Tilefish accountability measures.
          (a) Golden tilefish. (1) Commercial incidental fishery closure. See § 648.295(a)(3).
          (2) Commercial ACL overage evaluation. If the golden tilefish ACL is exceeded, the amount of the ACL overage that cannot be directly attributed to IFQ allocation holders having exceeded their IFQ allocation will be deducted from the golden tilefish ACL in the following fishing year. All overages directly attributable to IFQ allocation holders will be deducted from the appropriate IFQ allocation(s) in the subsequent fishing year, as required by § 648.294(f).

        7. In § 648.294, paragraph (b)(4), is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.294
          Golden tilefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) program.

          (b) * * *
          (4) IFQ Vessel. (i) All Federal vessel permit numbers listed on the IFQ allocation permit are authorized to possess golden tilefish pursuant to the IFQ allocation permit.
          (ii) An IFQ allocation permit holder who wishes to authorize an additional vessel(s) to possess golden tilefish pursuant to the IFQ allocation permit must send written notification to NMFS. This notification must include:
          (A) The vessel name and permit number, and
          (B) The dates on which the IFQ allocation permit holder desires the vessel to be authorized to land golden tilefish pursuant to the IFQ allocation permit.
          (iii) A vessel listed on the IFQ allocation permit is authorized to possess golden tilefish pursuant to the subject permit, until the end of the fishing year or until NMFS receives written notification from the IFQ allocation permit holder to remove the vessel.
          (iv) A single vessel may not be listed on more than one IFQ allocation permit at the same time.
          (v) A copy of the IFQ allocation permit must be carried on board each vessel so authorized to possess IFQ golden tilefish.

          § 648.295
           [Amended]

        8. Section 648.295 is amended by:
        a. Revising the section heading;
        b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); and
        c. Adding paragraph (c).
        The addition and revisions to read as follows:

          § 648.295
          Tilefish commercial trip limits and landing condition.
          (a) Golden tilefish. (1) IFQ landings. Any golden tilefish landed by a vessel fishing under an IFQ allocation permit as specified at § 648.294(a), on a given fishing trip, count as landings under the IFQ allocation permit.
          (2) Incidental trip limit for vessels not fishing under an IFQ allocation. Any vessel of the United States fishing under a tilefish vessel permit, as described at § 648.4(a)(12), unless the vessel is fishing under a tilefish IFQ allocation permit, is prohibited from possessing more than:
          (i) 500 lb (226.8 kg) of golden tilefish at any time, or
          (ii) 50 percent, by weight, of the total of all species being landed; whichever is less.
          (3) In-season closure of the incidental fishery. The Regional Administrator will monitor the harvest of the golden tilefish incidental TAL based on dealer reports and other available information, and shall determine the date when the incidental golden tilefish TAL has been landed. The Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying vessel and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the incidental golden tilefish fishery is closed for the remainder of the fishing year.
          (b) Blueline tilefish. [Reserved]
          (c) Landing condition. Commercial golden or blueline tilefish must be landed with head and fins naturally attached, but may be gutted.

        9. In § 648.296, the section heading and paragraph (a) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.296
          Tilefish recreational possession limits and gear restrictions.
          (a) Golden Tilefish. (1) Any person fishing from a vessel that is not fishing under a tilefish commercial vessel permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(12), may land up to eight golden tilefish per trip. Anglers fishing onboard a charter/party vessel shall observe the recreational possession limit.
          (2) Any vessel engaged in recreational fishing may not retain golden tilefish, unless exclusively using rod and reel fishing gear, with a maximum limit of five hooks per rod. Anglers may use either a manual or electric reel.

      [FR Doc. 2017-22750 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 12, 39, and 52
        [FAR Case 2008-019; Docket 2009-0018; Sequence 1]
        RIN: 9000-AL11
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2008-019, Authentic Information Technology Products

          AGENCIES:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; notice of public meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are hosting six public meetings to continue a dialogue with industry and Government agencies about ways to develop greater assurances regarding the authenticity of information technology (IT) products acquired by the Government. The public meetings will include dialogues on the impact of counterfeit IT products on matters of performance and security; contractor liability and consequential damages; competitiveness issues associated with procuring IT products from the original equipment manufacturer or authorized distributor; identifying viable means of authenticating IT products; and contractor supply chain risk management requirements as an evaluation factor in the procurement of IT products.

          DATES:
          See Supplementary Information section for public meeting dates.

          ADDRESSES:
          See Supplementary Information section for public meeting addresses.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-3775 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2008-019.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Public Meeting Dates
        1. June 23, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
        2. July 15, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
        3. July 22, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
        4. July 29, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
        5. August 5, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
        6. August 12, 2009, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
        B. Public Meeting Addresses
        1. The meetings for June 23 and July 15 will be conducted at General Services Administration (GSA), 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, in the GSA Auditorium.
        2. The subsequent meetings, July 22, July 29, August 5, and August 12 will be conducted at General Services Administration (GSA), 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, in Room 5141B.
        Interested parties are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes early to accommodate security procedures.

        If you wish to make a presentation on any of the topics, please contact and submit a copy of your presentation 5 days prior to the meeting date, to General Services Administration, Contract Policy Division (VPC), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4040, Attn: Ernest Woodson, Washington, DC 20405. Telephone: (202) 501-3775.
        Submit electronic materials via e-mail to ernest.woodson@gsa.gov. Please submit presentations only and cite Public Meeting Authentic IT Products Continued Dialogue, in all correspondence related to the public meetings. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting. After the July 15, 2009 meeting, all subsequent meetings are subject to be cancelled. For that reason, all interested parties should contact Ernest Woodson after July 15, 2009, to verify that subsequent meetings are being held.

          Special Accommodations: The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ernest Woodson at (202) 501-3775, at least 5-working days prior to the meeting date.
        C. Background

        On December 11, 2008, the Councils conducted a public meeting, (see Federal Register notice at 73 FR 68373 on November 18, 2008) to seek comments from both Government and industry, on among other things, whether the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) should be revised to include a requirement that contractors selling information technology (IT) products (including computer hardware and software) represent that such products are authentic. The Councils were interested in comments regarding contractor liability if IT products sold to the Government by contractor are not authentic, and whether contractors who are resellers or distributors of computer hardware and software should represent to the Government that they are authorized by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to sell the IT products to the Government. The Councils also sought comments on (1) whether the measures contemplated above should be extended to other items purchased by the Government; and (2) whether the rule should apply when IT is a component of a system or assembled product.
        The public meetings contemplated by this notice will continue a dialogue with industry and Government agencies on the impact of counterfeit IT products on matters of performance and security; contractor liability and consequential damages; competitiveness issues associated with procuring IT products from the original equipment manufacturer or authorized distributor; identifying viable means of authenticating IT products; and contractor supply chain risk management requirements as an evaluation factor in the procurement of IT products. The meetings are intended to provide for an exchange of information and ideas that may be used to assist in developing greater assurance around IT products acquired by the Government.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 12, 39, and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: May 29, 2009
          Al Matera,
          Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

      [FR Doc. E9-12927 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 030917233-3233-01; I.D. 082703A]
        RIN 0648-AP50
        Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources; Stock Status Determination Criteria

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the framework procedure for adjusting management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP), NMFS proposes to incorporate into the FMP biomass-based stock status determination criteria consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Criteria to be incorporated include maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), minimum stock size threshold (MSST) and maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) for king and Spanish mackerel and cobia stocks under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 13, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule should be mailed to Dr. Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments may also be sent via fax to 727-522-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          Requests for copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an Environmental Assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (RFAA), and a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), should be sent to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619-2266, telephone:  813-228-2815, fax:   813-225-7015, e-mail: gulfcouncil@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dr. Steve Branstetter, telephone:  727-570-5796, fax:   727-570-5583, e-mail: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) resources are regulated under the FMP.  The FMP was prepared jointly by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and was approved by NMFS and implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        In accordance with the FMP's framework procedure, the Council has submitted to the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, a regulatory amendment containing recommendations for changes in designations of stock status criteria for Gulf migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel and for a Gulf migratory group of cobia (to be designated via subsequent plan amendment).  The most recent scientific evidence indicates that the cobia stock is comprised of separate migratory groups in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic.  However, the FMP identifies only a single cobia stock.  The establishment of separate migratory groups of cobia will require that the FMP be amended.  Therefore, implementation of the stock status criteria for a Gulf migratory group of cobia would be deferred pending the development of an amendment to the FMP.
        Section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the regional fishery management councils:   (1) assess the condition of managed stocks, (2) specify within their fishery management plans objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the stocks are overfished and when overfishing is occurring (referred to by NMFS as stock status determination criteria), and (3) amend their fishery management plans to include measures to rebuild overfished stocks and maintain them at healthy levels capable of producing MSY.  NMFS' national standard guidelines (NSGs) direct the councils to meet these statutory requirements by incorporating into each FMP estimates of certain biomass-based parameters for each stock, including a designation of the stock biomass that will produce MSY (BMSY).
        On November 17, 1999, NMFS notified the Council that it had partially approved the Council's Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment.  In that notification, NMFS approved the designation and definition of an MFMT for CMP fish stocks managed under the jurisdiction of the Council, but disapproved the proposed designations of MSY, OY, and MSST because they were not biomass-based, as recommended by the NSGs.  Since that time, NMFS has worked cooperatively with the Council to develop acceptable stock status criteria for the Gulf migratory groups of those CMP stocks.
        Accordingly, this proposed rule would establish biomass-based reference points, as identified in the table below, for MSY, OY, and MSST, and would amend the existing designations of MFMT for Gulf migratory group king mackerel, Gulf migratory group Spanish mackerel, and a (to be designated) Gulf migratory group of cobia.

            Gulf group king mackerel
            Gulf group Spanish mackerel
            Gulf group cobia1

            MSY2

            yield at F30%SPR (currently 10.7 million lb or 4.85 million kg)
            yield @ F30%SPR(currently 8.7 million lb or 3.95 million kg)
            yield @ Fmsy(currently 1.49 million lb or 0.676 million kg)

            OY
            yield at FOY = 0.85*FMSY (currently 10.2 million lb or 4.63 million kg)
            yield at FOY = 0.75 *FMSY (currently 8.3 million lb or 3.76 million kg)
            yield @ FOY =0.75*FMSY (currently 1.45 million lb or 0.658 million kg)

            MFMT
            F30%SPR = FMSY

            F30%SPR = FMSY

            FMSY

            MSST 3

            (1-M)*BMSY or 80% of BMSY

            (1-M)*BMSY or 70% of BMSY

            (1-M)*BMSY or 70% of BMSY

            overfished
            50% probability Fcurrent > FMSY

            50% probability Fcurrent > FMSY

            50% probability Fcurrent > FMSY

            overfishing
            50% probability Bcurrent < MSST
            50% probability Bcurrent < MSST
            50% probability Bcurrent < MSST

            1 Implementation deferred pending formal designation of a Gulf migratory group of cobia through an amendment to the FMP.

            2 F = fishing mortality rate; SPR refers to spawning potential ratio

            3 M, or natural mortality, is estimated at 0.20 for king mackerel, and 0.30 for both Spanish mackerel and cobia.  Bcurrent represents the current estimates of stock biomass; BMSY represents the estimated stock biomass required to produce MSY

        NMFS invites public comment on these proposed parameters. Comments received by November 13, 2003 will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve or disapprove the action identified in this proposed rule.  Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision.  NMFS decision will be based on determinations regarding the consistency of the proposed provisions with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, as well as the consideration of comments received during the comment period on this proposed rule.  Approved population parameters would be considered legitimate measures of the FMP, but would not appear in codified text.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 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.  The basis for this determination is summarized as follows.

          The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule.  The proposed rule would establish benchmarks and status criteria for Gulf migratory groups of king and Spanish mackerel, and a pending designation of a Gulf migratory group of cobia.  The establishment of these stock status criteria would allow more accurate assessments regarding the health of these fish stocks, prevent overfishing, and provide optimum benefits to the fisheries and the public.  No projected reporting, record keeping or other compliance requirements are proposed.  No duplicative, overlapping or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.

          In the Gulf area, 1,440 commercial vessels have permits to fish for king mackerel.  These vessel owners have a median net (taxable) income of $3,670.  These vessels operate in multiple fisheries and are not, therefore, totally dependent upon sales of coastal migratory pelagic species.  There are 113 for-hire vessels that only have a permit for coastal migratory pelagic species, and 1,403 for-hire vessels that possess both reef fish and coastal migratory pelagic permits.  Most of the for-hire craft are traditional charter boats, and fishing for coastal migratory pelagic species comprises only a portion of their total effort and revenues.  The median gross fishing revenue was approximately $20,000, with a median value for net income of $4,000.  Thus, all the commercial and for-hire harvesting units are classified as small entities.  Since the proposed rule would apply to all entities participating in the coastal migratory pelagic fishery and all entities are classified as small entities, the proposed rule would apply to a substantial number of small entities.
          The criteria used to determine significant impact include disproportionality and profitability. As described earlier, all the affected entities are classified as small entities so the issue of disproportionate impacts does not arise.  Further, since there are no implementing regulations associated with the proposed rule, there would be no direct effects on current fishery participation, effort, harvests, or other use of the resource.  All current entities can continue to participate in the fishery in the manner in which they currently operate.  Therefore, all current harvests, costs, and profits would remain unchanged.  Any adverse effects on small entities that participate in the fishery would only occur in the future, should stock conditions change, requiring a need to adjust fishery regulations to achieve the benchmarks established by this proposed rule.   The likelihood of this occurring in either the near or distant future is unknown and cannot be determined.  Further, the resultant impact of these future regulations cannot be predicted since the magnitude of required change is unknown, as is the method that would be selected to achieve the required change.  These impacts, however, would be determined should such change be required.
          In summary, while the proposed rule would apply to a substantial number of small entities, these entities would not be affected in a significant way since status quo fishing practices are allowed to continue.  The proposed rule would establish targets/goals that current and future management actions would attempt to achieve/attain.  However, at this time, no changes in existing harvest restrictions are proposed.  Future changes to harvesting restrictions would be evaluated for their impacts when they are proposed.  Therefore, the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not required.

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

          Dated:  October 8, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-25924 Filed 10-10-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S