        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 200617-0163]
        RIN 0648-BJ79
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 12

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We are proposing to approve and implement specifications submitted by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in Framework Adjustment 12 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. This action would set monkfish specifications for fishing year 2020 and project specifications for the 2021 and 2022 fishing years. This action is needed to establish allowable monkfish harvest levels that will prevent overfishing.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by July 30, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0064, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0064, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

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

          Copies of the Framework 12 document, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The specifications document is also accessible via the internet at: https://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/monkfish.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9122.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The monkfish fishery is jointly managed under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the end of the continental shelf. The Councils manage the fishery as two management units, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through Southern New England and into the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina.
        The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the target total allowable landings (TAL) and the annual catch target (ACT), which is the TAL plus an estimate of expected discards, for each management area. Both the ACT and the TAL are calculated to maximize yield in the fishery over the long term.
        Proposed Measures
        1. Specifications
        We are proposing to adjust the NFMA and SFMA quotas for fishing year 2020 (Table 1), based on the Councils' recommendations. We are also projecting these quotas for fishing years 2021 and 2022. On August 21, 2019, the New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended acceptable biological catch levels in the NFMA and SFMA for fishing years 2020-2022. The New England Council approved the specifications on September 24, 2019. The Mid-Atlantic Council approved the specifications on October 7, 2019. Both Councils' recommendations for the 2020-2022 monkfish specifications are based on the results of the 2019 assessment update and the recommendations of the SSC.

        The Councils recommended a 10-percent increase in the acceptable biological catch and annual catch limit in the NFMA and status quo acceptable biological catch and annual catch limit in the SFMA, when compared to the 2017-2019 specifications. Discards, calculated using a moving average of the most recent three years of data, increased in both areas, but more significantly in the SFMA. Data indicate that this substantial increase is due to the large 2015 monkfish year class being discarded by scallop dredge gear. After accounting for discards, the Councils recommend a 5-percent increase in the total allowable landings for the NFMA and a 35-percent decrease in the total allowable landings for the SFMA. Despite these changes, both Councils recommend no adjustments to day-at-sea allocations or landing limits. The small increase in the NFMA is expected to convert fish that were discarded in previous fishing years into landings. The Councils do not expect the lower SFMA total allowable landings to be constraining because SFMA landings have been lower than the proposed 2020 total allowable landings since 2008.

          Table 1—Proposed Framework 12 Specifications

            Catch limits
            NFMA
            Proposed 2020-2022 specs (mt)
            Percent change from 2019
            SFMA
            Proposed 2020-2022 specs (mt)
            Percent change from 2019

            Acceptable Biological Catch
            8,351
            10
            12,316
            0

            Annual Catch Limit
            8,351
            10
            12,316
            0

            Management Uncertainty
            3 percent

            3 percent

            Annual Catch Target (Total Allowable Landings + discards)
            8,101
            10
            11,947
            0

            Discards
            1,477

            6,065
            107

            Total Allowable Landings
            6,624
            5
            5,882
            −35

        At the end of each fishing year, we evaluate catch information and determine if the quota has been exceeded. If a quota is exceeded, the regulations at 50 CFR 648.96(d) require the Councils to revise the monkfish ACT if it is determined that the annual catch limit was exceeded in any given year, or for NMFS to revise the monkfish ACT if the Councils fail to take action. We would publish a notice in the Federal Register of any revisions to these proposed specifications if an overage occurs. We expect, based on preliminary 2019 year end accounting, that no adjustment is necessary. We will provide notice of the 2021 and 2022 quotas prior to the start of each respective fishing year.
        2. Regulatory Corrections
        Using our authority under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we are clarifying trip declarations requirements at 50 CFR 648.10 for vessels making trip declarations through the interactive voice response system. Regulations require vessels using a vessel monitoring system to submit a trip declaration less than 1 hour prior to leaving port. No timeframe is specified for vessels using the interactive voice response system. This rule proposes to clarify that both declarations must be made less than 1 hour prior to leaving port. This requirement is intended to make the declaration requirements consistent for all monkfish fishery participants.
        Additionally, we are using the same authority to correct the monkfish incidental catch limits in four Northeast multispecies exempted fisheries specified in § 648.80. In the monkfish Amendment 5 final rule (76 FR 30265; May 25, 2011), we updated tail-to-whole-weight (landed) conversion factor from 3.32 to 2.91, and applied this updated conversion to the monkfish possession limits in § 648.94. We inadvertently failed to update the incidental monkfish possession limits the Northeast multispecies exempted fisheries at §§ 648.80(a)(6)(1)(B), (a)(10)(i)(D), (b)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii)(A) and intend to correct the incidental monkfish whole weight possession limits, using the 2011 conversion factor.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, Framework 12, 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 action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
        As outlined in the preamble of this rule, the purpose of this action is to implement Framework 12 to the Monkfish FMP. Framework 12 would set monkfish specifications for fishing years 2020-2022. This rule proposes a 5-percent quota increase in the NFMA and a 35-percent quota decrease in the SFMA, when compared to 2019. This framework is needed to establish allowable monkfish harvest levels that will prevent overfishing.
        We issued 540 limited access monkfish permits and 1,333 open access monkfish permits as of May 1, 2019. Dealer records indicate that 683 of these permits landed monkfish for commercial sale in calendar year 2018. Ownership data collected from permit holders indicate that there are 1,379 distinct business entities that hold at least one limited-access or open-access monkfish permit, and are directly regulated by the proposed specifications. For entities that held one monkfish permit, 908 entities held an open access permit and 263 entities held a limited access permit. For the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we define a small business in the commercial harvesting sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $11 million for commercial fishing businesses. Of the 1,379 entities, all but 12 entities are categorized as small businesses.
        This action is expected to have no to slightly positive economic impacts on both large and small entities. In the NFMA, the proposed action could result in modest increases in catch per unit effort; economic theory holds that this will result in increased profitability, all else held constant. In the SFMA, the proposed action is expected to have no economic impact because the proposed quota remains higher than landings in recent years.

        This action is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nearly all monkfish entities (99 percent) are considered small entities. Regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to experience no impacts to slightly positive impacts. No impacts are expected to the 12 regulated large entities, as they have little dependence on monkfish revenue. Small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing.

          Dated: June 17, 2020.
          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.

        2. In § 648.10, revise paragraph (h)(1) introductory text to read as follows:

          § 648.10
           VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators.

          (h) * * *
          (1) Less than 1 hr prior to leaving port, for vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit or, for vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit and a limited access monkfish permit (Category C, D, F, G, or H), unless otherwise specified in paragraph (h) of this section, or an occasional scallop permit as specified in this paragraph (h), and, less than 1 hr prior to leaving port, for vessels issued a limited access monkfish Category A or B permit, the vessel owner or authorized representative must notify the Regional Administrator that the vessel will be participating in the DAS program by calling the call-in system and providing the following information:

        3. In § 648.80, revise paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(B), (10)(i)(D), (b)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii)(A) to read as follows:

          § 648.80
           NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

          (a) * * *
          (6) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (B) An owner or operator of a vessel fishing in this area may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than whiting and offshore hake combined—up to a maximum of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg), except for the following, with the restrictions noted, as allowable incidental species: Atlantic herring, up to the amount specified in § 648.204; longhorn sculpin; squid, butterfish, and Atlantic mackerel, up to the amounts specified in § 648.26; spiny dogfish, up to the amount specified in § 648.235; red hake, up to the amount specified in § 648.86(d), monkfish and monkfish parts—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board or up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail-weight/146 lb (66 kg) whole-weight of monkfish per trip, as specified in § 648.94(c)(4), whichever is less; and American lobster—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board or 200 lobsters, whichever is less, unless otherwise restricted by landing limits specified in § 697.17 of this chapter.

          (10) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (D) The following species may be possessed and landed, with the restrictions noted, as allowable incidental species in the Nantucket Shoals Dogfish Fishery Exemption Area: Longhorn sculpin; silver hake—up to 200 lb (90.7 kg); monkfish and monkfish parts—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board or up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail-weight/146 lb (66 kg) whole-weight of monkfish per trip, as specified in § 648.94(c)(4), whichever is less; American lobster—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board or 200 lobsters, whichever is less, unless otherwise restricted by landing limits specified in § 697.17 of this chapter; and skate or skate parts—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board.

          (b) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (ii) Possession and net stowage requirements. Vessels may possess regulated species while in possession of nets with mesh smaller than the minimum size specified in paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(2) of this section when fishing in the SNE Exemption Area defined in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, provided that such nets are stowed and are not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, and provided that regulated species were not harvested by nets of mesh size smaller than the minimum mesh size specified in paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(2) of this section. Vessels fishing for the exempted species identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section may also possess and retain the following species, with the restrictions noted, as incidental take to these exempted fisheries: Conger eels; sea robins; black sea bass; red hake; tautog (blackfish); blowfish; cunner; John Dory; mullet; bluefish; tilefish; longhorn sculpin; fourspot flounder; alewife; hickory shad; American shad; blueback herring; sea raven; Atlantic croaker; spot; swordfish; monkfish and monkfish parts—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board or up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail-weight/146 lb (66 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip, as specified in § 648.94(c)(4), whichever is less; American lobster—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board or 200 lobsters, whichever is less; and skate and skate parts (except for barndoor skate and other prohibited skate species (see §§ 648.14(v)(2) and 648.322(g))—up to 10 percent, by weight, of all other species on board.

          (h) * * *
          (3) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (A) A vessel fishing in the Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Areas specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 146 lb (66 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.

      [FR Doc. 2020-13499 Filed 6-29-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF98
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period on Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) gives notice of a public hearing on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the threatened Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). In addition, the comment period which originally closed on May 8, 2000, will be reopened. The new comment period and hearing will allow all interested parties to submit oral or written comments on the proposal. We are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposed rule. Comments already submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determination.

          DATES:
          The comment period for this proposal now closes on June 12, 2000. Any comments received by the closing date will be considered in the final decision on this proposal. The public hearing will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on June 1, 2000, in San Ramon, California.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing will be held at the San Ramon Marriott, 2600 Bishop Drive, Salon E, San Ramon, California. Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jason Davis or Heather Bell, at the above address, phone 916-414-6600, facsimile 916-414-6710.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On March 8, 2000, the Service published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the threatened Alameda whipsnake in the Federal Register (65 FR 12155). The original comment period closed on May 8, 2000. The comment period now closes on June 12, 2000. Written comments should be submitted to the Service (see ADDRESSES section).
        A total of approximately 164,663 hectares (406,708 acres) of land fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is located in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara counties, California. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that a public hearing be held if it is requested within 45 days of the publication of a proposed rule. In response to three such requests, the Service will hold a public hearing on the date and at address described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above.

        Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to the Service at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments presented at the hearing or mailed to the Service. Legal notices announcing the date, time, and location of the hearing will be published in newspapers concurrently with the Federal Register notice.
        Comments from the public regarding the accuracy of this proposed rule are sought, especially regarding:
        (1) The location of any additional populations of Alameda whipsnakes and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat;
        (2) Additional information regarding the validity of the primary constituent elements described in the proposed rule; and (3) Additional information regarding areas that may be essential as travel corridors for connecting individual Alameda whipsnake populations.

        Reopening of the comment period will enable the Service to respond to the request for a public hearing on the proposed action. The comment period on this proposal now closes on June 12, 2000. Written comments should be submitted to the Service office listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are Jason Davis and Heather Bell (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action are the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: May 2, 2000.
          John Engbring,
          Manager.

      [FR Doc. 00-11450 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 120813331-2562-01]
        RIN 0648-XC164
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Proposed Rule to Implement a Targeted Acadian Redfish Fishery for Sector Vessels

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This action would expand on a previously approved sector exemption by allowing groundfish sector trawl vessels to harvest redfish using nets with codend mesh as small as 4.5 inches (11.4 cm). In addition, this action proposes to implement an industry-funded at-sea monitoring program for sector trips targeting redfish with trawl nets with mesh sizes that are less than the regulated mesh size requirement.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 23, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          A copy of the accompanying environmental assessment and the final draft of Component 2 of the REDNET project are available from the NMFS Northeast Regional Office: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0264, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: William Whitmore.
          • Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Redfish Rule.”

            Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, 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 (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Once submitted to NMFS, copies of addenda to FY 2012 sector operations plans detailing industry-funded monitoring plans, and the supplemental environmental assessment (EA), will be available from the NMFS NE Regional Office at the mailing address above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281-9182, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        1. Exemption from 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) Codend Mesh Size so Vessels Can Target Redfish
        Regulations from Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) allow a sector to request exemptions from Federal fishing regulations through its annual operations plan (for more information on sector operations plans and regulatory exemptions, see the fishing year 2012 sector operations plan proposed rule, 77 FR 8780, February 15, 2012).
        In their 2011 and 2012 operations plans, several sectors in the NE multispecies fishery requested an exemption from NE multispecies codend mesh-size restrictions so they could use 5-inch (12.7-cm) codend mesh to target redfish, a fully rebuilt groundfish stock. These requests were denied because, at that time, we were waiting for results from a collaborative redfish research project that was looking at redfish bottom trawl fishing using small-mesh nets. The project, known as REDNET, is comprised of a group of researchers, commercial fishermen, and other interested stakeholders who are working to further improve and develop the redfish fishery. Sectors also requested an exemption to use 6-inch (15.2-cm) mesh to target redfish in their 2012 operations plans. This exemption was approved, and an explanation is provided below.
        On December 1, 2011, following the completion of a portion of the REDNET project, the Sustainable Harvest Sector and the Northeast Fishery Sectors submitted an exemption request to us to use 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) codend mesh to target redfish in a portion of the Gulf of Maine, east of the year-round Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area. The sectors submitted preliminary results from the REDNET project to justify their exemption request. Sectors are normally required to submit their exemption requests by September 1 to ensure that any necessary analyses can be included in the required environmental assessment (EA) in time for fishing operations to start at the beginning of the following fishing year (i.e., May 1). Due to the late timing of this 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) codend mesh exemption request, we were unable to include any analyses to accompany the rulemaking for the fishing year 2012 sector operations plans. We explained to the requesting sectors that the initial study results from the REDNET research project showed some potential that 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) codend mesh could be used to successfully target redfish with minimal bycatch of other fish species. But we also commented that the study would need to be completed and reviewed prior to the exemption being considered by NMFS. We also informed the sectors that the study results should be sent through the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Research Steering Committee for review.

        Preliminary findings from Component 2 (of 6) of the REDNET report were presented to the Council on February 1, 2012. Following the presentation, the Council requested that NMFS expedite approval of a sector exemption allowing vessels to more easily target redfish. In response to the Council's request, and because we determined that a reduction to 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) codend mesh represented a minor change, sectors were granted an exemption from mesh size restrictions for fishing year 2012, and are now able to utilize 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) codend mesh to target redfish (see the final rule approving sector operations plans (77 FR 26129; May 2, 2012)). As proposed by the sectors, vessels fishing with 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) codend mesh size on the exemption trips are required to have a NMFS-certified observer or at-sea monitor on board. In addition, vessels targeting redfish under this exemption must notify their sector manager that they intend to target redfish and must submit daily catch reports to their sector manager.

        A report summarizing the results of Component 2 of the REDNET project was completed in April 2012. Although the results were encouraging, the report lacked detail with regard to the actual design of the gear tested, the operational procedures vessels used when targeting redfish and what a “significant” amount of minimal bycatch of other fish species is. Also, Component 2 of the REDNET project was considered exploratory/demonstration fishing and was not a designed study.
        In a May 21, 2012, letter to the Council, we requested that the Council's Research Steering Committee review the summary report mentioned above at its June 25, 2012, meeting and provide comments on the report, as well as on the feasibility for granting a regulatory exemption to allow sector vessels to use codend mesh as small as 4.5 inches (11.4-cm) to target redfish. The Research Steering Committee reviewed the REDNET report and identified concerns similar to those listed above. The Committee recommended that an exemption allowing vessels to use 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh codend to target redfish be approved annually based on catch information from the previous year.
        As explained above, exemptions are normally proposed, reviewed, and approved through the final rule implementing the annual sector operations plans; however, sectors can request exemptions at any time within the fishing year. Because the Council has requested that NMFS pursue exemptions allowing sector vessels to more efficiently target redfish, and the Research Steering Committee has endorsed the approval of a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh exemption, this action proposes a 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) codend trawl mesh exemption for potential mid-year implementation. All measures proposed for this exemption are also being extended to the currently approved 6-inch (15.2-cm) codend mesh exemption.
        To aid in identifying trips targeting redfish with small-mesh nets, all sector trawl vessels that intend to target redfish with codend mesh greater than or equal to 4.5 inches (11.4-cm) but less than 6.5 inches (16.5-cm) (the required regulated codend mesh size for the area fished), would be required to have an observer or at-sea monitor on board, and would be required to submit a trip start hail prior to leaving port. Sector vessels intending to utilize this exemption would also be required to submit a trip start hail identifying the trip as one that will target redfish under the exemption.

        To ensure that this exemption does not negatively impact fish stocks, we are proposing two catch thresholds that, if exceeded by a sector, could, taking into account the circumstances, result in the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator rescinding approval of the exemption for the sector in question. To help ensure that vessels do not direct on other species of fish while using small mesh, monthly catch amounts under this exemption must be comprised of at least 80 percent redfish. Additionally, to help mitigate catches of sub-legal sized groundfish, total groundfish discards (excluding redfish discards), may not exceed 5 percent of all groundfish caught when directing on redfish with small-mesh nets. These thresholds were determined to be consistent with catch information from REDNET trips. The final report for Component 2 of the REDNET project is available for review and the analyses for these thresholds are included in the accompanying EA (see ADDRESSES section). This rule also proposes that the Regional Administrator could further adjust these two thresholds, if necessary, to help ensure that vessels are directing on redfish and catching minimal amounts of undersized groundfish.
        Sector catch utilizing this exemption would be analyzed monthly with a cumulative calculation. If a sector exceeds either of the thresholds, it would have 1 month to correct this overage. If, after 1 month, the sector has still exceeded either threshold, the exemption for that particular sector could be revoked by the Regional Administrator for the remainder of the fishing year through a notice published consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. An interim reporting process would be developed to monitor catch under this exemption. Because of these catch thresholds, a catch monitoring program, and the requirement to submit a trip start hail, sector vessels would no longer be required to submit daily catch reports they currently submit when utilizing the 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) codend mesh exemption. The reporting mechanisms used for submitting catch data may be adjusted at any time if deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator.
        In addition, the Regional Administrator would reserve the right to revoke this exemption if it is determined that the exemption is negatively impacting spawning fish, rebuilding efforts for any groundfish stocks, or populations of stocks that the current minimum codend mesh size of 6.5 inches (16.5-cm) was intended to protect.
        Vessels requesting this exemption have asked that they be allowed to fish under this exemption with small mesh and fish with regulated codend mesh nets for other groundfish stocks on the same trip. Supporters of this request claim that vessels need this additional flexibility on a trip to maximize profits, arguing that catch information could be linked to the mesh size fished by observers or at-sea monitors. NMFS has some concern about vessels fishing multiple mesh sizes on the same trip. Both NMFS' Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard have commented that allowing vessels to fish multiple mesh sizes on the same trip undermines the ability to monitor the catch composition that corresponds with each mesh size fished, and to ensure that groundfish are not targeted with undersized mesh. Because observers and at-sea monitors do not observe every haul (fishing operations may occur while they are sleeping), exact catch from these hauls cannot be identified and included in catch thresholds. Also, during unmonitored times, vessels have an opportunity to either illegally discard fish caught with smaller mesh in an effort to remain within the catch thresholds or target groundfish with the smaller mesh nets. Because adequate catch monitoring is necessary to apply the proposed bycatch thresholds and to differentiate catch between small and standard groundfish mesh sizes, we are expecting that the majority of hauls be recorded by an at-sea monitor or observer on a trip targeting redfish. If the majority of haul backs are not observed, the Regional Administrator could revoke the exemption.
        Despite the concerns described above, we are proposing that trawl vessels targeting redfish using nets of codend mesh less than the regulated mesh size be allowed; however, we are specifically requesting public comment on this issue. If this flexibility measure is approved, the thresholds would only be applied to portions of the trip when vessels are trawling with small mesh.
        2. Request To Develop Industry-Funded At-Sea Monitoring Programs for Trips Targeting Redfish

        Currently, any sector vessel targeting redfish under a mesh size exemption is required to have an at-sea monitor or observer on board. Some sectors are concerned that their ability to utilize this exemption is restricted because vessels have to wait to be randomly selected for a federally funded observer or at-sea monitor. As a result, several sectors have asked to work with us to develop an industry-funded at-sea monitoring program so they could take more trips targeting redfish. After considering the request, we have determined that we could support a small-scale industry-funded program. Limitations to the size of the program are due to a limited pool of available at-sea monitors and observers.
        Specifically, 4 sectors (26 vessels) have expressed interest in funding additional at-sea monitoring coverage for trips targeting redfish. Here, NMFS proposes that any sector interested in developing an industry-funded at-sea monitoring program be required to develop a monitoring plan and include this plan in its operations plan. The monitoring plan would be reviewed by NMFS, and if it is determined that the plan is sufficient, it would be approved along with the rest of the sector's operations plan. For fishing year 2012, any approved at-sea monitoring program would be included as an addendum to the sector's operations plan.
        NMFS also proposes that a vessel in a sector that has an approved industry-funded at-sea monitoring program must notify NMFS of its intent to take a small-mesh trip targeting redfish at least 48 hours in advance. Instead of calling into the Pre-Trip Notification System currently established for sector vessels, the vessel would call into a separate system when intending to fish under the small-mesh exemption. Vessels enrolled in a sector that has an approved industry-funded monitoring program would forfeit the opportunity to have a federally funded observer or at-sea monitor assigned for coverage. In other words, any vessel in a sector that has an approved industry-funded program and that elects to target redfish under the redfish exemption would be required to pay for at-sea monitoring coverage for that trip. Once a sector has an approved at-sea monitoring program for targeted redfish trips, the sector may not opt-out of the program until the following fishing year.
        Alternatively, vessels could elect to target redfish under the small-mesh exemption only when randomly assigned a federally funded observer or at-sea monitor. Importantly, under this proposal, all groundfish catch from a declared small-mesh redfish trip would be debited against the sector's allocation. Catch from small-mesh redfish trips would not be factored into a sector's overall discard rate, regardless of whether the monitor is federally or industry funded. Because normal groundfish trips and targeted redfish trips may exhibit different behavior and/or catch rates, the discarded fish should be treated differently based on the trip that is taken.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This action is exempt from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule would expand on a previously approved regulatory exemption for NE multispecies sector trawl vessels by allowing them to target redfish with codend mesh nets as small as 4.5 inches (11.4-cm). In addition, this action would allow sectors to develop and fund their own at-sea monitor program for trips targeting redfish.
        Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period. All comments received by the end of the comment period will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-12, 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 action, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has not been prepared. The factual basis for this determination is explained below.
        There are two objectives of this proposed action. The first is to authorize a regulatory exemption that would allow NE multispecies sector vessels to fish bottom trawls with codend mesh sizes greater or equal to 4.5 inches (11.4-cm) but less than 6.5 inches (16.5-cm) when targeting redfish. The second is to allow sectors to develop an industry-funded at-sea monitoring program for trips targeting redfish. All sector vessels could potentially utilize the mesh-size exemption. Currently, approximately 4 sectors, or 26 of 850 sector vessels signed into the 2012 fishing year sector program, have expressed interest in developing an industry-funded at-sea monitoring program.
        Because of the limited scope of this proposed rule, the impacts of the preferred alternatives would only directly affect a small number of small businesses. As stated above, four sectors have expressed interest in funding an at-sea monitoring program. The SBA size standard for small fishing entities is $4 million in gross sales. No groundfish entity (vessel) exceeds this threshold. Therefore, all permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery are considered to be small fishing entities. It is anticipated that the approximately 26 vessels from these sectors that have expressed interest will target redfish with small mesh on 102 trips. This represents roughly 6 percent of active groundfish vessels and 0.7 percent of the groundfish trips taken by those vessels. Importantly, the proposals in this rule are strictly voluntary; these actions were requested by fishermen to enhance fishing opportunities, improve operational flexibility, and increase profits.
        The RFA requires Federal agencies to consider disproportionality and profitability to determine the significance of regulatory impacts. If approved, all sector vessels would have the same opportunity to utilize smaller codend mesh to target redfish. Accordingly, no small entities would be disproportionately impacted in relation to large entities.
        Allowing sector vessels to fish with smaller mesh while targeting redfish would increase fishing efficiency and, therefore, revenue. Due to limits in Federal funding for observer coverage, sector vessels are unable to fish for redfish with small mesh as frequently as they would like, because observers or at-sea monitors are not available to monitor trips. Allowing sectors to pay for additional at-sea monitoring, as they requested, would increase operational flexibility by allowing vessels to take more trips. The catch from these additional trips would increase profits. These provisions are not restrictions, but requests by sectors that could improve efficiencies and increase profits. Therefore, the profitability criterion is not met because no reductions in profit are expected for any small entities.
        Because this proposal would only provide economic benefits to the affected small entities, there is no significant economic impact to a substantial number of small entities. No assumptions are necessary to conduct the analyses in support of this conclusion. As a result, an IRFA is not required and none has been prepared.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule

        This proposed rule contains no collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

        Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed sector operations plan addenda.

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

          Dated: November 1, 2012.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, performing the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-27245 Filed 11-7-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 121504I]
        Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public hearing to solicit comments on “Draft Amendment 3 for Addressing EFH Requirements, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), and Adverse Effects of Fishing in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp, Red Drum, Reef Fish, Stone Crab, Coral and Coral Reef in the Gulf of Mexico and Spiny Lobster and the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.” The Amendment contains proposed alternatives to further identify essential fish habitat (EFH), establish HAPCs, and, to the extent practicable, prevent adverse impacts of fishing activities on coral in HAPCs.

          DATES:
          The public hearing will be held January 4, 2005, beginning at 7 p.m. and concluding no later than 10 p.m. Public comments received by mail that are received in the Council office by 5 p.m., January 5, 2005, will be presented to the Council.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing will be held at the DoubleTree Grand Key Resort, 3990 South Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, FL 33040; phone: (888) 310-1540.
          Send written comments to: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rick Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; phone: (813) 228-2815.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Following the judicial decision in American Oceans Campaign v. Daley (Civil Action No. 99-982), NOAA Fisheries and the Council prepared an “Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment to the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp, Red Drum, Reef Fish, Stone Crab, Coral and Coral Reef in the Gulf of Mexico and Spiny Lobster and the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.” The EIS analyzes within each fishery a range of potential alternatives to: (1) describe and identify essential fish habitat for each fishery; (2) identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such EFH; and (3) identify measures to minimize to the extent practicable any adverse effects of fishing on such EFH. Based on this EIS, the Council has subsequently developed “Draft Amendment 3 for Addressing EFH Requirements, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), and Adverse Effects of Fishing in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp, Red Drum, Reef Fish, Stone Crab, Coral and Coral Reef in the Gulf of Mexico and Spiny Lobster and the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.”

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dawn Aring at the Council (see ADDRESSES) by December 28, 2004.

          Dated: December 17, 2004.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-28129 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 110499B]
        RIN 0648-AM79
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Pelagic Longline Management

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          On December 15, 1999, NMFS proposed to prohibit pelagic longline fishing at certain times and in certain areas within the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the Southeastern United States and in the Gulf of Mexico (64 FR 69982). The intent of the proposed action is to reduce bycatch and incidental catch by pelagic longline fishermen who target highly migratory species (HMS) and is necessary to address bycatch and incidental catch of overfished and protected species. To address public comment received concerning the proposed closed areas and adjustments to these areas that would help mitigate the potential economic impacts, NMFS requests further comment on an alternative closed area in the Gulf of Mexico (the DeSoto Canyon area), on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) issued with the proposed rule, and on the extent to which delayed effectiveness of the final rule, if implemented, could mitigate short-term economic impacts.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on May 12, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on the alternative of closing the DeSoto Canyon area, on the economic impacts of the proposed closures and alternatives identified in the IRFA, and on the issue of delayed effectiveness for the final rule should be submitted to Rebecca Lent, Chief, HMS Division (SF/1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet. For copies of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (DSEIS/RIR/IRFA), contact Steve Meyers at 301-713-2347 or visit our website at www.nmfs.gov/sfa/hmspg.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Meyers at 301-713-2347, fax 301-713-1917, e-mail steve.meyers@noaa.gov; or Buck Sutter at 727-570-5447, fax 727-570-5364, e-mail buck.sutter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. The Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is also subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act because of documented interactions with sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds.

        In developing a proposed rule to reduce bycatch and incidental catch in the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS considered alternatives of no action, time-area closures, gear modifications, and effort limitations. NMFS identified a preferred alternative of a year-round time-area closure off the southeast U.S. coast and a seasonal closure in the Gulf of Mexico. Details of the alternatives considered and the analyses conducted are contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the DSEIS/RIR/IRFA and are not repeated here. However, supplementary information is available (see ADDRESSES) that was prepared to describe and assess a new closed area alternative for the DeSoto Canyon area in the Gulf of Mexico.
        DeSoto Canyon Closed Area
        During the comment period for the proposed HMS longline bycatch reduction rule, NMFS received many responses indicating that the DeSoto Canyon area located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico should be closed to pelagic longline effort due to the historically high occurrence of undersized swordfish discards in that location. NMFS had considered closure of a larger area of the eastern Gulf of Mexico that included the DeSoto Canyon based on 1995-1997 data, but did not select that closure as the preferred alternative. In developing the proposed rule, the western Gulf of Mexico closed area was preferable, in part due to a focus on reducing billfish bycatch rather than swordfish.

        However, in response to those comments received on DeSoto Canyon swordfish bycatch, NMFS examined 1993-1998 logbook data (1998 data became available after the proposed rule was prepared) for the area bounded by 84°W to 90°W longitude and 26°N to 30°N latitude, encompassing the DeSoto Canyon. This 86,400 square mile area was then subdivided into six 2° X 2° (latitude X longitude) blocks, and NMFS examined inter-annual and intra-annual changes of target and discard catch-per-unit-effort and, where appropriate, ratios of target catch to discards (e.g., swordfish retained vs. swordfish discarded).
        Following this procedure, two of the ocean area blocks have been identified for potential year-round closure on the basis of potentially reducing discards: 86°W to 88°W longitude and 28°N to 30°N latitude; and 84°W to 86°W longitude and 26°N to 28°N latitude, comprising a total of 32,860 square nautical miles. The following table summarizes expected changes in catch and discards under the “no redistribution” and “full redistribution” of effort models described in the DSEIS. All values in the table are expressed as a percentage change, by species, of the total Atlantic-wide U.S. catch. Negative percentage changes indicate reductions in the level of catch or discards, while a positive number predicts an increase in the catch/discard of a particular species.

            Discards and target species
            No effort redistribution model (percent)

            Redistribution of effort model
              (percent)

            White Marlin Discards
            -1.84
            1.07

            Sailfish Discards
            -5.20
            -0.75

            Large Coastal Shark Discards
            -6.51
            -5.42

            Swordfish Kept
            -2.45
            -1.69

            BAYS Tunas Kept
            -2.04
            1.35

            Dolphin (Mahi) Kept
            -3.69
            -1.37

            Pelagic Sharks Kept
            -2.38
            -1.82

        NMFS seeks comments on this new alternative area that is being considered for closure; particularly on the ecological impacts on the environment and the social and economic impacts on fishermen and related businesses.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
        In the interest of obtaining further comment on delayed effectiveness of the final rule as a means of mitigating short-term economic impacts, NMFS provides a summary of the IRFA for the original alternatives considered in the proposed rule and, separately below, for the new DeSoto Canyon area alternative.
        In the IRFA issued with the proposed rule, NMFS described a range of fishery management alternatives that could reduce or enhance survival of bycatch and incidental catch of small swordfish, billfish, and other overfished HMS, as well as endangered or threatened species taken by U.S. pelagic longline fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS analyzed economic impacts on all swordfish/tuna limited-access permit holders who reported making pelagic longline sets in 1997. NMFS estimated that the proposed time-area closures would result in a decrease in gross ex-vessel revenues of up to $14 million and that approximately 20 percent of the vessel operators would lose half of their gross income.
        Alternative Actions

        The objectives of the proposed regulatory action are to: (1) Maximize the reduction in finfish bycatch; (2) minimize the reduction in the target catch of swordfish and other species; (3) ensure that the incidental catch of other species remains unchanged or is also reduced; and (4) maximize the survival rate of released animals. In developing the proposed rule, NMFS considered how several alternative actions could attain these objectives, including: No action; a prohibition on longline gear; four combinations of Gulf of Mexico and southeast U.S. coast time-area closures; four gear or fishing method modifications that would reduce bycatch; two gear or fishing method modifications that would increase survival of released animals; and fishing capacity reduction for the pelagic longline fleet.
        Analysis of Alternatives
        NMFS made a number of assumptions in analyzing these alternatives. First, NMFS identified and defined the likely actions that pelagic longline fishermen might take if each alternative was implemented. These response actions were identified to determine the maximum impact each alternative could have on pelagic longline fishermen. Second, each action was analyzed as if all participants would follow that behavior. Although it is unlikely all vessels would undertake the same response to any final action, these analyses can help identify the range of possible impacts. Depending on actual responses, additional impacts, either negative or positive, might occur.
        NMFS considers all pelagic longline permit holders to be small entities under the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In May, 1999, NMFS began the process of issuing limited access permits to qualifying fishermen for participation in the Atlantic swordfish and shark fisheries, and the pelagic longline sector of the Atlantic tuna fishery. As of October 28, 1999, 443 fishermen had received either a directed or incidental swordfish limited access permit, a shark limited access permit, and a tuna longline permit. Additional applications and appeals may increase the number of permit holders to a small extent. Thus, the number of small entities directly affected by this regulation consists of at least 443 vessel owners.
        Other sectors of the industry would be affected by this regulation, including dealers, processors, bait houses, and hook manufacturers. NMFS has limited information on the number of small businesses which might be indirectly affected by the regulation. However, using the weigh-out slips submitted by fishermen reporting in the pelagic longline logbook, NMFS estimates that 131 dealers received fish in 1997 from the 443 fishermen who qualify for limited access.
        The evidence collected by NMFS and used in these analyses indicates that the majority of pelagic longline fishermen possess fishing permits for several other commercial fisheries, and participate actively in these other commercial fisheries. These observations are based on information contained in several NMFS databases and on comments received during the prior rulemaking to limit access to the shark and swordfish fisheries. The data obtained for these analyses also indicate that dealers tend to operate in a number of commercial fisheries. Thus, fishermen and dealers who could be affected by this action might be able to compensate to some extent by redirecting fishing or processing activities toward other fish species.
        Impacts on Vessel Operators
        NMFS' permitting and reporting requirements for HMS and other fisheries provide information about the volume and species of fish caught and landed by vessels, and the ex-vessel price received for the species landed. To calculate the impact of time-area closures on vessel owners, NMFS estimated gross revenues for all permitted vessels using 1997 data. NMFS then subtracted the gross revenue received in the proposed closed area from the total gross revenue calculated for each vessel for 1997 to estimate the revenue that might be lost to each vessel if a particular area is closed for the specified time period.
        NMFS then counted the number of vessels which were impacted by closing certain areas and times. This analysis estimates the maximum negative impact of the closures on vessel owners for three reasons: (1) It assumes that vessels that normally fish inside the closed area would not redistribute their fishing effort outside the area; (2) it assumes that the sets made in the closed time-area would not be made at other times or in other areas; and (3) it assumes that vessels that fish outside the closed area would not land any additional fish even though the quota could still be available. However, this analysis does not calculate the impact on captains or crew members other than the change in gross revenues which is related to the captain and crew share.
        In examining the gross revenue of the 443 vessels that qualified for an incidental or directed swordfish limited access permit, NMFS found that only 331 vessels reported landings of any species in 1997. NMFS estimates that 1997 total gross revenues from all fishing activities for each of these vessels ranged from $82 to over $4 million per vessel and averaged $113,173 per vessel. If the areas proposed for closure were in fact closed, 25 vessels that have revenue before the closure might have no revenue after the closure. Under the several alternative closed areas considered, the number of businesses that could lose all revenues ranged from 36 to 48 vessels.
        NMFS considered 4 combinations of Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast closed areas with variations in size and duration. Any of the four closure alternatives could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For all options, approximately 40 percent of the vessels could experience no change in gross revenues as a result of a time-area closure, and 21 to 39 percent could experience a 50 percent reduction in gross revenues. The estimated impact of the preferred alternative (March-September closure in the western Gulf of Mexico and a year-round closure from Key West, FL to Wilmington Beach, NC) may be the smallest of the four time-area options considered. However, closing any of the areas might force a large number of vessels to either relocate their vessels to open areas or sell their limited access permits to vessels in the open areas and leave the pelagic longline fishery.
        Impacts on Dealers
        In addition to calculating the change in gross revenue for each vessel issued an incidental or directed swordfish limited access permit, NMFS attempted to calculate the change in revenues for dealers who bought fish from these vessels. To do so, NMFS calculated the total weight sold to each dealer, by species, from each qualifying vessel using the weigh-out slips reported to NMFS, and multiplied this weight by the average wholesale price to determine the gross revenue for each dealer both before and after the closure. As with the vessel gross revenue calculations, the analyses for dealers provides an estimate of the maximum impact this action might have because it does not consider dealers changing the proportion of the species they buy or import, or possible increases in fishing effort and harvest and sale to dealers located near the open areas.

        In the database used for this analysis, there were 131 dealers identified by the 443 vessels on their weigh-out slips for the pelagic logbook. A total of 117 dealers obtained revenues from selling swordfish, with individual gross revenues ranging from $175 to over $5 million and averaging $203,679 per dealer. The gross revenues obtained from selling yellowfin tuna ranged from $170 to over $4 million on an individual basis for 100 dealers and averaged $279,006 per dealer. As with individual vessels, some dealers might not handle any fish if the areas are closed. Under the closed area alternative proposed by NMFS, 28 dealers of the 131 which were identified might not handle any fish. Under the alternative closed areas considered, the number of businesses that would lose all revenues ranged from 34 to 45 dealers.
        Any of the four closure options could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of dealers who operate primarily in coastal ports adjacent to the potential closed areas. Approximately 21 to 33 percent of the dealers could experience no change in total weight of fish handled, and 35 to 57 percent of the dealers could experience a 50-percent reduction in the amount of fish handled due to a time-area closure. Approximately 23 to 38 percent of the dealers could experience no change in gross revenues from swordfish and 34 to 46 percent of the dealers could experience a 50-percent reduction in gross revenue from swordfish due to a time-area closure. Approximately 26 to 40 percent of the dealers could experience no change in gross revenue from yellowfin tuna, and 23 to 52 percent of the dealers could experience a 50-percent reduction in gross revenues from yellowfin tuna due to a time-area closure. However, dealers outside the closed areas are likely to obtain additional fish from pelagic longline fishermen and therefore might experience an increase in gross revenues.
        Gear Modification and Capacity Reduction Impacts
        The other bycatch reduction alternatives considered also would have impacts on gross revenues of vessels and dealers. However, their impacts are not likely to be as great as those from the time-area closure alternatives. A quantitative analysis of revenues is difficult because it is unknown how much the other alternatives could alter the landings of pelagic longline fishermen. It is possible that the use of circle hooks, frozen bait, a change in gear deployment, or the reduction in soak time might reduce the target catch per set, but it is equally likely the fishermen could fish additional sets to make up the difference. Thus, the impacts of the other alternatives, except for capacity reduction, on gross revenues for individual fishermen is unknown but most likely would not be as significant as closures. Limiting the capacity in the pelagic longline fleet could have a significant impact on gross revenues for individual fishermen if fishermen who are dependent on the fishery are forced out of business. The impact of capacity reduction would depend largely on the type of program implemented.
        Impacts on Fishing Costs
        All of the alternatives examined, except for no action, could have an impact on the fishing costs of individual vessels. A detailed analysis of costs for each individual vessel cannot be performed due to the lack of trip-level economic data as well as the difficulty in predicting the response strategy of individual fishermen. However, some generalizations can be made on potential impacts based on examination of the voluntary cost/earnings reports submitted by some vessels.
        The preferred closure alternative, or any of the time-area closure options, could have a large impact on fishing costs. A number of fishermen could be required to move their operations to different areas either permanently or for part of the year in order to continue fishing. The open fishing areas might be unfamiliar to displaced fishermen and fishing might not be as productive until they adapt to weather and oceanographic conditions in the new area. Moving operations could likely increase the cost of fuel, bait, ice, food, and crew wages, as the number of days at sea traveling to and from fishing grounds might increase. Likewise, requiring gear modifications would increase costs for fishermen who currently use gear and/or fishing methods that would be prohibited. Increased costs might force some vessel operators to exit the fishery.
        Mitigating Impacts
        NMFS considers all permit holders in the pelagic longline fisheries to be small entities. Thus, in order to meet the objectives of the HMS FMP and address bycatch concerns, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the requirements for small entities. The preferred time-area closure alternative does not involve any additional reporting requirements, and NMFS has determined that clarifying or changing the reporting requirements for small entities could not address the management concerns at issue. The gear modification and fishing methods alternatives NMFS examined might have less economic impact on small entities but were considered to have less certain effects relative to reduction of bycatch and incidental catch by pelagic longlines.

        NMFS concludes that the proposed time-area closures for the Gulf of Mexico and the southeast U.S. Atlantic coast could have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In fact, a number of small entities, both fishermen and businesses related to fishing (e.g., dealers and bait houses), might be forced out of business. However, the bycatch mortality reductions achieved by time-area closures should contribute to rebuilding overfished stocks of swordfish, billfish, and other species. This could benefit small businesses though increased landings quotas for the commercial fisheries and increased recreational fishing opportunities. The IRFA provides further discussion of the economic impacts of all the alternatives considered and is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        IRFA: Supplementary Information for DeSoto Canyon
        The economic analyses for the DeSoto Canyon closure alternative follow the same methods as the analyses for the other closure alternatives. However, the 1998 data have become available since the IRFA was issued, and these data were used instead of 1997 data. In addition, NMFS used updated information on vessels qualifying for limited access permits. As of March 23, 2000, 450 vessels had qualified for a swordfish directed or incidental limited access permit and NMFS estimates that in 1998, 125 dealers received fish from these 450 vessels.
        Of the 450 vessels that qualified for a swordfish limited access permit, 242 did not report landings in the pelagic logbook. Additionally, 413 did not report landings of fish caught within the DeSoto Canyon area. Total gross revenues from all fishing activities in the Atlantic of the 208 vessels that reported in the pelagic logbook in 1998 totaled $28 million, ranged from $435 to $667,576, and averaged $136,830 per vessel. Total gross revenues from all fishing activities in the DeSoto Canyon of the 37 vessels that reported in the pelagic logbook in 1998 totaled $636,984, ranged from $681 to $84,959, and averaged $17,216 per vessel. If the DeSoto Canyon is closed, NMFS estimates that the total gross revenue from the fleet of 208 vessels would decrease by 2.2 percent to $27.8 million and the average gross revenue per vessel would decrease by 1.8 percent to $134,413. Absent redistribution of fishing effort, approximately 14 percent of the vessels that reported landings in 1998 would experience a five percent decrease in gross revenues if the DeSoto Canyon is closed and four percent of the vessels would experience a 50 percent decrease in gross revenues.
        NMFS estimates that 125 dealers received fish in 1998 from the 450 vessels that qualified for swordfish limited access permits. Only 25 dealers reported receiving swordfish that was caught in the DeSoto Canyon by limited access permit holders. These dealers received a total of 286,994 pounds that ranged from 397 to 61,470 pounds and averaged 11,480 pounds per dealer. Absent increased purchases of fish captured in other areas, NMFS estimates that if the DeSoto Canyon area is closed, the total weight of fish handled by the 125 dealers who bought fish from swordfish limited access qualifiers would decrease by 2.8 percent to 10.0 million pounds, and the average weight handled by each dealer would decrease by 0.4 percent to 82,761 pounds. NMFS estimates that 11 percent of the swordfish dealers and 10 percent of the yellowfin tuna dealers would have a reduction of five percent or greater in gross revenues from swordfish or yellowfin tuna, respectively, if the DeSoto Canyon area is closed. Additionally, NMFS estimates that 6 percent of the swordfish dealers and 3 percent of the yellowfin tuna dealers would have a reduction of 50 percent in gross revenues from swordfish or yellowfin tuna, respectively.
        The potential impacts on fishing costs of closing the DeSoto Canyon are similar to those described for the other closure alternatives. However, as this potential closed area is smaller, is farther offshore, and is not fished as heavily as the western Gulf of Mexico closure previously proposed, it is likely that the impacts on fishing costs would be smaller. Only 37 vessels reported fishing in the DeSoto Canyon in 1998 and might incur costs to change current fishing practices.
        In conclusion, the economic impacts of a DeSoto Canyon closure would not be not as great as the western Gulf of Mexico closed area which was the preferred alternative in the proposed rule. The DeSoto Canyon closure alone would not have a significant impact on the fishery as a whole, and total gross revenues from the vessels fishing in that area would decrease by only 2.2 percent. However, this closure could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including both fishermen and dealers. Absent a shift to other fishing areas, 4 percent of the vessels now fishing in the DeSoto Canyon could lose 50 percent or more of their income. Likewise, without alternative sources of swordfish or yellowfin tuna, approximately 5 percent of the permitted dealers could go out of business as a result of this closure.
        The same alternatives and mitigating measures addressed in the IRFA for the proposed rule and summarized above also apply to an evaluation of the impacts of the DeSoto Canyon closed area.
        Delayed Effectiveness

        During the comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS received written comments and oral testimony at public hearings that the pelagic longline fleet would require time to adjust given the large geographic scale and duration of the proposed closed areas. NMFS recognizes that relocation of vessels, families, and shoreline support services is not without cost and may require time for adjustment, depending upon the measures in the final rule. Industry participants commented that the economic impacts identified in the IRFA could be mitigated to some extent by allowing sufficient time for vessel relocation and suggested that the effective date of the final rule be delayed to reflect this. While the Administrative Procedures Act normally requires a 30-day delay in effective date for a final rule, some commenters suggested that up to a one year delay would be needed to mitigate the effects of dislocation. NMFS, therefore, requests further comment on specific information related to industry adjustment and on the potential for delayed effectiveness to mitigate the short-term economic impact of area closures. In addition to descriptions of adjustments that would be required, specific comments are solicited on whether a 30, 60, or 90-day delay in effective date would be adequate to achieve any mitigating effect. Comments received prior to the close of the comment period (see DATES) will be considered in developing the final rule.

          Dated: April 20, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-10310 Filed 4-20-00; 4:52 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2016-0051; FF09M21200-156-FXMB1231099BPP0]
        RIN 1018-BB40
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2017-18 Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; supplemental.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in an earlier document this year to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2017-18 hunting season. This supplement to that proposed rule provides the regulatory alternatives for the 2017-18 duck hunting seasons, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their March meetings.

          DATES:

            Comments: We will accept comments on this proposed rule and any subsequent proposed rules resulting from upcoming SRC meetings until January 15, 2017.

            Meetings: The SRC will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for the 2017-18 migratory game bird hunting seasons on October 25-26, 2016. Meetings on both days will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2016-0051.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2016-0051; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.

          We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. See the Public Comments section, below, for more information.

            Meetings: The October 25-26, 2016, SRC meeting will be at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Boulevard, Bloomington, MN 55437.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703) 358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        New Process for the Annual Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations

        As part of the Department of the Interior's retrospective regulatory review, we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and provides hunting season dates much earlier than was possible under the old process. The new process makes planning much easier for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning last year with the development of the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we are using a new schedule for establishing our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. We combine the previously used early- and late-season regulatory processes into a single process, and make decisions for harvest management based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and established harvest strategies to establish migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we used for many years. Under the new process, we develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We then finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer. We provided a detailed overview of the new process in the June 10, 2016, Federal Register (81 FR 38050). This proposed rule is the second in a series of proposed and final rules for the establishment of the 2017-18 hunting seasons.
        Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
        The SRC will meet October 25-26, 2016, to review information on the current status of migratory game birds and develop 2017-18 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species. In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed.
        Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
        Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this August, September, and October. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated.

          Atlantic Flyway Council: October 6-7, 2016, Hyatt Regency, 225 East Coastline Drive, Jacksonville, FL.

          Mississippi Flyway Council: August 25-26, 2016, Hyatt Regency, 311 South 4th Street, Louisville, KY.

          Central Flyway Council: September 22-23, 2016, Sheraton Steamboat Resort, 2200 Village Inn Court, Steamboat Springs, CO.

          Pacific Flyway Council: September 30, 2016, Sun Valley Resort, 1 Sun Valley Road, Sun Valley, ID.
        Regulatory Schedule for 2017-18

        On June 10, 2016, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (81 FR 38050). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest, and other information become available. Major steps in the 2017-18 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were illustrated in the diagram at the end of the June 10, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 38050).
        All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines are organized under the numbered headings set forth in the June 10, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 38050). Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous, thereby making the list appear incomplete.
        The regulatory alternatives for the 2017-18 duck hunting seasons are contained at the end of this document. We plan to publish proposed season frameworks in mid-December 2016. We plan to publish final season frameworks in late February 2017.
        Review of Public Comments
        This proposed rulemaking describes recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 2016-17 regulations and issues requiring discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks for the 2017-18 season. We seek additional information and comments on this supplemental proposed rule.
        New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items identified in the June 10, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 38050). Only those categories requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations are discussed below.
        1. Ducks
        Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management.
        A. General Harvest Strategy

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulation changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.

          Service Response: As we stated in the June 10, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 38050), we intend to continue use of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2017-18 season. AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts, as well as providing a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. The current AHM protocol is used to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels based on the population status of mallards and their breeding habitat (i.e., abundance of ponds). Special hunting restrictions are enacted for certain species, such as canvasbacks, black ducks, scaup, and pintails.

        Regarding the Mississippi Flyway Council recommendation to limit regulatory changes to one step per year, we recognize the longstanding interest by the Council to impose a one-step constraint on regulatory changes. We note that the Central and Mississippi Flyways have worked with Service staff over the past 2 years to re-visit the AHM protocol for managing harvest of mid-continent mallards (i.e., “double-looping”). This effort has included a discussion of appropriate management objectives, regulatory packages, and management of non-mallard stocks. We continue to believe that these discussions are the appropriate venue to discuss what role, if any, a one-step constraint might play in management of waterfowl in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. Such discussions should include the potential impact of a one-step constraint on the frequency of when the liberal, moderate, and restrictive packages would be recommended. On a final note, while we recognize the Council's concern about potentially communicating a large regulatory change to hunters, we have concerns about the appropriateness of a one-step constraint in situations when the status of the waterfowl resource may warrant such a measure. We look forward to continued work with the Flyway Councils on this issue.
        B. Regulatory Alternatives

          Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2016-17. The Mississippi Flyway Council further recommended changing the framework closing date to January 31 during “moderate” and “liberal” seasons.

          Service Response: As we stated in a final rule published earlier this year (81 FR 17302, March 28, 2016), we do not support the Council's recommendation to extend the duck season framework closing date to January 31 at this time. We note that the current framework opening and closing dates were developed through a cooperative effort between all four Flyway Councils and that framework dates are only one of several components that comprise the regulatory packages utilized in AHM. Regulatory packages also consider season length, daily bag limits, and shooting hours. We believe the current regulatory packages in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways should remain unchanged until revisions to the AHM protocols have been completed. Those efforts will include examination of duck harvest management objectives, model updates, and revisions to regulatory packages, including framework dates. We prefer that the issue of framework dates and any other component of the regulatory packages be addressed through this cooperative process and would prefer a comprehensive approach to revising regulatory packages rather than making incremental changes.

        Thus, the regulatory alternatives proposed in the June 10, 2016, Federal Register (81 FR 38050) will be used for the 2017-18 hunting season (see accompanying table at the end of this document for specific information). In 2005, the AHM regulatory alternatives were modified to consist only of the maximum season lengths, framework dates, and bag limits for total ducks and mallards. Restrictions for certain species within these frameworks that are not covered by existing harvest strategies will be addressed in the proposed frameworks rule in early December. For those species with specific harvest strategies (pintails, black ducks, and scaup), those strategies will again be used for the 2017-18 hunting season.
        D. Special Seasons/Species Management
        iv. Canvasbacks

          Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommends a 2-bird canvasback daily bag when populations are above 480,000, a 1-bird daily bag limit when between 460,000-480,000, and a closed season when below 460,000.

        16. Mourning Doves

          Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended that the framework closing date for mourning doves in the Eastern Management Unit be moved from January 15 to January 31 for the 2017-18 hunting season.
        Public Comments
        The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES. We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA.
        We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.
        Required Determinations
        Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the June 10, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 38050); for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see that document:
        • National Environmental Policy Act;
        • Endangered Species Act;
        • Regulatory Flexibility Act;
        • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
        • Paperwork Reduction Act;
        • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and
        • Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, and 13563.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        Authority
        The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2017-18 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

          Dated: August 2, 2016.
          Karen Hyun,
          Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

          EP12AU16.045

      [FR Doc. 2016-19221 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P