        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C3]
        RIN 1018-AW27
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the Shovelnose Sturgeon as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), propose to treat the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) as threatened under the “Similarity of Appearance” provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) and the endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) are difficult to differentiate in the wild and inhabit overlapping portions of the Missouri and Mississippi River basins. Four States where the two species commonly coexist allow for commercial fishing of shovelnose sturgeon which is in demand for its roe (eggs sold as caviar). The close resemblance in appearance between the two species creates substantial difficulty for fishermen, State regulators, and law enforcement personnel in differentiating between shovelnose and pallid sturgeon, both whole specimens and parts (including flesh and roe). This similarity of appearance has resulted in the documented take of pallid sturgeon and is a threat to the species. The determination that the shovelnose sturgeon should be treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance will substantially facilitate law enforcement actions to protect and conserve pallid sturgeon. We also propose a special rule to define activities that would and would not constitute take of shovelnose sturgeon under section 9 of the Act.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before November 23, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by November 6, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow instruction for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator, Billings Field Office, 2900 4th Avenue North, Room 301, Billings, Montana 59101 (telephone 406/247-7365; facsimile 406/247-7364). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Comments

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Peer Review
        In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will seek independent review of the science in this rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our final rule is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send at least three peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed rule.
        We will take into consideration all comments, including peer review comments, and any additional information received during the comment period on this proposed rule during the preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
        Public Hearings

        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that we hold one public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register (see
          DATES). Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator at the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

        Similarity of Appearance Listing

        Section 4(e) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.50-17.52) authorize the treatment of a species as endangered or threatened if (a) The species so closely resembles in appearance a listed endangered or threatened species that law enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the purposes of the Act. With regard to shovelnose sturgeon, we believe each of these factors apply.
        In 1990, we listed the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) as endangered under the Act (55 FR 36641, September 6, 1990). The pallid sturgeon has a flattened, shovel-shaped snout, possesses a long and slender and completely armored caudal peduncle, and lacks a spiracle and belly scutes (Forbes and Richardson 1905, pp. 38-41). Pallid sturgeon are a bottom-oriented species found only in portions of the Missouri and Mississippi River basins (Kallemeyn 1983, p. 4). The species can be long-lived (40 + years), with females reaching sexual maturity later than males (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993, pp. 393, 395). Pallid sturgeon at the northern end of their range can obtain sizes much larger than pallid sturgeon at the southern end of their range (USFWS 1993, p. 3). Known threats to the pallid sturgeon include habitat modification, small population size, limited natural reproduction, hybridization, pollution and contaminants, and commercial harvest (55 FR 36641, September 6, 1990; USFWS 2007, pp. 38-59).
        The shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) is similar in appearance to the pallid sturgeon and inhabits overlapping portions of the Missouri and Mississippi River basins. Traditionally, biologists used character indices to distinguish between pallid and shovelnose sturgeon. This approach uses up to 13 morphometric body measurements as well as meristic counts (i.e., the number of dorsal and anal fin rays) to differentiate between the two species. Since shovelnose sturgeon do not obtain maximum sizes as great as pallid sturgeon, it was assumed that adult shovelnose sturgeon could be distinguished from pallid sturgeon by their smaller size. However, throughout their ranges, there is length overlap between the two species. Thus size alone is not a suitable diagnostic character between the two species. Age of the individual also can complicate use of morphometrics in differentiation based on size (Kuhajda et al. 2007, pp. 324, 344). Recent data show limited success applying character indices universally across the geographic range of the species (Kuhajda et al. 2007, pp. 344-346; Murphy et al. 2007, p. 322). We now believe a combination of character indices, based on morphometric measures and meristic counts, as well as genetic testing is necessary to reliably identify a whole specimen or its parts. While genetic tests can differentiate Scaphirhynchus eggs from those of other genera, at this time, roe cannot be reliably differentiated as having been derived from shovelnose sturgeon, harvest of which may be legal, or pallid sturgeon, harvest of which is illegal (Curtis 2008). This similarity poses a problem for Federal and State law enforcement agents trying to stem illegal trade in pallid sturgeon roe.

        While harvest of pallid sturgeon is prohibited by section 9 of the Act and by State regulations throughout its range, commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon has resulted in the documented take of pallid sturgeon (Sheehan et al. 1997, p. 3; Bettoli et al. 2009, p. 3; USFWS 2007, pp. 45-48). Four States allow commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon from waters commonly occupied by pallid sturgeon (USFWS 1993, pp. 3-5). These are Tennessee (Tennessee 2008, pp. 4-5), Missouri (except on the Missouri River upstream of the Kansas River to the Iowa border) (Missouri 2008, pp. 10-11), Kentucky (Kentucky 2008, pp. 1-2), and Illinois (below Mel Price Locks and Dam) (Illinois 2007, pp. 3-5; Illinois 2008, p. 2). In order to protect pallid sturgeon, fishing seasons with maximum harvestable size limits for shovelnose sturgeon have been established (Bettoli et al. 2009, pp. 1-2). However, harvestable size limits for shovelnose sturgeon cannot protect pallid sturgeon that fall within the harvestable size limits if pallid sturgeon cannot be reliably differentiated from shovelnose sturgeon.

        A recent study documented that commercial fishers misidentified 29 percent of the encountered pallid sturgeon and that a minimum of 1.8 percent of total sturgeon harvest in Tennessee was endangered pallid sturgeon (Bettoli et al. 2009, p. 3). Applying this minimum harvest estimate to the 2005-07 commercial shovelnose fishing season within the Tennessee portion of the Mississippi River results in a minimum harvest estimate of 169 adult pallid sturgeon (Bettoli et al. 2009, p. 1). If this minimum estimate of pallid sturgeon take was applied across the four States that commercially harvest shovelnose sturgeon where the species commonly coexist, the data suggest a substantial level of pallid sturgeon take (approximately 3,000 kilograms (6,600 pounds (lb)) of pallid sturgeon flesh and about 320 kilograms (700 lb) pallid sturgeon roe since 2000).

        Furthermore, demographic data indicate that total annual pallid sturgeon mortality rates are about three times higher where commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon occurs compared to areas without commercial harvest (30 percent versus 7 to 11 percent) (Killgore et al. 2007, pp. 454-455). The same study found that maximum identified ages of pallid sturgeon are substantially lower in commercially fished reaches of the Mississippi River (14 years) than in noncommercially fished reaches of the Mississippi River (21 years) (Killgore et al. 2007, p. 454). Harvested and protected populations should have considerably different mortality rates (and, therefore, corresponding different maximum ages); however, Colombo et al. (2007, p. 449) found similar mortality rates for the endangered pallid sturgeon and the harvested shovelnose sturgeon in the middle Mississippi River. This provides further evidence that illegal harvest of pallid sturgeon is occurring. Because female sturgeon do not begin egg development until ages 9 to 12, may not spawn until ages 15 to 20, and spawning may not occur annually (Keenlyne and Jenkins 1993, p. 395), mortality associated with commercial fishing activity is likely substantially lowering recruitment and negatively impacting population growth. Such take is a threat that needs to be addressed in order to conserve the pallid sturgeon.
        State commercial fishing data (Table 1) demonstrate a substantial level of commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon, including both flesh and roe, from areas where both shovelnose and pallid sturgeon coexist (Williamson 2003, pp. 118-120; Maher 2008; Scholten 2008a; Scholten 2008b; Travnichek 2008).

          Table 1—Reported Commercial Harvest of Shovelnose Sturgeon Flesh and Roe in Pounds From 1995 to 2007 From the Portions of Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee Where Both Shovelnose Sturgeon and Pallid Sturgeon Coexist
          [Scholten 2008a; Scholten 2008b; Travnichek 2008; Williamson 2003]

            1995
            1996
            1997
            1998
            1999
            2000
            2001
            2002
            2003
            2004
            2005
            2006
            2007

              Flesh

            Illinois
            405
            3,475
            6,115
            2,855
            3,798
            1,576
            3,074
            1,541
            600
            2,931
            2,599
            *
            *

            Kentucky
            *
            *
            *
            *
            25
            9,938
            13,059
            8,324
            1,413
            5,167
            16,324
            14,130
            10,043

            Missouri
            6,201
            10,142
            8,231
            9,089
            19,655
            23,394
            77,498
            43,211
            23,956
            28,818
            10,002
            6,526
            5,220

            Tennessee
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            4,178
            2,178
            3,519
            5,759
            4,005
            17,297
            12,926
            7,812

            Total
            6,606
            13,617
            14,346
            11,944
            23,478
            39,086
            95,809
            56,595
            31,728
            40,921
            46,222
            33,582
            23,075

              Roe

            Illinois
            0
            28
            65
            87
            0
            16
            208
            402
            134
            585
            8,395
            *
            *

            Kentucky
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            527
            1,021
            731
            258
            554
            1,844
            1,648
            1,738

            Missouri
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            4,490
            3,504
            2,356
            1,907
            1,420

            Tennessee
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *
            660
            1,001
            665
            2,290
            2,027
            1,366

            Total
            0
            28
            65
            87
            0
            543
            1,229
            1,793
            5,883
            5,308
            14,885
            5,582
            4,524

          Illinois shovelnose harvest includes Mississippi River catch downstream of Mel Price Locks and Dam; Missouri shovelnose harvest includes both Mississippi River (downstream of Mel Price Locks and Dam) and Missouri River (except on the Missouri River upstream of the Kansas River to the Iowa border) catches; and Tennessee and Kentucky shovelnose harvest includes Mississippi River catch. Tennessee's flesh data was extrapolated using length-weight relationships from total fish harvested.
          An asterisk (*) indicates no data reported or data otherwise unavailable.

        Much of the domestic sturgeon fishing pressure has been driven by international sturgeon supply and increasing price trends. Global sturgeon catch declined from the record peak of 32,078 metric tons (70,719,884 lb) in 1978 to 2,658 metric tons (5,859,886 lb) in 2000 (FAO Fisheries Circular 2004, executive summary). This reduction in supply resulted in exponential growth of caviar prices since the 1978 peak (Bardi and Yaxley 2005, p. 2). Since 1998, international trade in all species of sturgeon has been regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) owing to concerns over the impact of international trade on sturgeon populations in the wild. Recent CITES sturgeon quotas have further limited supply and exacerbated price pressures (CITES 2005, pp. 1-5, 8-9; CITES 2006, pp. 1, 5-6, 10-11; CITES 2007, pp. 1, 3-5, 8-9; CITES 2008, pp. 3, 7, 8, 11, 14). We expect commercial pressures on domestic sturgeon to remain constant or possibly increase due in part to the current restrictions on import of beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) caviar into the United States (70 FR 57316, September 30, 2005 and 70 FR 62135, October 28, 2005) due to its status as a threatened species and the general trend toward reduced caviar exports from the Caspian Sea and Black Sea sturgeon stocks.
        Incidental and illegal harvest of pallid sturgeon is a significant impediment to the survival and recovery of this species in some portions of its range (USFWS 2007, p. 45). Our recent 5-year status review recommended that we identify and implement measures to eliminate or significantly reduce illegal and accidental harvest of pallid sturgeon (USFWS 2007, p. 59).

        Treating the shovelnose sturgeon as a threatened species, due to similarity of appearance, will result in a termination of commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids where they commonly coexist with pallid sturgeon, which, in turn, will facilitate the enforcement of take protections for pallid sturgeon and drastically reduce or eliminate take of pallid sturgeon associated with commercial fishing of shovelnose sturgeon and their roe. Reduction of take of pallid sturgeon will facilitate the species' survival, reproduction, and, ultimately, its recovery. For these reasons, the Service is proposing to treat the shovelnose sturgeon as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the pallid sturgeon in those areas where the two species commonly coexist, in accordance with section 4(e) of the Act.
        Section 4(d) “Special Rule” Regulating Take
        Whenever a species is listed as a threatened species under the Act, the Secretary may specify regulations that he deems necessary to provide for the conservation of that species under a special rule authorized by section 4(d) of the Act. These rules, commonly referred to as “special rules,” are found in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in sections 17.40-17.48. This proposed special rule for 17.44, which deals with fishes, would prohibit take of any shovelnose sturgeon, shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids, or their roe when associated with or related to a commercial fishing activity in those portions of its range that commonly overlap with the range of endangered pallid sturgeon. In this context, commercial fishing purposes is defined as any activity where shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrid roe or flesh is, is attempted to be, or is intended to be traded, sold, or exchanged for goods or services. Capture of shovelnose sturgeon or shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids in any commercial fishing gear is not prohibited if it is accidental or incidental to otherwise legal commercial fishing activities, such as commercial fishing targeting nonsturgeon species, provided the animal is released immediately upon discovery, with all roe intact, at the point of capture. All otherwise legal activities involving shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids that are conducted in accordance with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations are not considered to be take under this proposed regulation.
        Effects of these Proposed Rules
        Listing the shovelnose sturgeon as threatened under the “similarity of appearance” provisions of the Act will extend take prohibitions to shovelnose sturgeon, shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids, or their roe when associated with a commercial fishing activity. Capture of shovelnose sturgeon or shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids in any commercial fishing gear is not prohibited if it is accidental or incidental to otherwise legal commercial fishing activities, such as commercial fishing targeting nonsturgeon species, provided the animal is released immediately upon discovery, with all roe intact, at the point of capture. All otherwise legal activities within the identified areas that may involve shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids and which are conducted in accordance with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations will not be considered take under this proposed regulation.
        Under the special 4(d) rule, take would only be prohibited where shovelnose and pallid sturgeons' range commonly overlap (USFWS 1993, pp. 3-5, 16-17). Specifically, this includes the portion of the Missouri River in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; the portion of the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois (downstream from Melvin Price Locks and Dam), Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri (downstream from Melvin Price Locks and Dam), and Tennessee; the Platte River in Nebraska downstream of Elkhorn River confluence; the portion of the Kansas River downstream from Bowersock Dam in Kansas; the Yellowstone River in North Dakota and Montana downstream of the Bighorn River confluence; and the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana. See the map in the rule portion of this document.
        This proposed designation of similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act would not extend any other protections of the Act, such as the requirements to designate critical habitat, the recovery planning provisions under section 4(f), or consultation requirements for Federal agencies under section 7, to shovelnose sturgeon. Therefore, should this proposal become final, Federal agencies will not be required to consult with us on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect shovelnose sturgeon.
        Clarity of This Proposed Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a “collection of information” as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that “10 or more persons” refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For purposes of this definition, employees of the Federal Government are not included. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain collections of information other than those permit application forms already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned OMB control number 1018-0094.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), need not be prepared in connection with listing regulations adopted pursuant to section 4 of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). The Service believes that this rationale also applies to section 4(d) rules.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited in this rule is available upon request from the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          PART 17—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

          2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an entry for “Sturgeon, shovelnose”, in alphabetical order under “FISHES,” to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

            § 17.11
            Endangered and threatened wildlife.

            (h)  * * *

                Species
                Common name
                Scientific name
                Historic range
                Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
                Status
                When listed
                Criticalhabitat

                Special rules

                *        *        *        *        *        *        *

                  Fishes

                *        *        *        *        *        *        *

                Sturgeon, shovelnose

                  Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

                U.S.A. (AL, AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, NM, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, WI, WV, WY)
                Entire
                T (S/A)

                N/A
                17.44(aa)

                *        *        *        *        *        *        *

            3. Amend § 17.44 by adding a new paragraph (aa) to read as follows:

            § 17.44
            Special rules—fishes.

            (aa) Shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus).
            (1) Within the geographic areas set forth in paragraph (aa)(2) of this section, except as expressly noted in this paragraph, take of any shovelnose sturgeon, shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids, or their roe associated with or related to a commercial fishing activity is prohibited. Capture of shovelnose sturgeon or shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids in any commercial fishing gear is not prohibited if it is accidental or incidental to otherwise legal commercial fishing activities, such as commercial fishing targeting nonsturgeon species, provided the animal is released immediately upon discovery, with all roe intact, at the point of capture.
            (2) The shovelnose and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrid populations covered by this special rule occur in portions of AR, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, SD, and TN. The specific areas are: (1) The portion of the Missouri River in IA, KS, MO, MT, ND, NE, and SD; (2) the portion of the Mississippi River downstream from the Melvin Price Locks and Dam in AR, IL, KY, LA, MO, MS, and TN; (3) the Platte River downstream of the Elkhorn River confluence in NE; (4) the portion of the Kansas River downstream from the Bowersock Dam in KS; (5) the Yellowstone River downstream of the Bighorn River confluence in ND and MT; and (6) the Atchafalaya River in LA.
            (3) A map showing the area covered by this special rule (the area of shared habitat between shovelnose and pallid sturgeon) follows:
            BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

              EP22SE09.005

            Dated: September 1, 2009.
             Thomas L. Strickland,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E9-22541 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-C


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 070410083-7083-01; I.D. 040207C]
        RIN 0648-AV45
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper Fishery Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule that would implement a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper to 10 inches (25.4 cm) total length (TL), eliminate the 10-fish recreational bag limit for vermilion snapper within the existing 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit, and eliminate the 40-day commercial closed season for vermilion snapper (from April 22 through May 31 each year). The intended effect of this proposed rule is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) by reducing vermilion snapper harvest limitations consistent with the findings of the recent stock assessment for this species.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AV45.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-AV45.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Sarah DeVido, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
          • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Sarah DeVido.

          Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment (EA), a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 813-348-1630; fax: 813-348-1711; e-mail: gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sarah DeVido, telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail sarah.devido@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        In 2001, the Gulf of Mexico vermilion snapper stock was assessed using data through 1999. The findings from that assessment indicated the stock to be overfished and undergoing overfishing. Based on the assessment, the Council prepared Amendment 23 to the FMP, which implemented measures to end overfishing and rebuild the stock within 10 years. This plan was implemented on July 8, 2005 (70 FR 33385). In 2006, a new stock assessment was conducted through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process. This assessment included a new data set to assess the vermilion snapper stock through 2004. The findings from this assessment determined vermilion snapper to be neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing.
        Based on the findings of this recent stock assessment, the rebuilding plan for vermilion snapper implemented in Amendment 23 is no longer necessary. Under the current rebuilding plan, harvest of vermilion snapper would not achieve the OY for the fishery. This is resulting in the unnecessary loss of social and economic benefits. National standard (NS) 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that management measures prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis the OY from the fishery. Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing to implement the measures described above. This proposed rule contains a measure that would eliminate the annual commercial closure period, thus relieving a restriction in the commercial sector, and other measures for both the recreational and commercial sectors that allow for increased harvest of vermillion snapper consistent with national standard 1 and the best scientific information available.
        Current Rebuilding Plan

        The current rebuilding plan, under Amendment 23, is based on a stepped-harvest strategy that was designed to restore the vermilion snapper stock to the stock biomass needed to allow harvest at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) in 10 years or less. The plan would reduce harvest to 1.475 million lb (0.669 million kg) for the first 4 years (2005-2008), increase to 2.058 million lb (0.933 million kg) for the next 3 years (2009-2011), and increase to 2.641 million lb (1.198 million kg) for the final 3 years (2012-2014). Overfishing was expected to end by 2008, three years after the plan was implemented. The final rule for Amendment 23 (70 FR 33385, July 8, 2005) implemented measures designed to achieve the reductions necessary for the first 4-year interval of the rebuilding plan. These measures included increasing the minimum size limit in the vermilion snapper fishery to 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL, reducing the recreational bag limit to 10 fish within the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit, and establishing a commercial closure from April 22 through May 31 each year.
        Recision of Rebuilding Plan
        The 2006 vermilion snapper stock assessment, conducted through the SEDAR process, incorporated new age data, where available, into their analyses. The results from this age-structured assessment indicated the vermilion snapper stock to be neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing.

        The 2006 assessment also determined that stock biomass is generally declining and fishing mortality (F) is increasing. The SEDAR panel concluded that if fishing mortality were to continue on the same trajectory as it is today, using data from 1986 through the projected target dates, F could exceed FOY in 2012, however, it is not likely to exceed FMSY, the overfishing threshold, through 2017. NMFS and the Council will continue to monitor the fishery to ensure compliance with the plan, the national standards, and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        After receiving the assessment report and recommendations from its Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Reef Fish Advisory Panel (RFAP), the Council decided to eliminate the management measures developed in Amendment 23. The stock appears healthy and the current regulations are more restrictive than necessary to protect the stock at this time. Therefore, this rule proposes to eliminate the regulations established for vermilion snapper by Amendment 23 that are causing the vermilion snapper fishery to be fished below OY. Eliminating the management measures established by Amendment 23 results in social and economic gain for the fishery.
        New Management Measures
        The following measures in this proposed rule are designed to achieve a 25.5-percent increase in vermilion snapper harvest fairly and equitably across the commercial and recreational sectors.
        Measures Applicable to the Recreational Vermilion Snapper Fishery
        This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper from 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL to 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL. Implementing this measure alone is expected to increase harvest in the recreational sector by 20.4 percent. This proposed rule would also eliminate the 10-fish bag limit specific to vermilion snapper but would include vermilion snapper in the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit. This alternative would allow recreational vermilion snapper harvest to increase another 1.4 percent.
        Measures Applicable to the Commercial Vermilion Snapper Fishery
        This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper in the commercial fishery from 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL to 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL, which alone is expected to increase harvest in the commercial sector by 12.6 percent. Elimination of the commercial seasonal closure is expected to increase commercial harvest of vermilion snapper by approximately 15.8 percent.
        Together these recreational and commercial measures are expected to increase harvest of the vermilion snapper stock by 25.5 percent, which would allow vermilion snapper to be fished at the OY for the fishery.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined the regulatory amendment is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment periods on the vermilion snapper regulatory amendment and this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper to 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL, eliminate the 10-fish vermilion snapper recreational bag limit but include vermilion snapper in the 20-fish aggregate bag limit, and eliminate the April 22 through May 31 commercial closed season. The purpose of this action is to eliminate management measures that are causing the vermilion snapper fishery to be fished at a rate below OY, which is resulting in the unnecessary loss of social and economic benefits. These regulations have been determined to no longer be required because the vermilion snapper stock has been determined to be healthy, not overfished, nor undergoing overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for the rule.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        The measures in this proposed rule would be expected to affect commercial reef fish operations, for-hire vessels operating in the reef fish fishery, and dealers and processors that receive vermilion snapper. As of October 2003, there were 1,158 active commercial reef fish permits. Of these entities, 441 vessels reported logbook landings of vermilion snapper, with most using vertical line gear. During the period 2000-2004, the average vessel operating in the commercial vermilion snapper fishery generated revenues of $65,200 of which $7,400 was from vermilion snapper harvests. These estimates included all vessels that landed at least 1 lb (0.5 kg) of vermilion snapper and all the trips taken by these vessels regardless of whether vermilion snapper was caught on that trip. These estimates are assumed to be lower bound estimates, however, since landings of all commercial species, whether from Federal or state fisheries, are not required to be recorded or captured by the logbook program, which captures only reef fish and coastal pelagic harvests.
        An estimated 1,625 for-hire vessels are permitted to harvest reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. This sector is comprised of charter boats that are generally smaller and charge a fee on a per-vessel basis, and headboats that are larger and charge a fee per angler. On average, charter boats are estimated to generate gross revenues ranging from $58,000 in the eastern Gulf to $81,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $64,000. The comparable values for headboats are $281,000 and $550,000, or an overall average of $400,000.

        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business operating in the finfish industry as one that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has average annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing). The appropriate revenue benchmark for a vessel operating in the for-hire sector is $6.5 million (NAICS code 713990, amusement and recreation industries). Based on the gross revenues presented above, all commercial and for-hire fishing vessels and reef fish dealers potentially affected by the proposed regulations are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small business entities.
        Instead of a receipts threshold, the SBA uses an employment threshold for seafood dealers and processors, with the appropriate values of fewer than 100 employees for dealers and fewer than 500 employees for processors. A Federal permit is required for a fish dealer to purchase reef fish from commercial vessels. Based on permits files, there are 227 dealers holding permits to buy and sell reef fish species. All reef fish processors would be included in this total since a processor must be a dealer. Dealers often hold multiple types of permits and operate in both Federal and state fisheries. It is unknown what percentage of any of the average dealer's business comes from the vermilion snapper fishery.
        Average employment information per reef fish dealer is unknown. Although dealers and processors are not synonymous entities, total employment for reef fish processors in the Southeast is estimated at approximately 700 individuals, both part and full time. While all processors must be dealers, a dealer need not be a processor. Further, processing is a much more labor-intensive exercise than dealing. Therefore, given the employment estimate for the processing sector (700 persons) and the total number of dealers operating in the reef fish fishery (227), it is assumed that the average number of employees per dealer and processor would be unlikely to surpass the SBA employment benchmark and, for the purpose of this analysis, it is determined that all dealers that would be affected by this action are small entities.
        None of the measures considered in this amendment would alter existing reporting and record-keeping requirements.
        The proposed rule would be expected to increase net revenues in the commercial vermilion snapper fishery by approximately $1.443 million, or approximately 3.5 percent of total average net revenues relative to the 2000-2002 fishery. If spread over the average 441 vessels that operated in the fishery from 2000-2004, the increased net revenues expected to be generated as a result of the proposed rule equate to approximately $3,300 per vessel or approximately 5 percent of average gross revenues.
        Within the for-hire sector, the proposed rule would be expected to result in an increase of approximately $3.158 million in net revenues. It is not possible to determine how many of the 1,625 entities permitted to operate in this fishery would be affected. If evenly distributed across all said entities, the expected increase in net revenues would equate to approximately $1,900 per entity, or approximately 12 percent per entity. Since not all of the vessels permitted to operate in the for-hire reef fish fishery would be expected to participate in the vermilion snapper fishery, actual increases in net revenue per vessel for those vessels fishing for vermilion snapper would be expected to exceed these estimates.
        The impact of the proposed rule on reef fish dealers cannot be determined with available data. However, although the current measures were originally projected to result in an approximate 26-percent reduction in vermilion snapper harvests, which would be recovered under the proposed rule, the vermilion snapper fishery comprises less than 10 percent of the total commercial reef fish fishery. Hence, the additional commercial harvests, and resultant effect on revenues or profits, that would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed rule, however, are not expected to be substantial relative to overall commercial reef fish sales.
        Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for this proposed rule. The status quo would maintain current regulations in the fishery that are not biologically supported and would result in the loss of economic benefits. The second alternative allowed the continuation or suspension of the individual components of current vermilion snapper regulations. The continuation of any of these individual components would be expected to, similar to the status quo, result in the continued loss of economic benefits to the fishery. The proposed rule would rescind current regulations that have been determined to be unnecessary from a biological perspective and would be expected to result in increased economic and social benefits to the fishery.

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

          Dated: April 23, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

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

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

          § 622.34
          [Amended]

        2. In § 622.34, paragraph (n) is removed and reserved.
        3. In § 622.37, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.37
          Size limits.

          (d) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) Vermilion snapper—10 inches (25.4 cm), TL.

        4. In § 622.39, paragraph (b)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.39
          Bag and possession limits.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (v) Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) and paragraphs (b(1)(vi) through (b)(1)(vii) of this section and excluding dwarf sand perch and sand perch—20.

          § 622.45
          [Amended]

        5. In § 622.45, paragraph (c)(5) is removed.

      [FR Doc. E7-8116 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
        48 CFR Parts 816, 828 and 852
        RIN 2900-AP82
        Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002—Parts 816, 828)

          AGENCY:
          Department of Veterans Affairs.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is correcting a proposed rule regarding Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles. This correction addresses minor technical errors in the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          April 4, 2017. The comments due date remains May 12, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulation Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP82-Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Ricky Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services (003A2A), 425 I Street NW., Washington DC 20001, (202) 632-5276. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        VA is correcting its proposed rule, “Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002—parts 816, 828)” that published March 13, 2017, in the Federal Register at 82 FR 13418.
        Corrections
        1. On page 13420, third column, List of Subjects revise all references to “38 CFR” to read “48 CFR”.
        816.504 [Corrected]
        2. On page 13421, second column, amendatory instruction 4, remove “Subpart”, and add, in its place, “Section”.
        816.505 [Corrected]
        3. On page 13421, second column, amendatory instruction 5, remove “803.505”, and add in its place, “816.505”.
        852.216-74 [Corrected]
        4. On page 13425, in the third column, remove the heading “Economic Price Adjustment—State Nursing Home Care for Veterans (Alt #1)”, and add in its place, “Economic Price Adjustment—Medicaid Labor Rates (Alt #2)”.
        852.228-73 [Corrected]
        5. On page 13427, in the third column, immediately following paragraph (d)(2) add, “(End of clause)”.

          Janet J. Coleman
          Chief, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

      [FR Doc. 2017-06578 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 112106C]
        Pacific Fishery Management Council; Groundfish Allocation Committee Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Allocation Committee(GAC) will hold a working meeting which is open to the public.

          DATES:
          The GAC working meeting will begin Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. and may go into the evening if necessary to complete business for the day. The meeting will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 13, 2006, and continue until business for the day is complete; and will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 14, 2006, and adjourn by 4 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held in Portland, Oregon, exact location to be determined. Contact the Council office for the meeting location address.

          Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Jim Seger, Staff Officer (Economist), 503-820-2280.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The purpose of the GAC meeting is to discuss the trawl individual quota alternatives under development by the Council. Specifically, the GAC will review alternatives; develop recommendations for the Council to narrow and refine the alternatives as analytical work on the environmental impact statement progresses; and develop recommendations on other aspects of the Council process for considering individual quotas for the trawl fishery.
        Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations
        The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least five days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: November 21, 2006.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-20163 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 060606A]
        RIN 0648-AU12
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Notice of Availability of Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review. Amendment 18 would modify the FMP to implement a bycatch minimization program for the Pacific coast groundfish fisheries. Amendment 18 is intended to respond to court orders in to establish a bycatch minimization program in the FMP.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 18 must be received on or before August 8, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by I.D number 060606A by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: Amendment18.nwr@noaa.gov. Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Yvonne deReynier.
          • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Attn: Yvonne deReynier, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6129; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Electronic Access: This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet at the website of the Office of the Federal Register: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces140.html.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve Amendment 18 to the FMP.

        Amendment 18 would modify the FMP to implement a bycatch minimization program. Over the past several years, the Council and NMFS have managed the groundfish fisheries with a broad suite of bycatch minimization policies that would be formally organized and brought into the FMP through Amendment 18. This FMP amendment would also set the Council's future plans for bycatch minimization programs into the FMP to provide comprehensive direction for its current and future bycatch minimization efforts in Pacific Coast groundfish fishery management. Amendment 18 is intended to respond to court orders in Pacific Marine Conservation Council v. Evans, 200 F.Supp.2d 1194 (N.D. Calif. 2002) to establish a bycatch minimization program in the FMP. NMFS has previously complied with the court's orders from this same case under Amendment 16-1 to the FMP, in which it established a standardized bycatch reporting methodology as a required element of the FMP. Regulations to implement Amendment 18 would, among other measures: require species co-occurrence ratios to be used in setting trip limits and other management measures; authorize the use of area closures as routine management measures to protect all species, not just overfished species; and, require vessels that participate in open access groundfish fisheries to carry observers when directed by NMFS.

        NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 18 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 18 in the near future. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.

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

          Dated: June 6, 2006.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-9027 Filed 6-8-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S