        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 140417346-4346-01]
        RIN 0648-XD252
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement an annual catch limit (ACL), and associated annual reference points for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. This rule is proposed according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed 2014-2015 ACL for Pacific sardine is 23,293 metric tons (mt). The proposed initial overall commercial fishing target, that is to be allocated across the three allocation periods for sardine management, is 19,293 mt. This amount would be divided across the three seasonal allocation periods for the directed fishery the following way: July 1-September 14—7,718 mt; September 15-December 31—4,823 mt; and January 1-June 30—6,752 mt, with an incidental set-aside of 500 mt for each of the three periods. This proposed rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West Coast.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by June 30, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0061, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0061, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.

          • 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Resource in 2014 for U.S.A. Management in 2014-2015” may be obtained from the West Coast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific sardine is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fishery are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with the calculated overfishing limit (OFL), available biological catch (ABC), and harvest guideline (HG), along with recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel, and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the ACL and other annual catch reference points for 2014-2015, including the OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework in the FMP. According to the FMP, an ACL must be equal to or below the ABC and an annual catch target (ACT) is then set equal to either the FMP-specified HG formula (HG = [(Biomass − Cutoff) * Fraction * Distribution]), or the ACL, whichever value is less. For the 2014-2015 fishing season, the result of the HG formula was 28,646 mt; the ACT is therefore set equal to the ACL (23,293 mt), because it is less than the HG calculation. For the 2014-2015 fishing season, the Council chose to calculate the ACL using the HG formula, but applied a different temperature index for determining the Fraction parameter than is currently prescribed in the FMP for computing the HG. The rationale for this application is that this new temperature index is a better predictor of Pacific sardine recruitment and productivity.
        The HG formula in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass − CUTOFF) * FRACTION * DISTRIBUTION] with the parameters described as follows:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above for the 2014/2015 management season is 369,506 mt.
        2. CUTOFF. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.
        3. DISTRIBUTION. The average portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent.
        4. FRACTION. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested. The fraction varies as a result of current ocean temperatures measured at Scripps Pier, California.
        Because the annual biomass estimates are an explicit part of the various harvest control rules for Pacific sardine, including the HG formula described above, as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, the resulting allowable catch levels similarly trend.
        On February 28, 2014, NMFS published a final rule to change the Pacific sardine fishing season from the calendar year to a fishing year that begins on July 1 and extends until the following June 30th (79 FR 11343). As a result of this change the Council will now develop annual fishing recommendations at their annual April meeting. The purpose of this change was to better align the timing of the research and science that is used in the annual stock assessments with the annual management schedule. The proposed specifications for the Pacific Sardine fishery are for the fishing season with the new start date of July 1, 2014, and ending June 30, 2015.
        At the April 2014 Council meeting, the Council adopted the Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2014 for U.S.A. Management in 2014-2015 completed by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center and the resulting Pacific sardine biomass estimate of 369,506 mt. Based on recommendations from its SSC and other advisory bodies, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing, an OFL of 39,210 mt, ABC of 35,792 mt, an ACL of 23,293 mt, and an ACT of 23,293 mt (equal to the ACL) for the 2014-2015 Pacific sardine fishing year. These catch specifications are based on the most recent stock assessment and the control rules established in the CPS FMP.

        The Council also recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that the 23,293 mt ACT be reduced by 4,000 mt to account for potential harvest by the Quinault Indian Nation resulting in a final amount of 19,293 mt as the primary directed commercial fishing level to be allocated across the three seasonal allocation periods. The Council also recommended and NMFS is proposing that incidental catch set asides be put in place for each allocation. The purpose of the incidental set-aside allotments and allowance of an incidental catch-only fishery is to allow for the restricted incidental landings of Pacific sardine in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, when a seasonal directed fishery is closed to reduce bycatch and allow for continued prosecution of other important CPS fisheries. These incidental set asides are allocated as shown in the following table, which also shows the adjusted directed harvest levels for each period in metric tons:

            July 1-September 14

            September 15-December 31

            January 1-June 30

            Total

            Total Seasonal Allocation
            7,718(40%)

            4,823(25%)

            6,752(35%)

            19,293

            Incidental Set Aside
            500
            500
            500
            1,500

            Adjusted Directed Harvest Allocation
            7,218
            4,323
            6,252
            17,793

        Additional inseason accountability measures (AM) are in place to ensure the fishery stays within the ACL. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable adjusted directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, fishing would be closed to directed harvest and only incidental harvest would be allowed. For the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings would be counted against that period's incidental set-aside. As an additional AM the proposed incidental fishery would also be constrained to a 45 percent by weight incidental catch rate when Pacific sardine are landed with other CPS so as to minimize the targeting of Pacific sardine and reduce potential discard of sardine. In the event that an incidental set-aside is projected to be attained, the incidental fishery will be closed for the remainder of the period. If the set-aside is not fully attained or is exceeded in a given seasonal period, the directed harvest allocation in the following seasonal period would automatically be adjusted upward or downward accordingly to account for the discrepancy. Additionally, if during any seasonal period the directed harvest allocation is not fully attained or is exceeded, then the following period's directed harvest total would be adjusted to account for the discrepancy, as well.

        If the total ACL or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached or are expected to be reached, the Pacific sardine fishery would be closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or at the beginning of the next fishing season. The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any closure to either directed or incidental fishing. Additionally, to ensure the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will also make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.
        In 2012 and 2013, the Quinault Indian Nation requested, and NMFS approved, set-asides for the exclusive right to harvest Pacific sardine in the Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area off the coast of Washington State, pursuant to the 1856 Treaty of Olympia (Treaty with the Quinault). For the 2014-2015 fishing season the Quinault Indian Nation has again requested that NMFS provide the Quinault with a tribal set-aside. The Quinault Indian Nation has requested a 4,000 mt set-aside (2,000 mt less than was requested and approved in 2013) and NMFS is considering the request. If a set-aside is approved NMFS will likely consult with Quinault Department of Fisheries staff and Quinault Fisheries Policy representatives twice during the fishing year to determine whether any part of the 2014 Quinault Indian Nation Pacific sardine set-aside can be moved into the non-tribal allocation as occurred in 2012 and 2013.

        Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2014 for U.S.A. Management in 2014-2015” (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 3 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.-603. 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. The results of the analysis are stated below. For copies of the IRFA, and instructions on how to send comments on the IRFA, please see the ADDRESSES section above.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2014-2015 annual specifications for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast including an ACT which is the primary commercial fishing target. If the total ACT or any of the seasonal apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery will close until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the ACL and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet.
        On June 20, 2013, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for finfish fishing from $4.0 million to $19.0 million, shellfish fishing from $4.0 million to $5.0 million, and other marine fishing from $4.0 million to $7.0 million. NMFS conducted its analysis for this action using the new size standards.

        As stated above, the U.S. Small Business Administration now defines small businesses engaged in finfish fishing as those vessels with annual revenues of or below $19 million. Under the former, lower standards, all entities subject to this action in previous years were considered small entities, and under the new standards they continue to be considered small. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS small purse seine fleet. In 2013, there were approximately 81 vessels permitted to operate in the directed sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 58 vessels in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 23 vessels in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2013 for the West Coast CPS finfish fleet was well below $19 million; therefore, all of these vessels therefore are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
        The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable.
        For the 2013 fishing year, approximately 64,000 mt were available for harvest by the directed fishery. Approximately 63,000 mt (approximately 7,100 mt in California and 56,000 mt in Oregon and Washington) of this allocation was harvested during the 2013 fishing season, for an estimated ex-vessel value of $14 million. Using these figures, the average 2013 ex-vessel price per mt of Pacific sardines was approximately $229 during that time period.
        The proposed initial non-tribal commercial fishing quota for the 2014-2015 Pacific sardine fishing season (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) is 19,293 metric tons (mt). This is approximately 38,000 mt less than the equivalent allocation for 2013 and approximately 27,000 mt lower than the previous lowest level set in 2011. If the fleet were to take the entire 2014-2015 quota, and assuming a coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $218 (average of 2012 and 2013 ex-vessel), the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $3.87 million. Therefore the proposed rule will decrease small entities' potential profitability compared to last season, due to the lower quota this fishing season. The release of any unused portion of the 4,000 mt set-aside for the Quinault Indian Nation might be used to supplement the amount available to the directed fishery as occurred in 2012 and 2013, thereby increasing the potential revenue to the fleet. Additionally, revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is typically only one factor determining the overall revenue for a majority of the vessels that harvest Pacific sardine; as a result, the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. From year to year, depending on market conditions and availability of fish, most CPS/sardine vessels supplement their income by harvesting other species. Many vessels in California also harvest anchovy, mackerel, and in particular squid, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. For example, market squid have been readily available to the fishery in California over the last three years with total annual ex-vessel revenue averaging approximately $66 million over that time, compared to an annual average ex-vessel from sardine of $16 million over that same time period. Additionally, many sardine vessels that operate off of Oregon and Washington also fish for salmon in Alaska or squid in California during times of the year when sardine are not available.
        These vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of sardine, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and different times of the year, and therefore are harvested at various times and areas throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, it has necessitated that the CPS fishery as a whole rely on a group of species for its annual revenues. Therefore, although there will be a potential reduction in sardine revenue for the small entities affected by this proposed action as compared to the previous season, it is difficult to predict exactly how this reduction will impact overall annual revenue for the fleet.
        No significant alternatives to this proposed rule exist that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and which would minimize any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on the affected small entities. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to calculate annual harvest levels by applying the harvest control rule formulas to the current stock biomass estimate. Therefore, if the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, so do the applicable quotas. Determining the annual harvest levels merely implements the established procedures of the FMP with the goal of continuing to provide expected net benefits to the nation, regardless of what the specific annual allowable harvest of Pacific sardine is determined to be.
        There are no reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements required by this proposed rule. Additionally, no other Federal rules duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: May 21, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-12461 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 150401329-5437-01]
        RIN 0648-BF00
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 9

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          Framework Adjustment 9 proposes management measures to further enhance catch monitoring and address discarding catch before it has been sampled by observers (known as slippage), in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Framework 9 would implement slippage consequence measures, and a requirement that slippage events be reported via the vessel monitoring system. For allowable slippage events, due to safety, mechanical failure, or excess catch of spiny dogfish, vessels must move 15 nm from the location of the slippage event. For non-allowable slippage events, due to reasons other than those listed previously, vessels must terminate their fishing trip. Slippage events have the potential to substantially affect analysis or extrapolations of incidental catch, including river herring and shad, these proposed measures are designed to address this issue.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by June 18, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-2331. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0049, by any one 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-2015-0049, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Framework 9.”

            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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carly Bari, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9224, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        NMFS implemented measures to improve catch monitoring of the mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries through Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (79 FR 10029, February 24, 2014). The focus of Amendment 14 was to improve evaluation of the incidental catch of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) and shad (American shad and hickory shad), and to address incidental catch of river herring and shad. NMFS disapproved three measures that were initially included in Amendment 14 including: A dealer reporting requirement; a cap that, if achieved, would require vessels discarding catch before it had been sampled by observers (known as slippage) to return to port; and a recommendation of 100-percent observer coverage on midwater trawl vessels and 100-, 50-, and 25-percent observer coverage on bottom trawl mackerel vessels, with the industry contributing $325 per day toward observer costs.
        Currently, slippage events are prohibited for vessels issued a limited access mackerel permit or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit and carrying a NMFS-approved observer except in circumstances which allow slippage events including: Safety; mechanical failure; and excess catch of spiny dogfish. Additionally, following a slippage event, vessels are currently required to submit a Released Catch Affidavit within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip. In response to the disapproval of the slippage measures in Amendment 14, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed Framework Adjustment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP to further enhance catch monitoring and to address slippage in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Framework 9 would add slippage consequence measures and slippage reporting requirements to build upon the current measures and to address monitoring the catch of river herring and shad.
        Framework 9 would require Tier 1, 2, and 3 mackerel vessels on observed trips to move 15 nm following an excepted slippage event, which includes safety, mechanical failure, or excess catch of spiny dogfish. These vessels would also be required to terminate a fishing trip and immediately return to port following a non-excepted slippage event, which would be due to any reason other than those listed above. In addition to submitting a Released Catch Affidavit, vessels carrying an observer would also be required to report all slippage events through the vessel monitoring system daily catch report for mackerel and longfin squid.
        Corrections
        This proposed rule also contains an additional regulation change that was mistakenly omitted in the 2015-2017 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications final rule (80 FR 14870, March 20, 2015). This regulation change would prohibit all vessels with a valid mackerel permit from fishing for, possessing, transferring, receiving, or selling more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel per trip or per day after 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap has been harvested. This change in the regulations was identified, described, and made available for public comment in the proposed rule for the 2015-2017 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications (79 FR 68202, November 14, 2014).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
        This action proposes management measures for the slippage consequences to better monitor catch of river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The preamble to this proposed rule includes a complete description of the reasons why the Council and NMFS are considering this action and these are not repeated here.
        Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule

        The purpose of this proposed action is to minimize slippage, which will improve observer data, and should in turn improve decision-making that uses observer data. Failure to implement the measures described in this proposed rule could result in biased observer data. The preamble to this proposed rule includes a complete description of the objectives of and legal basis for this action and these are not repeated here.

        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The proposed alternative applies to mackerel limited access permits. Based on permit data for 2013, 150 separate vessels hold mackerel limited access permits, 114 entities own those vessels, and, based on current Small Business Administration (SBA) definitions, 107 of these are small entities. Of the 107 small entities, 4 had no revenue in 2013 and those entities with no revenue are considered small entities for the purpose of this analysis. All of the entities that had revenue fell into the finfish or shellfish categories, and the SBA definitions for those categories for 2014 are $20.5 million for finfish fishing and $5.5 million for shellfish fishing. Of the entities with revenues, their average revenues in 2013 were $1,201,419. 70 had primary revenues from finfish fishing and 33 had their primary revenues from shellfish fishing.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        The proposed action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval under Control Number 0648-0679.
        Under the proposed action, all limited access mackerel vessels carrying an observer would be required to report all slippage events on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report. This information collection is intended to improve monitoring the catch of river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The burden estimates for these new requirements apply to all limited access mackerel vessels. In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that these additionally reporting requirements will not cause any additional time or cost burden from that which was previously approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0679.

        Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES), and email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-5806.

        Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        This action contains no other compliance costs. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal law.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statues and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The proposed alternative should not have more than minimal impact on the affected small entities compared to recent operation of the fishery (2011-2013, and 2014 landings to date appear similar to 2013). First, the primary impact should only be that vessels will not slip catches before observers have a chance to observe/sample them, which should have almost no economic impact on vessels. Slippage for reasons besides safety, mechanical issues, and spiny dogfish are already prohibited, and this proposed action would require vessels to move 15 nm before fishing again if a slippage for those excepted reasons occurs (vessels could not fish within 15 nm of the slippage event for the remainder of the trip). Total small entity mackerel revenues over 2011-2013 averaged $2.0 million, for an average of approximately $19,000 per affected small entity (107), compared to their average revenues of $1,201,419 in 2013 as described above. Given the small relative value of mackerel for most affected entities, the infrequency of slippage, and given the consequence of excepted slippages is only to move 15 nm, it seems likely that the economic impacts should be minimal for affected small entities. This is especially true since only a small portion of trips are observed, and the measures only apply to observed trips.

        If slippages have been masking higher river herring and shad landings, it is possible that prohibiting slippages could lead to the mackerel fishery closing earlier (because of the river herring and shad cap) than it otherwise would if more slippages were occurring. However, given the very low mackerel catches in recent years (less than 20 percent of the quota), it is more likely that catch increases might be limited rather than actually having decreased catches, so small entities should not be more than minimally impacted compared to recent fishery operations. In addition, if vessels are prohibited from targeting mackerel due to the cap, they will likely partially mitigate any foregone revenue by fishing for other species (e.g. squid, butterfish, herring, etc.).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: May 13, 2015.
          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 § 648.11, paragraph (n)(3)(ii) is revised and paragraph (n)(3)(iii) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.11
          At-sea sea sampler/observer coverage.

          (n) * * *
          (3) * * *

          (ii) If fish are released prior to being brought on board the vessel due to any of the exceptions in paragraphs (n)(3)(i)(A)-(C) of this section, the vessel operator must move at least 15 nm from the location of release before fishing again, and must stay at least 15 nm from the slippage event location for the remainder of the fishing trip. The vessel operator must also complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit detailing the vessel name and permit number; the VTR serial number; where, when, and for what reason the catch was released; the estimated weight of each species brought on board (if only part of the tow was released) or released on that tow. A completed affidavit must be submitted to NMFS within 48 hr of the end of the trip. The vessel operator must also report a slippage event on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report.
          (iii) If fish are released prior to being brought on board the vessel due to any reason other than the exceptions in paragraphs (n)(3)(i)(A)-(C) of this section, the vessel operator must immediately terminate the trip and return to port. No fishing activity may occur during the return to port. The vessel operator must also complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit detailing the vessel name and permit number; the VTR serial number; where, when, and for what reason the catch was released; the estimated weight of each species brought on board (if only part of the tow was released) or released on that tow. A completed affidavit must be submitted to NMFS within 48 hr of the end of the trip. The vessel operator must also report the slippage event on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report.

        3. In § 648.14, paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(G) is added, paragraphs (g)(2)(vi) and (vii) are revised and paragraphs (g)(2)(viii), (ix), and (x) are added to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (g) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (ii) * * *
          (G) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or sell; or attempt to fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or sell; more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel per trip; or land, or attempt to land more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel per day after 95 percent of the river herring and shad cap has been harvested, if the vessel holds a valid mackerel permit.

          (vi) Release fish from codend of the net, transfer fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or otherwise discard fish at sea before bringing the fish aboard and making it available to the observer for sampling, unless subject to one of the exceptions defined at § 648.11(n)(3) if issued a Limited Access Atlantic mackerel permit, or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit.
          (vii) Fail to move 15 nm, as specified at § 648.11(n)(3)(ii).
          (viii) Fail to immediately return to port as specified at § 648.11(n)(3)(iii).
          (ix) Fail to complete, sign, and submit a Released Catch Affidavit if fish are released pursuant to the requirements at § 648.11(n)(3).
          (x) Fail to report a slippage event on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report.

      [FR Doc. 2015-12060 Filed 5-18-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [CGD01-00-221]
        RIN 2115-AA97
        Safety Zone: New York Harbor, Western Long Island Sound, East River, and Hudson River Fireworks

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to establish ten permanent safety zones for fireworks displays located in the Port of New York/New Jersey, to expand the size of one current safety zone, and to modify effective times and notice requirements of existing permanent safety zones. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. This action establishes permanent exclusion areas that are only active prior to the start of the fireworks display until shortly after the fireworks display is completed, and is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the affected waterways, expand the effective times of the zones to allow for earlier displays during daylight savings time, and to require one sign that may be used for displays from a barge or onshore.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 12, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Oversight Branch (CGD01-00-221), Coast Guard Activities New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 204, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast Guard Activities New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 204, Coast Guard Activities New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Comments
        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-00-221), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
        Public Meeting

        We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Oversight Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
        Background and Purpose

        The Coast Guard proposes to establish ten permanent safety zones that will be activated for fireworks displays occurring throughout the year that are not held on an annual basis but are normally held in one of these ten locations. The ten locations are south of Ellis Island, Rockaway Beach, and Rockaway Inlet in New York Harbor, Larchmont Harbor in western Long Island Sound, Pier 16 and Newtown Creek on the East River, Pier 54 and Pier 84, Manhattan, Peekskill Bay, and Jersey City on the Hudson River. The Coast Guard also proposes to expand the diameter of the current safety zone west of Pier 90, on the Hudson River, to 360 yards from the current 300 yards. The Coast Guard received 17 applications for fireworks displays in these new areas from 1999 to 2000. In 1997, the Coast Guard received four applications for fireworks displays in these locations. In the past, temporary safety zones were established with limited notice for preparation by the U.S. Coast Guard and limited opportunity for public comment. Establishing permanent safety zones by notice and comment rulemaking at least gives the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone locations, size, and length of time the zones will be active. The Coast Guard has promulgated safety zones for fireworks displays at all 11 areas in the past and we have not received notice of any impact to waterway traffic resulting from the zones' enaction. Marine traffic would still be able to transit around the proposed safety zones because all of the zones prohibit vessels from entering only the zones themselves. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from commercial or recreational piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zones. This proposal would also move the zone effective time back two hours so that zones are enacted beginning at 6 p.m. versus 8 p.m. The safety zone termination time remains the same. Finally, the proposed rule would only require one sign reading “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY”. The current regulations require a sign that reads “FIREWORKS BARGE” for displays from barges, and a separate sign that reads “FIREWORKS SITE” for displays from shore. The sign dimensions and letter requirements remain the same.
        This proposed rule revises 33 CFR 165.168 by adding ten permanent safety zones to the 24 existing ones, expanding the diameter of the safety zone west of Pier 90, on the Hudson River, to 360 yards from the current 300 yards, expanding the effective time of the zones to allow for earlier displays during Daylight Savings Time, and simplifying the requirements for signs used as on-scene notification.
        Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The proposed sizes of these safety zones were determined using National Fire Protection Association and New York City Fire Department standards for 6 to 12 inch mortars fired from a barge, combined with the Coast Guard's knowledge of tide and current conditions in these areas. Proposed barge locations and mortar sizes were adjusted to try and ensure the proposed safety zone locations would not interfere with any known marinas or piers. The proposed earlier effective time for the zones would allow for earlier fireworks displays during Daylight Savings Time. The proposed new sign requirements are to make it easier for the fireworks companies to make on-scene notifications. The 11 proposed safety zones are:
        New York Harbor
        The first proposed safety zone includes all waters of Upper New York Bay within a 240-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°41′39.9″N 074°02′33.7″W (NAD 1983), about 260 yards south of Ellis Island. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of Upper New York Bay and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through Anchorage Channel as it is unaffected by this zone. Additionally, vessels would still be able to anchor in Federal Anchorage No. 20-B, to the north, and 20-C, to the south of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The second proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°34′28.2″N 073°50′00.0″W (NAD 1983), off Beach 116th Street. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the Atlantic Ocean near Rockaway Beach. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone and there are no commercial facilities in the vicinity of the zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The third proposed safety zone includes all waters of Rockaway Inlet within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°34′19.1″N 073°54′43.5″W (NAD 1983), about 1,200 yards south of Point Breeze. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of Rockaway Inlet and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through Rockaway Inlet. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone and there are no commercial facilities in the vicinity of the zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        Western Long Island Sound
        The proposed safety zone includes all waters of Larchmont Harbor within a 240-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°55′21.8″N 073°44′21.7″W (NAD 1983), about 540 yards north of Umbrella Rock. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of Larchmont Harbor and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Recreational traffic will still be able to transit through the western 100 yards and eastern 40 yards of the 620-yard wide Larchmont Harbor. There are currently no commercial facilities in Larchmont Harbor. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        East River
        The first proposed safety zone includes all waters of the East River within a 180-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°42′12.5″N 074°00′02.0″W (NAD 1983), about 200 yards east of Pier 16. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the East River and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Vessel traffic will be able to transit through the eastern 140 yards of the 490-yard wide East River during the event. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone.

        The second proposed safety zone includes all waters of the East River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°44′24.0″N 073°58′00.0″W (NAD 1983), about 785 yards south of Belmont Island. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the East River and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Recreational and non-deep draft commercial vessel traffic will be able to transit through the western 160 yards of the 910-yard wide East River during the event. This safety zone would close this portion of the East River for vessels that must use the Poorhouse Flats Range. This range marks the area where the 35-foot deep main channel crosses from the west side of the river to the east side of the river. The Poorhouse Flats Range marks the best water in this crossover. But the Coast Guard will minimize any negative impact from this safety zone by ensuring that this zone is not effective during slack tide, which is typically when vessels that must use the Poorhouse Flats Range transit this portion of the East River. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone.
        Hudson River
        The first proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°44′31″N 074°01′00″W (NAD 1983), about 380 yards west of Pier 54. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Hudson River and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the western 170 yards of the 885-yard wide Hudson River during the event. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The second proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°45′56.9″N 074°00′25.4″W (NAD 1983), about 380 yards west of Pier 84. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Hudson River and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the western 165 yards of the 875-yard wide Hudson River during the event. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The third proposed safety zone includes all waters of Peekskill Bay within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 41°17′16″N 073°56′18″W (NAD 1983), about 670 yards north of Travis Point. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of Peekskill Bay and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through Peekskill Bay Channel during the event. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The fourth proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°42′37.3″N 074°01′41.6″W (NAD 1983), about 420 yards east of Morris Canal Little Basin. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Hudson River and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the eastern 535 yards of the 1,215-yard wide Hudson River during the event. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The fifth proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°46′11.8″N 074°00′14.8″W (NAD 1983), about 375 yards west of Pier 90, Manhattan. The proposed safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Hudson River and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the western 160 yards of the 895-yard wide Hudson River during the event. This would expand the diameter of the current safety zone (§ 165.168(d)(4)) from 300 yards to 360 yards. This expanded safety zone would only be authorized when it would not interfere with vessel traffic at the New York Passenger Ship Terminal. Normally, this safety zone is established in conjunction with a passenger ship arrival or departure from Pier 88, 90, or 92. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from any piers in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
        The Coast Guard does not know the actual dates that these safety zones will be activated at this time. Coast Guard Activities New York will give notice of the activation of each safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public. This will include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners. Marine information and facsimile broadcasts may also be made for these events, beginning 24 to 48 hours before the event is scheduled to begin, to notify the public. The Coast Guard expects that the notice of the activation of each permanent safety zone in this rulemaking will normally be made between thirty and fourteen days before the zone is actually activated. Fireworks barges used in the locations stated in this rulemaking will also have a sign on the port and starboard side of the barge labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY”. This will provide on-scene notice that the safety zone the fireworks barge is located in is or will be activated on that day. This sign will consist of 10” high by 1.5” wide red lettering on a white background. Displays launched from shore sites will have a sign labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” with the same size requirements. There will also be a Coast Guard patrol vessel on scene 30 minutes before the display is scheduled to start until 15 minutes after its completion to enforce each safety zone.
        The effective period for each proposed safety zone is from 6 p.m. (e.s.t.) to 1 a.m. (e.s.t.). This is two hours earlier than the current regulations and is to allow for earlier fireworks displays during Daylight Savings Time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the Captain of the Port New York, or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. Generally, blanket permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones will be given except for the 45-minute period that a Coast Guard patrol vessel is present.

        This rule is being proposed to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events and to give the marine community the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone locations, size, and length of time the zones will be active.
        Regulatory Evaluation
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
        We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
        This finding is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zones, and all of the zones are in areas where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact on all mariners from the zones' activation. Vessels may also still transit through New York Harbor, western Long Island Sound, the East River, and Hudson River, during these events. Vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at, any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the proposed safety zones. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by the Local Notice to Mariners. Marine information and facsimile broadcasts may also be made to notify the public. Additionally, the Coast Guard anticipates that there will only be 18 total activations of these safety zones per year.
        Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
        The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of New York Harbor, western Long Island Sound, the East River, and Hudson River, during the times these zones are activated.
        These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic could transit around all 11 safety zones. Vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at, any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the proposed safety zones. Before the effective period, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Port of New York/New Jersey by local notice to mariners. Marine information and facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        Assistance for Small Entities
        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
        Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
        Federalism
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
        Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
        Environment

        We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes 11 safety zones. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
          1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

          2. Section 165.168 is amended as follows:
          a. Revise the section heading;

          b. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text and add paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(9);

          c. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text and add paragraph (b)(10);
          d. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text and add paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(4);
          e. Revise paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(4) and add paragraphs (d)(8) through (d)(11);
          f. Revise paragraphs (e) and (f); and
          g. Revise Figures 1 through 4.
          The additions and revisions read as follows:

            § 165.168
            Safety Zones: New York Harbor, Western Long Island Sound, East River, and Hudson River Fireworks.
            (a) New York Harbor. Figure 1 of this section displays the safety zone areas in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9).

            (7) South Ellis Island Safety Zone: All waters of Upper New York Bay within a 240-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°41′39.9″N 074°02′33.7″W (NAD 1983), about 260 yards south of Ellis Island.
            (8) Rockaway Beach Safety Zone: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 360 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°34′28.2″N 073°50′00.0″W (NAD 1983), off Beach 116th Street.
            (9) Rockaway Inlet Safety Zone: All waters of Rockaway Inlet within a 360 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°34′19.1″N 073°54′43.5″W (NAD 1983), about 1,200 yards south of Point Breeze.
            (b) Western Long Island Sound. Figure 2 of this section displays the safety zone areas in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10).

            (10) Larchmont Harbor, Western Long Island Sound Safety Zone: All waters of western Long Island Sound within a 240-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°55′21.8″N 073°44′21.7″W (NAD 1983), about 540 yards north of Umbrella Rock.
            (c) East River. Figure 3 of this section displays the safety zone areas in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4).

            (3) Pier 16, East River Safety Zone: All waters of the East River within a 180-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°42′12.5″N 074°00′02.0″W (NAD 1983), about 200 yards east of Pier 16.
            (4) Newtown Creek, East River Safety Zone: All waters of the East River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°44′24.0″N 073°58′00.0″W (NAD 1983), about 785 yards south of Belmont Island.
            (d) Hudson River. Figure 4 of this section displays the safety zone areas in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(11).

            (4) Pier 90, Hudson River Safety Zone: All waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°46′11.8″N 074°00′14.8″W (NAD 1983), about 375 yards west of Pier 90, Manhattan.

            (8) Pier 54, Hudson River Safety Zone: All waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°44′31″N 074°01′00″W (NAD 1983), about 380 yards west of Pier 54, Manhattan.
            (9) Pier 84, Hudson River Safety Zone: All waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°45′56.9″N 074°00′25.4″W (NAD 1983), about 380 yards west of Pier 84, Manhattan.
            (10) Peekskill Bay, Hudson River Safety Zone: All waters of Peekskill Bay within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 41°17′16″N 073°56′18″W (NAD 1983), about 670 yards north of Travis Point.
            (11) Jersey City, Hudson River Safety Zone: All waters of the Hudson River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°42′37.3″N 074°01″41.6″W (NAD 1983), about 420 yards east of Morris Canal Little Basin.
            (e) Notification. Coast Guard Activities New York will cause notice of the activation of these safety zones to be made by all appropriate means to effect the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public, including publication in the local notice to mariners, marine information broadcasts, and facsimile. Fireworks barges used in these locations will also have a sign on their port and starboard side labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY”. This sign will consist of 10″ high by 1.5″ wide red lettering on a white background. Shore sites used in these locations will display a sign labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” with the same dimensions.
            (f) Effective Period. This section is effective from 6 p.m. (e.s.t.) to 1 a.m. (e.s.t.) each day a barge with a “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” sign on the port and starboard side is on-scene or a “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” sign is posted in a location listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. Vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the Captain of the Port New York or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene.

            BILLING CODE 4910-15-U

              EP13de00.038

              EP13de00.039

              EP13de00.040

              EP13de00.041

            Dated: November 3, 2000.
            P.A. Harris,
            Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, New York, Acting.

      [FR Doc. 00-31705 Filed 12-12-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-15-C


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 070409081-7081-01; I.D. 032907A]
        RIN 0648-AS22
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 14

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 14 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council).  The proposed measures include a plan to rebuild the scup stock from an overfished condition to the level associated with maximum sustainable yield, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  This action also proposes to allow the regulations concerning the Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) to be modified through framework adjustments to the FMP.  The intended effect of this change would improve the timing of developing and implementing modifications to the GRAs.

          DATES:
           Comments must be received by 5 p.m. local time, on May 24, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
           You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: FSBAmendment14Proposed Rule@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line the following identifier:   “Comments on Amendment 14 Proposed Rule (Scup Rebuilding Plan).”
          • Federal e-rulemaking portal: http:/www.regulations.gov

          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Amendment 14 Proposed Rule (Scup Rebuilding Plan).”
          • Fax:   (978) 281-9135

          Copies of Amendment 14 and of the draft Environmental Assessment, preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE  19901-6790.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Michael P. Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On August 18, 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the scup (Stenotomus chrysops) stock had been designated as overfished and that, within 1 year of that notice, an amendment or proposed regulations for the scup fishery to end overfishing and to rebuild the stock must be prepared in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  In response, the Council has developed, and submitted for Secretarial review, Amendment 14 to propose two actions:   (1) A 7-year plan to rebuild the scup stock from an overfished condition to a level associated with maximum sustained yield (Bmsy), as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and (2) an administrative change to the regulations on framework adjustments.
        Background
        The scup stock was determined to be overfished in 1998 when the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act were implemented.  The Council developed and proposed Amendment 12 (64 FR 16891, April 7, 1999) to rebuild the scup stock in accordance with the provisions outlined in the SFA.  The Council proposed in Amendment 12 that the management measures in place to rebuild the scup fishery, established by Amendment 8, were adequate under SFA guidelines.  NMFS disagreed, and the rebuilding plan proposed in Amendment 12 was disapproved on April 28, 1999.  Following the disapproval, the management measures previously implemented by Amendment 8 remained in place for the scup fishery.

        In years subsequent to the disapproval of Amendment 12, the scup stock exhibited signs of recovery.  The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring survey index 3-year average value for 2001-2003 indicated that scup spawning stock biomass (SSB) had increased to 3.31 kg/tow, above the minimum biomass threshold (1/2 Bmsy) of 2.77 kg/tow.  The scup stock was no longer considered overfished, although the 35th Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 35) indicated that the status of the stock with respect to overfishing could not be evaluated.  Although the condition of the scup stock was improving, the stock had not yet been rebuilt, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to the Bmsy proxy rebuilding target of 5.54 kg/tow.

        In 2005, the NEFSC 3-year SSB index value decreased to 0.69 kg/tow, indicating that the stock was again below the minimum biomass threshold (1/2 Bmsy) and considered overfished.  NMFS formally notified the Council of the overfished status of the scup stock, thus initiating the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that the Council develop regulations or an amendment to the FMP to rebuild the scup stock to the Bmsy proxy level.  The rebuilding plan implemented by such regulations or amendment must achieve the rebuilding target within 10 years to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  In response, the Council has developed, and submitted for Secretarial review, Amendment 14.
         Proposed Scup Rebuilding Plan

        Under Amendment 14, a constant fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.10 would be applied each year during a 7-year rebuilding time period.  Under this approach, the NEFSC 3-year SSB index value for the rebuilding period ending December 31, 2014, is projected to be 5.96 kg/tow, approximately 8 percent above the Bmsy proxy rebuilding target (5.54 kg/tow).

        Applying a constant F=0.10 for 7 years is projected to achieve the required stock rebuilding to comply with the Magunuson-Stevens Act; however, because scup is a relatively data poor stock and uncertainty exists around estimates of fishing mortality, stock size, and discards, Amendment 14 contains additional criteria to be applied to the rebuilding program, as follows:
        1.   As improvements to the available data occur over the 7-year rebuilding period, the rebuilding trajectory may change.  Therefore, to ensure stock rebuilding, a periodic review will be conducted by the Council's scientific advisors to re-evaluate the F necessary to rebuild the stock.  If the Council's scientific advisors determine the stock cannot be rebuilt within the time remaining in the initial 7-year time frame under an F=0.10, then the Council will recommend measures to rebuild the stock as soon as possible after the 7 years, but not to exceed the 10-year time frame specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act for rebuilding periods.
        The periodicity of such a review is not specified in Amendment 14; however, it is expected that such reviews will be at the discretion of the Council and will occur as new data are made available, as early in the rebuilding period as possible, so that changes to the F rate, as needed, may be made.

        2.  The scup biological reference points (stock status determination criteria) would be reviewed after the Fishery Survey Vessel (FSV) Henry B. Bigelow has completed 2 full years of service.
        3.  If a scup stock assessment that results in a change to the biological reference points is completed before the end of the 7-year rebuilding time period, the Council may reconsider the rebuilding targets.
        The additional criteria for the rebuilding program contained in Amendment 14 are designed to allow for some degree of flexibility within the specified rebuilding period, while still satisfying the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, given the considerable scientific uncertainty regarding the status of the scup stock.  The intent of the additional criteria is to ensure that certain parameters of the rebuilding program can be revisited in advance of the end of the rebuilding time frame.  This may help mitigate the need for severely restrictive measures in the rebuilding plan's final years, should scientific advice or stock status information change during the course of the 7-year rebuilding plan and/or the scup stock fail to respond to the rebuilding efforts as anticipated and fall behind the rebuilding schedule.

        Amendment 14 has a target implementation date of January 1, 2008, for the start of the rebuilding program.  A final rule for Amendment 14 is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register prior to August 2007, with delayed effectiveness until January 1, 2008, so that the 2008 scup specifications would be set consistent with the proposed rebuilding program.
        Proposed GRA Modification Process

        GRAs were first implemented on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33486), in conjunction with the annual specifications for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries.  The intent of the GRAs has been to reduce discards of scup in small-mesh fisheries, primarily for Loligo squid, black sea bass, and silver hake.  Because of the manner in which they were initially implemented, the GRAs could only be modified through the annual specification process or through an amendment to the FMP.  Amendment 14 proposes an administrative change to add the GRAs to the list of management measures that can be changed through a framework adjustment to the FMP.  As such, the Council would develop and analyze changes to the GRAs over the span of at least two Council meetings before making a recommendation to NMFS.  This change is intended to allow for improved timing of developing and implementing proposed modifications to the GRAs.  Amendment 14 proposes no specific changes to the existing GRAs.
        Notice of Availability (NOA) and Public Comment on Amendment 14

        A NOA indicating Amendment 14's availability for public review and comment published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2007, 72 FR 18193.  Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 14 and its incorporated documents through the comment period ending June 11, 2007, as stated in the NOA.  Public comments on this proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 14, as published in the NOA, to be considered in the approval/disapproval of the Amendment 14.  All comments received by the end of the NOA comment period for Amendment 14, whether specifically directed to the amendment or this proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.  Comments received after the end of the NOA comment period will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 14, but will be considered as comments on this proposed rule.  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.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        A notice of availability of the Draft EA/RIR/IRFA, which analyzed the impacts of all of the measures under consideration in Amendment 14, was published on  April 11, 2007, (72 FR 18193).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA.  The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the reasons why the action is being considered, the associated objectives of the proposed action, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble of this proposed rule.  A summary of the analysis follows.  A copy of the complete IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant Federal rules.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        Description of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
        The proposed action regarding scup rebuilding alternatives could affect any vessel issued a Federal permit for scup, as well as vessels that fish for scup in state waters.  The GRA alternatives proposed are purely administrative in nature and, therefore, are not expected to impact scup fishery participants in state or Federal waters.

        The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial fishing and recreational fishing activity as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively.  The proposed measures regarding the scup rebuilding alternatives could affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit for scup, as well as vessels that fish for this species in state waters.  Data from the Northeast permit application database show that, in 2005, the most recent year for which there are complete data, 1,511 vessels were permitted to take part in the scup fisheries (both commercial and charter/party sectors).  All vessels that would be impacted by this proposed rulemaking are considered to be small entities; therefore, there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities.   Since all permit holders do not actually land scup, the more immediate impact of the rule may be felt by the 428 vessels that are actively participating in this fishery (i.e., that landed 1 lb (0.45 kg) or more of scup in 2005).
        Description of Alternatives
        The Council proposed seven rebuilding plan alternatives and the no-action (i.e., status quo) alternative.  Of these, two alternatives could be expected to have less of an economic impact on small entities than the proposed action.  A summary of these alternatives can be found in Table 1, and as follows, including the reasons for selecting the preferred alternative instead of one of the two alternatives with a lower economic impact to small entities.

          EP24AP07.005

        The no-action alternative, designated 1A, would not implement a rebuilding plan or time frame for rebuilding the scup stock.  The current F target of F=0.26 would be maintained, resulting in the least restrictive quotas.  Under the no action alternative (1A), the scup stock is not projected to ever achieve the rebuilding target; therefore, the status quo alternative would not achieve stock rebuilding and is therefore contrary to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Alternatives 1B through 1E consist of rebuilding strategies wherein a specified constant F is applied over a 10, 7, 5, or 4-yr period, respectively.  The F rate applied under these four alternatives is highest (i.e., less restrictive) for alternative 1B and decreases (i.e., becomes more restrictive) in alternatives 1C and 1D.  The rebuilding program proposed by alternative 1B is less restrictive than the Council's preferred alternative, 1C.  Alternative 1B was not selected as the preferred alternative because it utilizes the full 10-year rebuilding period and does not allow for the ongoing rebuilding progress performance assessments, as specified by the Council, that are available in the preferred alternative, 1C.  The F rate in 1E is F=0, which would result in no harvest of scup (commercial, recreational, or incidental take in other fisheries) for the proposed 4-yr period; this alternative was considered but excluded from detailed analysis as it was not considered a reasonable solution to the issue.
        Alternatives 1F through 1H proposed maintaining a constant harvest level of scup over a specified rebuilding period.  Alternative 1F, the least restrictive constant harvest rebuilding alternative, was rejected because it would not rebuild the stock within the 10-year period required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.   Of the remaining two constant harvest alternatives, 1G is less restrictive than alternative 1H.  Relative to the constant F strategies, the constant harvest strategies 1D and 1H are expected to be less restrictive than alternatives 1C and 1G, but more restrictive than alternatives 1A and 1B.

        For clarity, the Council has identified rebuilding program alternative 1C, with the additional criteria outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in the preamble of this proposed rule, as its preferred alternative.
        Expected Economic Impacts of Alternatives
        The effects of actions were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches to the extent possible.  Where quantitative data were not available, qualitative analyses were conducted.  In the current analysis, effects on profitability associated with the proposed management measures should be evaluated by looking at the impact of the proposed measures on individual vessel costs and revenue.  However, in the absence of cost data for individual vessels engaged in these fisheries, changes in gross revenue are used as a proxy for profitability.
        Procedurally, the economic effects of the quotas under the various rebuilding schedules were estimated by assessing the changes in potential revenues.  This was accomplished by multiplying the corresponding level of Total Allowable Landings (TAL) under each alternative by the ex-vessel price forecasted for each of the years in an alternative's rebuilding time line.
        Commercial Fishery Impacts

        Aggregate scup landings in 2008, the first year of the rebuilding period, relative to 2006 are expected to be the highest under alternative 1A (an increase of 153 percent), followed by alternative 1B (an increase of 41 percent), and alternatives 1C and 1G (an increase of 5 percent each).  Under alternatives 1D and 1H, scup landings are expected to decrease (29 percent each) in 2008, compared to 2006.  Commercial quotas are expected to increase in each year subsequent to 2008 from the 2006 baseline value for each alternative, except those for constant harvest strategies under alternatives 1G and 1H.  For alternatives 1G and 1H, no increase is predicted until the rebuilding time frame is complete and the stock is rebuilt.
        Assuming that the predicted changes in initial annual revenue in 2008 are for all active participants in the fishery and that they are evenly distributed over all active participants in the fishery (the 428 vessels that landed scup in 2005), each business unit could be expected to gain an average of $7,114 in gross revenues under alternative 1A, and $1,914 under alternative 1B, if the entire TAL is landed in 2008.  Potential losses in 2008 of $194 in gross revenue are estimated for each scup vessel under alternatives 1C and 1G, and $2,621 under alternatives 1D and 1H.
        If revenue earned from all other species is assumed to remain constant, 21 vessels are projected to incur total revenue losses of 5 percent or more in 2008 under the two most restrictive alternatives (1D and 1H).  Of these 21 vessels, 11 are projected to incur revenue reductions of 5-9 percent, and 10 vessels are projected to lose up to 10-19 percent of their total gross revenue.
        Relative to each vessel's home port state as reported on the vessel's permit application, nine of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more under alternatives 1D and 1H listed New York as their home port state, five of these vessels listed Massachusetts as their home port state, and five listed Rhode Island as their home port state.  The home port states of the remaining two vessels can not be disclosed for confidentiality reasons.
        The 21 vessels estimated to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or more in 2008 under the two most restrictive alternatives (1D and 1H) list 15 different home port locations on their permit applications.  The only home port locations with more than one vessel estimated to incur total revenue reductions of 5 percent or more are in Montauk, NY (five vessels) and Point Judith, RI (three vessels).
        Although alternatives 1C, 1D, 1G, and 1H will likely have a negative short-term economic impact on some scup harvesting businesses, they are expected to result in long-term positive impacts to the industry as a whole, once the scup stock rebuilds.  Quotas will gradually increase toward the rebuilt stock level for constant F strategies and are expected to significantly increase when rebuilding is achieved for constant harvest strategy alternatives.
        Recreational Fishery Impacts
        Recreational landings of scup in 2006 were projected to be 2.83 million lb (1,284 mt).  Potential increases in landings could be observed in 2008 under the recreational harvest limits projected for alternatives 1A and 1B.  The 2008 recreational harvest limits under alternatives 1C and 1G would be approximately equal to the projected 2006 recreational landings.  The 2008 recreational harvest limits for alternatives 1D and 1H are projected to be 1.923 million lb (872 mt), a potential decrease of approximately 1.0 million lb (453 mt) when compared to 2006 levels.
        There is no empirical information available to determine how sensitive to the proposed changes in scup recreational harvest limits affected anglers might be.  In other words, it is not possible to determine how affected anglers will respond to the new regulations.  Scup angler trip taking behavior may remain unchanged, or the management measures may result in anglers taking fewer fishing trips or no recreational trips at all if suitable alternative target species are unavailable.  Although the potential changes in trip taking behavior cannot be quantified, given the marginal changes in management measures from 2006 to those expected for 2008 and the fact that the proposed measures do not prohibit anglers from engaging in catch and release fishing, the demand for fishing trips should remain relatively unaffected.  Nevertheless, to the extent that anglers impacted by the proposed measures do take fewer trips, economic losses may accrue to businesses that support marine recreational activities.

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

          Dated:  April 17, 2007.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, 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 § 648.127, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.127
          Framework adjustment to management measures.
          (a) * * *
          (1) Adjustment process. The Council shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council meetings.  The Council must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the second Council meeting.  The Council's recommendations on adjustments or additions to management measures must come from one or more of the following categories:   Minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear restrictions, gear restricted areas, gear requirements or prohibitions, permitting restrictions, recreational possession limit, recreational seasons, closed areas, commercial seasons, commercial trip limits, commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest limit, annual specification quota setting process, FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process, description and identification of essential fish habitat (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH), description and identification of habitat areas of particular concern, overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets, regional gear restrictions, regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons), restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower, operator permits, any other commercial or recreational management measures, any other management measures currently included in the FMP, and set aside quota for scientific research.

      [FR Doc. 07-2016 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S