        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 030108004-3004-01; ID 010303B]
        RIN 0648-AQ28
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Framework Adjustment 15

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework 15 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council).  This rule proposes to implement management measures for the 2003 fishing year, including a days-at-sea (DAS) adjustment, and continuation of a Sea Scallop Area Access Program (Area Access Program) for 2003.  The intent of this action is to achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and to achieve optimum yield in the scallop fishery.  In addition, this proposed rule includes regulatory text that would codify an additional gear stowage provision for scallop dredge gear that was established by the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) in 2001.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, on January 31, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Framework 15 to the Scallop FMP.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
          Copies of Framework Adjustment 15, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Environmental Assessment (EA) are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.  These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9288; fax 978-281-9135; e-mail peter.christopher@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On September 12, 2002, the Council  adopted Framework 15 to the FMP, which proposes annual management measures for the 2003 fishing year (March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004).  Framework 15 would increase the annual DAS allocation, and extend the Area Access Program in the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach areas for 2003.  The only modification to the measures that have been in effect for the 2002 fishing year would be an increase in the possession limit allowed to vessels participating in the Area Access Program.  This increase is intended to be consistent with increasing catch rates in the area so that there is sufficient incentive for vessels to fish in these areas.

        Regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the FMP (64 FR 14835, March 29, 1999) redefined overfishing and revised the annual fishing mortality rate (F) reduction schedule through fishing year 2008.  The FMP currently specifies that the DAS allocated for the 2003 fishing year will be 45, 18, and 4 DAS for full-time, part-time, and occasional scallop vessels, respectively.  Amendment 7 included the annual DAS allocations projected to be necessary to rebuild the stock within 10 years.  DAS for the 2003 fishery were intended to achieve an F target of F=0.22.  The reductions in F and associated sea scallop DAS schedule were intended to rebuild the sea scallop stock within 10 years.  Amendment 7 also established an annual monitoring and review process to adjust management measures to meet the stock rebuilding objectives as conditions in the resource change.  Finally, Amendment 7 established two closed areas, the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Closed Areas, in the Mid-Atlantic to protect large concentrations of small scallops.  In May of 2001, the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Closed Areas were re-opened to controlled scallop fishing under Framework 14 to the FMP (66 FR 21639, May 1, 2001; 66 FR 24052, May 11, 2001 (republication); and 66 FR 457784, August 30, 2001 (correction)) because the scallops in the areas had increased in size and the resource abundance had improved.  Framework 14 established measures to control fishing in the areas through February, 2003.
        Since the implementation of Amendment 7 in 1998, scallop biomass has increased by nearly five times, and the stock as a whole is at or near the biomass target.  The most recent stock assessment was completed in April 2001 through the 32nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 32).  SAW 32 found that neither stock area (Georges Bank and Mid-Atlantic) was overfished, with biomass in both areas above or near the biomass targets.  SAW 32 found F on Georges Bank to be 0.14 in 1999, well below the overfishing threshold of F=0.24, so overfishing was not occurring.  In the Mid-Atlantic, SAW 32 found that F was 0.43 in 1999, so overfishing was still occurring in that stock area.  Although no formal updates of the status of the scallop resource have been completed, projections completed for Framework 15 indicate that the resource will continue to exceed biomass targets.
        Under the existing regulations, the Area Access Program will expire on February 28, 2003.  These areas were initially closed in 1998 to protect concentrations of juvenile scallops, which have since grown to harvestable size.  For the past 2 fishing years, fishing has been allowed within those areas under the Area Access Program established by Framework 14.  If the Area Access Program expires, there would be uncontrolled fishing within those areas.  This rule proposes to maintain controls on effort and catch that would prevent scallops in the areas from being overfished while at the same time creating a sufficient incentive to fish in these areas in order to alleviate effort on other scallop areas.
        Because of the increases in stock biomass, Framework 15 estimates that the number of DAS currently specified for fishing year 2003 (i.e., 45, 18, and 4 DAS for full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels, respectively) would result in an F of 0.091, which is significantly lower than the FMP's target F.  Fishing at this level would not achieve optimum yield and would result in negative economic impacts on the industry.  The proposed DAS allocation under Framework 15 is more consistent with the F target, and would prevent economic losses for some vessels that would result from lower DAS allocations.  The F is projected to be approximately 0.155 for the resource overall under the proposed action.  While projections indicate that the proposed DAS allocations would allow overexploitation of scallops in the open portions of the Mid-Atlantic and Georges Bank to continue (F=0.35 to 0.39), they also show that the fishery overall would not exceed its F target of F=0.22, due in part to continued large concentrations of scallops in the Georges Bank groundfish closed areas.
        Proposed Measures
        This action would implement an annual DAS allocation of 120, 48, and 10 DAS for full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels, respectively, for the 2003 fishing year.  This would represent an increase over the DAS allocations that would otherwise become effective March 1, 2003 (i.e., 45 full-time, 18 part-time, and 4 occasional).  The 120, 48, and 10 DAS allocations have been in place each year since 1999, due to better conditions in the scallop resource than were anticipated in Amendment 7.
        Framework 15 would continue the Area Access Program that was implemented under Framework 14 while leaving in place extensive closures under the Northeast Multispecies FMP in other highly abundant scallop grounds.  The continued Area Access Program would allow controlled scallop fishing in the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas.  Vessels would be prohibited from fishing for scallops in the Sea Scallop Access Areas unless they are fishing under the Area Access Program.  The intent of the Area Access Program is to derive biological, social, and economic benefits from fishing in the areas.
        Finally, this proposed rule includes regulatory text that would codify a scallop dredge gear stowage provision that was established by the Regional Administrator in 2001.  The new provision would eliminate the need for vessel operators to disconnect towing wires and reel them fully onto the winch in order for the gear to be considered stowed properly.  Reconnecting the wires at sea was determined to be dangerous, particularly in rough seas.  The Regional Administrator has the authority to establish new gear stowage provisions through notification through a permit holder letter.  Subsequent codification of the provision would ensure proper implementation of the requirement.
        Interactions with Endangered and Threatened Species
        NMFS is currently considering and evaluating the effects of the scallop fishery on threatened and endangered species, including sea turtles.  The scallop fishery as a whole and the management measures proposed in Framework 15 are being considered in a formal consultation that is currently being conducted under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.  Although the biological opinion (BO) has not been completed as of the publication of this proposed rule, the final rule or subsequent actions will address the findings of the BO, if appropriate.
        Sea Scallop Area Access Program Measures
        The 2003 Area Access Program would begin on March 1, 2003, unless the fishery is closed prior to February 28, 2003, in which case it would begin on April 1, 2003.  The 2003 Area Access Program would end when the total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Area Access Program is caught, or when vessels have used up their allocated number of trips.

        The Area Access Program would include a TAC of 17.06 million lb (7,740 mt) and 0.23 million lb (105 mt) for the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas, respectively.  These TACs include set-asides of 2 percent and 1 percent to defray the costs of observers and research, respectively.  The TACs would achieve an F of 0.32 in each of the two areas.  Although this F exceeds the target F of 0.22 for the scallop fishery, it is not expected to jeopardize the rebuilding potential for the Mid-Atlantic stock.  Rather, it is anticipated that the higher F for the Access Areas would allow greater levels of effort and catch within the Access Areas, thereby reducing effort and catch in other areas of the Mid-Atlantic.  This anticipated effort distribution is expected to continue to provide for rebuilding of the Mid-Atlantic scallop stock and the scallop resource as a whole.
        All limited access scallop vessels, including vessels that replace vessels that hold a scallop Confirmation of Permit History, would be eligible to fish for the sea scallop TAC under the Area Access Program.  Full-time and part-time scallop vessels would be restricted to a total of three annual trips into the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas.  A trip into either of the Areas would count as one of the allowed trips.  Vessels participating in the Area Access Program would be allowed to take only one of the three allocated trips before May 1, and only two of the three allocated trips before June 1.  At least one trip would be required to be started before September 1 for that vessel to be eligible to fish any additional trips on or after October 1 that may be authorized by the Regional Administrator.  This measure is meant to prevent a derby style fishery from occurring and may reduce the potential for bycatch by limiting trips in late spring when bycatch, particularly of summer flounder, could be problematic.  Vessels in the occasional permit category would be allowed to conduct only one trip into the Area of their choice.
        Participating scallop vessels would be allowed to possess and land from the Areas up to 21,000 lb (9,525.4 kg) of scallop meats per trip.  Limits on both the amount of scallops possessed and landed, and the number of trips, are intended to help to control fishing mortality of scallops in the Areas while still creating an incentive to fish in the areas.  The increase in the possession limit is a result of the higher F in the Areas.  This higher F allows for more trips and a higher limit thereby creating more opportunity for vessels to fish in the Areas.  The increased opportunity to fish in the areas should create an incentive for vessels to utilize the Area Access Program where the scallop resource can be harvested at higher rates, thereby removing fishing pressure from other areas that may be more sensitive to fishing pressure.  These limits are also intended to increase social benefits by allowing all limited access vessels an opportunity to fish in the Areas without creating a derby fishery, and increase economic benefits by promoting an orderly fishery and reducing the possibility of market gluts that could be caused by high initial catches in these Areas.
        After taking into account data on the number of eligible vessels participating, and on the total number of trips taken, the Regional Administrator could consider adjusting the sea scallop possession limit for the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas any time during the season; and, on or after October 1, 2003, could consider allocating one or more additional trips for full-time and part-time vessels.  In order for additional trips to be allocated, a sufficient amount of the sea scallop TAC must remain to warrant such an adjustment or allocation.  In order for a vessel to participate in any additional Area Access Program trips that would be allocated on or after October 1, 2003, that vessel must have started at least one Area Access Program trip prior to September 1, 2003.  Vessels with occasional permits would not be allocated any additional trips.
        Any trip of 10 DAS or less by a vessel fishing in the Area Access Program would count as 10 DAS.  Any trip of over 10 DAS would count as the actual DAS (e.g., if a vessel used 12 DAS, 12 DAS would be deducted from its annual DAS allocation).  The intended effect of the minimum 10 DAS count is to reduce the number of days that are available to be fished in other areas, thereby reducing fishing mortality on the scallop resource overall by potentially reducing the number of scallops caught under DAS.
        Vessels would be allowed to use dredges or trawls when fishing in the Area Access Program.  Dredge gear would be required to be outfitted with a twine top with a minimum mesh size of 10 inches (25.40 cm).  The purpose of increasing the minimum twine top mesh size measurement from 8 inches (20.32 cm) to 10 inches (25.40 cm) for the Area Access Program is to reduce bycatch of groundfish and other finfish.  Recent research and experience from the Georges Bank and Southern New England Closed Area Sea Scallop Exemption Program demonstrate that the 10-inch (25.40-cm) mesh size may significantly reduce bycatch of certain species, especially flatfish species.
        All scallop vessels fishing in the Area Access Program would be required to have installed on board an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit that meets the minimum performance criteria as specified in the regulations at § 648.9(b).  Vessels with occasional permits are the only limited access scallop vessels not currently required to have a VMS unit and would, therefore, be required to install an approved VMS unit in order to participate in the Area Access Program.  Scallop vessels planning to fish in the Area Access Program would be required to so declare by notifying the Regional Administrator through the VMS as described below.
        Each vessel operator would be required to inform NMFS of his/her intention to fish in the Sea Scallop Access Areas prior to the 25th day of the month preceding the month in question through the VMS e-mail system (e.g., if the vessel plans to fish in these areas in July, it would need to notify the Regional Administrator by June 25).  This notification requirement would facilitate placement of observers and would provide for an estimate of the number of potential Area Access Program participating vessels in order to make preliminary projections of potential TAC harvest rates.
        Vessel operators would be required to report the following information to the Regional Administrator prior to the 25th day of the month preceding the month in question:   Vessel name and permit number, owner and operator's name, owner and operator's phone numbers, the area to be fished, and the anticipated number of trips to be taken in the area in question.
        In addition, for the purpose of selecting vessels for observer deployment, a vessel's operator would be required to provide notice to NMFS of the time, port of departure, and specific Sea Scallop Access Area to be fished, at least 5 working days prior to the beginning of any trip on which it declares into the Sea Scallop Area Access Program.
        On the day the vessel leaves port to fish under the Area Access Program, the vessel owner or operator must declare into the Program through the VMS.  Declaration into the fishery would allow for more accurate and timely monitoring of the catch in the fishery.
        The operator of each vessel participating in the Area Access Program would be required to report specific information on a daily basis through the VMS.  For each day of an Area Access Program trip, a vessel would be required to report the daily pounds (kg) of scallop meats kept, the area fished that day, and the Fishing Vessel Trip Report page numbers corresponding to the respective Sea Scallop Access Area trip.  In addition, vessels on observed trips would be required to provide a separate report of the daily pounds (kg) of scallop meats kept on tows that were observed.

        Vessels that have declared a trip into the Area Access Program would be prohibited from possessing more than 50 U.S. bu (17.62 hl) (400 lb (181.4 kg) of meats) of shell stock (i.e., unshucked scallops) when outside the Sea Scallop Access Areas.  This limit for shell stock would be considered part of the overall possession limit.  A limit on the amount of sea scallops landed in the shell is necessary to monitor and enforce the overall meat weight possession limit requirement.  Allowing vessels to retain a relatively minor amount of shell stock would help satisfy a market for large, whole scallops, without compromising the enforceability of the conservation intent of the possession limit.
        General category permitted vessels and limited access scallop vessels fishing outside a scallop DAS would be allowed to fish in the Sea Scallop Access Areas throughout the year, provided that no more than 100 lb (45.36 kg) of scallop meats are possessed on board the vessel when the vessel is in the Sea Scallop Access Areas.  These vessels would be prohibited from possessing in-shell scallops while inside the Sea Scallop Access Areas, except they would be allowed to possess an equivalent of in-shell scallops that are necessary to provide 100 lb (45.36 kg) of scallop meats.  Vessels not fishing under the Area Access Program would be allowed to transit the Sea Scallop Access Areas with more than these possession limits on board, provided their gear is properly stowed according to the regulations at § 648.23(b).  This measure is intended to allow an incidental catch of scallops for scallop vessels that fish for other species outside the areas and to allow for more direct transiting to and from other fishing areas.
        To improve the enforceability of the Area Access Program,  all limited access scallop vessels equipped with a VMS unit would be polled twice per hour, regardless of whether the vessel is enrolled in the Area Access Program or not.  Also, vessels would be required to stow all dredge or trawl gear while transiting to and from the Sea Scallop Access Areas and must land their scallop catch at one location for each trip.  The new stowage requirement included in this proposed rule would improve safety on board vessels transiting to and from the Access Areas.

        Vessels would be required to carry observers when requested.  The Council has recommended 10-percent observer coverage for the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area and 20-percent observer coverage for the Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area.  Observers would obtain information on catch, catch rates, and bycatch and may obtain information on gear efficiency and selectivity and on other characteristics of the fishery.  The vessel owner would be responsible for paying for the cost of the observer, regardless of whether any scallops are caught on the trip.  At the discretion of the Regional Administrator, scallop vessels could be allocated an additional amount of sea scallops, not to exceed a cumulative total of 155 mt or 2 mt for the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas, respectively,  for each trip on which an observer is taken, to help defray the cost of the observer.  Additional scallops to fund observers could not exceed a value equal to two percent of the overall scallop TAC.  One percent of the scallop TAC for both the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Access Areas would be set aside to pay for observers.  Similarly, a value equal to one percent of the overall TAC would be added on to the amount of observer TAC, also to help vessels pay for the cost of observers.  The allocation of one percent set-aside and one percent additional observer TAC would be consistent with the Area Access Program in 2001 and 2002, as well as the Georges Bank Closed Area Exemption Program.  A TAC set-aside of 1 percent to fund research would also be included as part of the Area Access Program.  Amounts over the trip limits for sea scallop meats to be allocated for defraying research costs shall be limited, by area, up to 77 mt or 1 mt for the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas, respectively.  This research program for the Sea Scallop Access Areas would be modeled after the research program in the 2000 Georges Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Program.  A Request for Proposals notice will be published in the Federal Register that will provide information on the submission process, eligibility criteria, proposal requirements and priorities, project evaluation, application deadlines and other requirements.
        Abbreviated Rulemaking
        NMFS proposes these revisions to the regulations under the framework abbreviated rulemaking procedure codified at 50 CFR part 648, subpart D.  This procedure requires the Council, when making specifically allowed adjustments to the FMP, to develop and analyze the actions over the span of at least two Council meetings.  The Council must provide the public with advance notice of both the proposals and the analysis and with an opportunity to comment on them prior to and at a second Council meeting.  Upon review of the analysis and public comment, the Council may recommend to the Regional Administrator that the measures be published as a final rule if certain conditions are met.  This action is being published as a proposed rule because the Council had sufficient time to prepare for proposed rulemaking and allow for additional public comment on the action.
        Documents summarizing the Council's proposed action, the EA, and economic impacts analysis of the preferred and alternative actions, were available for public review 1 week prior to the final Council meeting on September 12, 2002, as is required under the framework adjustment process.  Written and oral comments were accepted up to and during that meeting.  Comments pertaining specifically to the EA, and framework measures are included and responded to in the EA.
        Classification
        This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        The proposed action and its alternatives could affect any commercial vessel holding an active Federal permit for sea scallops.  Data from the 2001 Northeast permit database show that 310 commercial vessels were permitted with limited access scallop permits, and 2,293 commercial vessels were permitted with general category (open access) scallop permits.  Information from the 2002 fishing year is incomplete.  The majority, if not all, of the federally permitted vessels readily fall within the Small Business Administration's (SBA) definition of small business and the Regulatory Flexibility Act's definition of “small entity.”  Therefore, all alternatives and analyses associated with this proposed rule necessarily are alternatives and analyses applicable to impacts on small entities.  A description of the significant alternatives to the proposed action are addressed in detail in the EA and are not repeated here.

        The analyses in the Council's IRFA and the economic impacts section of the EA show that the increase in the DAS allocations of the preferred and non-preferred alternative and the access to the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Access Areas will have positive economic impacts on all vessels as compared to the no action alternative.  The revenues per full-time vessel are expected to increase by 56 percent under the proposed action, and by 38 percent to 58 percent for the 100 and 140 full-time DAS alternatives, respectively, compared to the no action alternative.  The profits are expected to more than double under all DAS alternatives, including the proposed alternative and access to the Area Access Program in the Mid-Atlantic, relative to the no action alternative.  Although the analysis in the document is conducted for an average full-time vessel in the scallop fishery, relative to the no action alternative, the results are expected to be positive for all full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels, as well, since their DAS allocations will also be adjusted upward and they will be able to access the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Access Areas.
        No additional reporting requirements are included in this proposed rule.  Likewise, no other Federal rules will duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule.

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

          Dated: January 13, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          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:
            Authority:   16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2.  In § 648.23, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.23
            Gear restrictions.

            (b) * * *
            (2) Scallop dredges. (i) The towing wire is detached from the scallop dredge, the towing wire is completely reeled up onto the winch, the dredge is secured and the dredge or the winch is covered so that it is rendered unuseable for fishing; or
            (ii) The towing wire is detached from the dredge and attached to a bright-colored poly ball no less than 24 inches (60.9 cm) in diameter, with the towing wire left in its normal operating position (through the various blocks) and either is wound back to the first block (in the gallows) or is suspended at the end of the lifting block where its retrieval does not present a hazard to the crew and where it is readily visible from above.

          3.  In § 648.53, the table in paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.53
            DAS allocations.

            (b) * * *

                DAS Category
                1999-2000
                2000-2001
                2001-2002
                2002-2003
                2003-2004
                2004-2005
                2005-2006
                2006-2007
                2007-2008
                2008

                Full-time
                120
                120
                120
                120
                120
                34
                35
                38
                36
                60

                Part-time
                48
                48
                48
                48
                48
                14
                14
                15
                17
                24

                Occasional
                10
                10
                10
                10
                10
                3
                3
                3
                4
                5

          4.  In § 648.57, the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as follows:

            § 648.57
            Closed and regulated areas.
            (a) Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area. Through February 29, 2004, except as provided in §§ 648.52 and 648.58, no vessel may fish for scallops in or land scallops from the area known as the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area, and no vessel may possess scallops in the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area, unless such vessel is only transiting the area with all fishing gear unavailable for immediate use as defined in § 648.23(b), or there is a compelling safety reason to be in such areas without all such gear being unavailable for immediate use.  The Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request) is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated:

            (b) Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area. Through February 29, 2004, except as provided in §§ 648.52 and 648.58, no vessel may fish for scallops in or land scallops from the area known as the Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area, and no vessel may possess scallops in the Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area, unless such vessel is only transiting the areas with all fishing gear unavailable for immediate use as defined in § 648.23(b), or, there is a compelling safety reason to be in such areas without all such gear being unavailable for immediate use.  The Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request) is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated:

          5.  In § 648.58, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(4), (c)(6), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (e)(4)(ii), and (f) are revised to read as follows:

            § 648.58
            Sea Scallop Area Access Program.

            (c) * * *
            (1) Season. From March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004, vessels participating in the Sea Scallop Area Access Program may fish for or possess sea scallop in or from the respective Sea Scallop Access Areas specified in § 648.57, unless access to these areas is terminated as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.  Should the 2002 fishing year season be closed early (i.e., prior to February 28, 2003), as described in this paragraph (c)(1), the Sea Scallop Area Access Program season for fishing year 2003 will begin on April 1, 2003.

            (4) Number of trips--(i) Full and part-time vessels. Full and part-time vessels are restricted to a total of three trips into the Sea Scallop Access Areas, unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Administrator as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.  A trip to either Area counts as one trip.  Full-time and part-time vessels participating in the Sea Scallop Area Access Program may start no more than one of their three allowed Area Access Program trips before May 1, 2003, and no more than two of their three allowed Area Access Program trips before June 1, 2003.
            (ii) Occasional scallop vessels. Occasional vessels may fish only one trip under the Sea Scallop Area Access Program.  The one allowed trip may be conducted in either the Hudson Canyon or Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area specified in § 648.57 at any time during the season, as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

            (6) Possession and landing limits-- Unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Administrator as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, after declaring into the Sea Scallop Area Access Program in fishing year 2003, a vessel owner or operator may fish for, possess, and land up to 21,000 lb (9,525.4 kg) of scallop meats per trip, with a maximum of 400 lb (181.4 kg) of the possession limit originating from 50 bu (17.62 hl) of in-shell scallops.

            (e) * * *
            (2) Adjustment process for number of trips for Hudson Canyon and the Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas.  On or after October 1, 2003, if the scallop catch in the Hudson Canyon and/or Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas is less than the scallop TACs specified for fishing year 2003 in paragraph (f) of this section, the Regional Administrator may allocate one or more additional trips for the Hudson Canyon and/or Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Areas for full and part-time limited access sea scallop vessels that declared into and began a trip under the Sea Scallop Area Access Program prior to September 1, 2003.  This adjustment may be made if the Regional Administrator determines that such adjustment will likely allow the scallop TAC to be reached without exceeding it.  Notification of this adjustment to the trip limit will be provided to the vessel through a permit holder letter issued by the Regional Administrator.  Vessels with occasional permits would not be allocated an additional trip.
            (3) * * *

            (ii) Observer set-aside limits by area. The cumulative amount of scallop authorized under this part to be taken by vessels in excess of the possession limits specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section to defray the cost of an observer shall not exceed 2 percent of the overall TAC for each Sea Scallop Access Area.  The following amounts represent 2 percent of those TACs:
            (A) Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area - 2003 area access program - 155 mt;
            (B) Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area - 2003 area access program - 2 mt.

            (4) * * *

            (ii) Research set-aside limits and number of trips by area. The cumulative amount of scallop authorized under this part to be taken by vessels in excess of the possession limits specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section to defray the cost of sea scallop research shall not exceed 1 percent of the overall TAC for each Sea Scallop Access Area.  The following amounts represent 1 percent of those TACs:
            (A) Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area - 2003 area access program - 77 mt;
            (B) Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area - 2003 area access program - 1 mt.

            (f) Termination of the Sea Scallop Area Access Program--(1) Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area. The Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area fishery for fishing year 2003 shall be terminated as of the date the Regional Administrator projects that 7,585 mt of sea scallops (the TAC less the observer and research set-asides) will be caught by vessels fishing in the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area described in this section.  NMFS shall publish notification of the termination in the Federal Register.
            (2) Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area. The Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area fishery for fishing year 2003   shall be terminated as of the date the Regional Administrator projects that 103 mt of sea scallops (the TAC less the observer and research set-asides) will be caught by vessels fishing in the Virginia Beach Sea Scallop Access Area described in this section.  NMFS shall publish notification of the termination in the Federal Register.

      [FR Doc. 03-1025 Filed 1-15-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Transportation Security Administration
        49 CFR Part 1548
        [Docket No. TSA-2020-0001]
        Air Cargo Security Options To Mitigate Costs of Compliance With International Security Requirements

          AGENCY:
          Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Request for information (RFI).

          SUMMARY:

          The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requests information from the public, specifically the air cargo industry (including manufacturers, shippers, suppliers, warehouses, e-commerce fulfillment centers, third-party logistics providers, and air carriers) relating to compliance with international security standards for the transport of air cargo by commercial aircraft operators. Effective June 30, 2021, international standards require that all international air cargo carried by commercial aircraft operators (passenger and all-cargo) be either screened or be received from another TSA-regulated entity that has applied security controls and/or screened the cargo. TSA is seeking information regarding options to reduce the burden on U.S. and foreign all-cargo aircraft operators in complying with the international standard, such as security controls implemented throughout the supply chain that provide a level of security commensurate with the screening of cargo before transport. Because TSA does not expect these standards to require changes to current procedures for cargo transported on passenger aircraft, this RFI is focused only on all-cargo operations.

          DATES:
          Submit comments by July 9, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by the TSA docket number to this rulemaking, to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-wide, electronic docket management system. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Department of Transportation (DOT), which maintains and processes TSA's official regulatory dockets, will scan the submission and post it to FDMS.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: At the same location as the mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 1-800-647-5527.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          See the “Public Participation” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for format and other information about comment submissions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          John Beckius, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 telephone (571) 227-5411; email john.beckius@tsa.dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Participation

        TSA invites interested persons to participate in this action by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from any security program relating to this request. See the ADDRESSES section above for information on where to submit comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.
        Submitting Comments
        With each comment, please identify the docket number at the beginning of your comment, reference a specific portion of the requested information, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

        You may submit comments and material electronically, in person, by mail, or fax as provided under the ADDRESSES section, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit comments by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you would like TSA to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.

        TSA will file all comments to our docket address, as well as items sent to the address or email under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, in the public docket, except for comments containing confidential information and sensitive security information (SSI).1
           Should you wish your personally identifiable information redacted prior to filing in the docket, please so state. TSA will consider all comments that are in the docket on or before the closing date for comments and will consider comments filed late to the extent practicable. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date.

            1 “Sensitive Security Information” or “SSI” is information obtained or developed in the conduct of security activities, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential information, or be detrimental to the security of transportation. The protection of SSI is governed by 49 CFR part 1520.

        Handling of Confidential or Proprietary Information and Sensitive Security Information (SSI) Submitted in Public Comments

        Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or SSI to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the action. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        TSA will not place comments containing SSI in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. TSA will hold documents containing SSI, confidential business information, or trade secrets in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the public docket explaining that commenters have submitted such documents. TSA may include a redacted version of the comment in the public docket. If an individual submits a request to examine or copy information that is not in the public docket, TSA will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) FOIA regulation found in 6 CFR part 5.
        Privacy Act

        Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of our dockets by the name of the individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if an association, business, labor union, etc., submitted the comment). You may review the applicable Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) and modified on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).
        Reviewing Docket Comments and Documents

        You may review TSA's electronic public docket material on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, DOT's Docket Management Facility provides a physical facility, staff, equipment, and assistance to the public. To obtain assistance or to review items in TSA's public docket, you may visit this facility between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, or call 1-800-647-5527. This docket operations facility is located in the West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
        Availability of Document
        You can get an electronic copy of published documents through the internet by—

        (1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) web page at http://www.regulations.gov; or

        (2) Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR to view the daily published Federal Register edition; or accessing the “Search the Federal Register by Citation” in the “Related Resources” column on the left, if you need to do a Simple or Advanced search for information, such as a type of document that crosses multiple agencies or dates.

        In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Make sure to identify the docket number of this action.
        I. Background
        A. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Security Standards
        The Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention, established the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a specialized agency of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), charged with coordinating international air travel. ICAO's core mandate is to help member states achieve consensus on international civil aviation regulations, standards, procedures, and practices. Under the terms of the Chicago Convention, member states collaborate to implement and comply with ICAO security standards and recommended practices, and must send official notice to ICAO whenever their domestic regulatory framework differs from an established ICAO standard. Since its establishment, ICAO has issued more than 12,000 international standards and recommended practices (SARPs).
        Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention provides standards and SARPs concerned with the security of international air transport and is regularly amended to address evolving threats. Chapter 4.6 of Annex 17 (ICAO 4.6) includes security standards related to cargo and mail for safeguarding international civil aviation, especially to identify and/or detect the presence of concealed explosive devices or prevent the introduction of concealed explosive devices.

        In March 2013, ICAO revised the air cargo security standard in ICAO 4.6 to remove the distinction between cargo transported on passenger aircraft and cargo transported on all-cargo aircraft, i.e., the same security controls must be applied regardless of the commercial aircraft used for international transport of cargo.2
           On September 1, 2016, the ICAO Secretariat notified ICAO member states that they should phase out elements of their air cargo security frameworks that are inconsistent with the ICAO framework in the revised ICAO 4.6 3
           no later than June 30, 2021.

            2 The following provide the pertinent revised security standards in the revised ICAO 4.6 include:
          •Standard 4.6.1: Each Contracting State shall ensure that appropriate security controls, including screening where practicable, are applied to cargo and mail, prior to their being loaded onto an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations.
          •Standard 4.6.2: Each Contracting State shall establish a supply chain process, which includes the approval of regulated agents and/or known consignors, if such entities are involved in implementing screening or other security controls of cargo and mail.
          •Standard 4.6.5: Each Contracting State shall ensure that operators do not accept cargo or mail for carriage on an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations unless the application of screening or other security controls is confirmed and accounted for by a regulated agent, or an entity that is approved by an appropriate authority. Cargo and mail which cannot be confirmed and accounted for by a regulated agent or an entity that is approved by an appropriate authority shall be subjected to screening.

            3 The ICAO air cargo security framework recognize six “pillars” of supply chain security: Facility security, personnel security, training, screening, chain of custody, and oversight and compliance.

        The ICAO Secretariat identified three options for Chicago Convention member states to meet the requirements of revised ICAO 4.6 applicable to the international shipment of cargo:
        1. Subject all cargo to 100 percent screening before loading on a commercial aircraft.
        2. Establish a Known Consignor program, for entities that originate cargo and have procedures that meet common security rules and standards sufficient to allow the carriage of cargo or mail on any aircraft.
        3. Establish an alternative framework recognizing an entity other than a Regulated Agent (agent, freight forwarder or other entity conducting business with an operator) or Known Consignor that applies security controls to cargo or mail sufficient to allow its carriage on any commercial aircraft.4

            4 For example, manufacturers, shippers, etc., that implement sufficient security controls to allow transport of cargo on any commercial aircraft.

        In sum, member states must ensure that all international air cargo transported on commercial aircraft is either (1) screened to a level intended to identify and/or detect the presence of concealed explosive devices or (2) under appropriate security controls throughout the cargo supply chain to prevent the introduction of concealed explosive devices.
        B. United States Compliance With ICAO 4.6

        As previously noted, member states of the Chicago Convention must either ensure that all international air cargo is (1) screened to a level intended to identify and/or detect the presence of concealed explosive devices which may be used to commit an act of unlawful interference before being transported in an aircraft or (2) subject to appropriate security controls throughout the cargo supply chain to prevent the introduction of concealed explosive devices (i.e., a secure supply chain). Under 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(10), TSA is also required to ensure the adequacy of security measures for the transportation of cargo.
        U.S. requirements consistent with ICAO 4.6 already are in place for cargo transported by aircraft operators and foreign air carriers engaged in commercial passenger transportation,5
           because U.S. law already requires 100 percent of cargo loaded aboard commercial passenger aircraft to be screened.6

           To provide additional means of compliance with the requirements for cargo transported on passenger aircraft, TSA developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP), see 49 CFR part 1549, and also approves technologies that can be used to screen cargo.

            5 TSA's regulations require certain commercial aircraft operators and foreign carriers to operate under a TSA approved or accepted security program. TSA provides standard, or pre-approved programs, that covered aircraft operators and foreign air carriers may adopt to expedite the review process and reduce the burden for regulated parties. There are separate security programs that reflect differences among the industry, e.g., passenger or cargo and U.S. or foreign-based. TSA also has standard programs for operations that support the aviation industry, such as Indirect Air Carriers and Certified Cargo Screening Facilities. TSA's current security programs for cargo transported on passenger aircraft include measures that meet the Chicago Convention's standards.

            6 49 U.S.C. 44901(g).

        Through this notice, TSA is seeking options to similarly mitigate the burden of applying additional security requirements consistent with ICAO 4.6 as applied to all-cargo aircraft. ICAO suggests that one solution to increase supply chain security capacity is for member states to recognize “other entities” who demonstrate a system of government approved security controls sufficient to prevent the introduction of concealed explosives into the air cargo supply chain.7
           Under the ICAO framework, such a government-approved entity may introduce cargo into the secured supply chain without screening if the entity has implemented appropriate security controls at all times while the cargo is in its custody.

            7 See supra n. 2.

        TSA is considering whether the option of relying on other security controls, consistent with the ICAO framework and providing a commensurate level of security, could be applied to entities not currently regulated by TSA in order to meet TSA and ICAO security standards. Such a program could enable manufacturers, warehouse operators, or other shipping or logistics services providers to be recognized by TSA as having a system of security controls that are sufficient to allow them to introduce cargo into the secure supply chain for all-cargo aircraft, without a need for screening.8

            8 This option would not be available to passenger aircraft. Cargo tendered for transport on passenger aircraft would still be subject to screening before loading in order to meet the screening requirement in 49 U.S.C. 44901 and TSA's implementing regulations and programs.

        This regulatory framework would align conceptually with TSA's Certified Cargo Screening Standard Security Program (CCSSSP), under which certain types of shippers operate.9
           By complying with the security controls required of a shipper Certified Cargo Screening Facility (shipper CCSF) under the CCSSSP, cargo may be transported on passenger aircraft without the type of screening generally required for cargo on passenger aircraft because the security controls applied by the shipper CCSF have been determined by the TSA Administrator to provide a commensurate level of security with the standards established in 49 U.S.C. 44901.

            9 Generally referred to as “shipper CCSFs,” these shippers operate as Certified Cargo Screening Facilities pursuant to 49 CFR part 1549.

        II. Request for Information
        A. General
        Information provided in response to this notice will be used to inform the possible development of a new regulation, order, or security program to allow the transport of air cargo on all-cargo aircraft without additional screening based on the TSA-recognized security controls implemented by other entities, such as manufacturers and shippers. To support this effort, TSA is specifically seeking public comment relating to the operational concerns, costs, and benefits of such a program, if it were to be implemented. TSA will use the results of this RFI, in part, to determine whether such program would be of value to U.S. businesses and taxpayers.
        TSA's existing regulatory structure permits TSA to impose a 100 percent screening requirement for all-cargo aircraft through revision of TSA's standard security programs.10
           TSA acknowledges that a 100 percent screening requirement will increase the cost of transporting air cargo and therefore seeks to identify less costly alternatives. Any alternatives to 100 percent screening would need to be consistent with the ICAO framework and provide a level of security commensurate with TSA's screening requirements in terms of their effectiveness in identifying and preventing threats to transportation security.

            10 See 49 CFR 1544.205 and 1546.205.

        Before developing such an option, TSA seeks comments on the broad areas outlined within this RFI and the approaches TSA can take to integrate existing requirements to meet the ICAO security standards in a manner that maximizes security benefits without imposing excessive, unjustified, or unnecessary costs.
        Commenters are asked to provide as much information or data on the potential costs to meet the revised air cargo security standards in ICAO 4.6. In some areas, very specific information is requested. Whenever possible, please provide citations and copies of any relevant studies or reports on which you rely, as well as any additional data which supports your comment. Explaining the basis and reasoning underlying your comment will also increase the relevancy of the information as TSA determines what, if any, options are feasible to industry, government, and the public to meet the revised ICAO standards. While specific cost information or data is preferable, general information may also be helpful.
        While complete answers are preferable, TSA recognizes that providing detailed comments on every question could be burdensome. TSA also does not expect that every commenter will be able to answer every question. Any information is appreciated and will be considered, regardless of whether it is a complete response.
        TSA encourages responses from all interested entities, not just the air transportation sectors to which any new regulation, order, or security program would apply. TSA also requests that each comment filed by a party or their representatives, explain their interest in this request, or the association/industry they represent, and how their comments may assist TSA.
        B. Specific Requests
        Please refer to the number of the specific question(s) when responding.
        1. Please comment on the existing combinations of security procedures in place in the warehousing, shipping, and other ground-based portions of the air cargo shipping industry, given the ICAO framework of physical security, personnel security, chain of custody, employee training, and oversight and compliance described above.
        2. Please comment on any existing security procedures, for example, quality controls, theft prevention measures, or employee training programs in place in the warehousing, shipping, and other ground-based portions of the air cargo shipping industry that could be adapted to meet any of the areas of the ICAO security control framework in a cost effective manner. Please also explain how these procedures could be adapted, and how TSA could assess and approve them.
        3. Please also comment on any additional security procedures, investments, or other actions that would be required for your business to establish a system of security controls that would meet the ICAO security control framework described above. Of those additional procedures, please comment on which procedures would be most expensive and least expensive to implement and maintain, and please explain why.
        4. Please comment on whether warehouses, e-commerce fulfillment centers, third-party logistics providers, or other owners or operators of facilities that process cargo for air transport have an economic incentive to seek TSA recognition of their security controls, rather than pay the costs associated with 100 percent screening of their air cargo shipments by another party.
        5. Assuming that TSA develops an air cargo regulatory program for manufacturers, warehouses, third-party logistics providers, or others consistent with the ICAO security framework described above, please comment on how the program could reduce costs, and how much the costs could be reduced.

        6. Assuming that TSA develops a regulatory or program framework for the secure warehousing, processing, packing, and tendering for shipment of air cargo consistent with the ICAO standard described above, please comment on the economic data, metrics, calculations, or procedures that TSA should consider when evaluating the costs and benefits of such a framework. Please also identify any relevant publicly available datasets or other information that may inform TSA's decisions.
        7. Assuming that TSA implements a new regulatory or standard security program consistent with the ICAO standard described above, please comment on the likely operational implications of such a program for your business practices, including but not limited to any future audits, control standards, account databases, or training requirements that may be required. Please also comment on any potential solutions TSA should consider.
        8. Please comment on any new technologies in use or under development that may be relevant to the future secure transport of air cargo, and how those technologies could be used to establish an air cargo security framework consistent with the ICAO standards for security controls described above.
        9. Please comment on whether an industry day or other industry specific forum focused on the ICAO standard described above could be useful, and please comment on any specific agenda that should be addressed.

          Dated: March 30, 2020.
          David P. Pekoske,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2020-06929 Filed 4-9-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-05-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [ID 082503D]
        RIN  0648-AQ98
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Individual Fishing Quota Program; Community Purchase

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of Availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 66 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).  This amendment would modify the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program by revising the definition of an eligible quota share holder to allow eligible communities in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) to purchase and hold sablefish quota share (QS) for lease to and use by community residents.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 66 must be received at the following address by November 3, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP amendment may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Durall.  Comments may be delivered in person or by courier to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th St., Room 413-1, Juneau, AK, 99801.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile to (907) 586-7557, Attn:  Lori Durall.  Copies of Amendment 66 to the FMP and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action by the Council and NMFS are available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907) 586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, (907) 586-7228, or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving an FMP, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment.
        Amendment 66 was adopted by the Council in April 2002.  If approved by NMFS, this amendment would allow certain remote communities to designate non-profit entities to purchase and hold QS and lease the resulting IFQ to community residents.  To be eligible for this community purchase program, a community would have to have of population of less than 1,500 people, no road access to larger communities, and have direct access to marine waters of the GOA.  Further, the Council determined which communities would meet these criteria and this list of eligible communities would be specified in the implementing rules.  A non-profit entity of an eligible community also would have to meet criteria to receive QS by transfer and would have to submit annual reports.  These non-profit entities would be subject to restrictions on the amount of quota they may hold individually and in the aggregate, on the sale of QS, and the leasing of IFQ.
        Amendment 66 would be necessary to allow sablefish QS to be purchased and held by eligible communities because the current FMP limits the transfer of QS, with certain exemptions, to individuals and not corporate entities.  The IFQ Program for Pacific halibut is implemented under authority of the North Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) instead of the Magnuson -Stevens Act, and the Council does not have a halibut fishery management plan.  If this proposed policy change is approved, however, the halibut and sablefish components would be implemented with the same rules.  Amendment 66, and its companion regulatory amendment for halibut also is designed to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate that Regional Councils must take into account the importance of fishery resources to communities in order to provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

        Public comments are being solicited on the amendment through the end of the comment period (see DATES).  A proposed rule that would implement the amendment may be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS' evaluation under  Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures.  All comments received by the end of the comment period whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment.  To be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment, comments must be received by the close of business on the last day of the comment period on the amendment; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Dated:  August 27, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-22343 Filed 8-29-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        RIN 0648-AY27
        Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa Longline Gear Modifications To Reduce Turtle Interactions

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) proposes to amend the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FEP). If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 5 would establish gear configuration requirements for the U.S. pelagic longline fishery based in American Samoa. The proposed action is intended to reduce interactions between the fishery and Pacific green sea turtles, which will enable American Samoa longline fishing vessels to continue operations, while providing for the long-term survival, recovery, and sustainability of Pacific green sea turtle populations.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 5, including an environmental assessment, must be received by July 22, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of Amendment 5, including an environmental assessment, identified by 0648-AY27, are available from http://www.regulations.gov, or the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, http://www.wpcouncil.org. Comments on the amendment, including the environmental assessment, may be sent to either of the following addresses:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: Mail written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted to one of the above two addresses to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required name and organization fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adam Bailey, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries Division, 808-944-2248.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Pelagic fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the FEP, developed by the Council, and approved and implemented by NMFS. The Council prepared Amendment 5 to address pelagic fishing concerns in American Samoa, and submitted the amendment to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        The pelagic longline fishery based in American Samoa is predominantly composed of longline vessels over 40 ft (12 m) in length. Longline vessels set 30-50 miles (48-80 km) of monofilament main line and around 3,000 hooks per day. In 2010, 26 vessels made a total of 4,328 sets, and landed about 222,400 albacore (most destined for the Pago Pago cannery), and smaller amounts of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas. The fishery also takes wahoo, oilfish, blue marlin, blue sharks, and other pelagic fish.

        The American Samoa longline fishery occasionally interacts with (hooks or entangles) Pacific green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Most of the interactions occur in near-surface waters, that is, shallower than 100 m, and most injuries to green sea turtles are fatal. To reduce these interactions, the Council proposes to amend the FEP to require longline fishermen to use a suite of gear configurations designed to ensure that longline hooks are set to fish at a depth of 100 meters or deeper, away from the primary turtle habitat.

        This action would require fishermen on the large vessels (Classes B, C, and D) to use float lines that are at least 30 meters long, and maintain a distance of 70 m between floats and adjacent branch lines with hooks. Fishermen on these large vessels would be required to deploy at least 15 branch lines with hooks between floats. The possession or landing of more than 10 swordfish, which tend to inhabit near-surface waters, would also be prohibited to help ensure that shallower longline fishing does not occur.
        While green sea turtles are expected to benefit from the proposed gear modifications, the action is not expected to change the conduct of the fishery in terms of the number of vessels, areas fished, and fish targeted. Thus, there would not likely be adverse impacts on target and non-target species. No negative impacts are expected on seabirds, marine mammals, essential fish habitat, habitat areas of particular concern, marine protected areas, fishing communities, or safety at sea.
        Comments on Amendment 5 must be received by July 22, 2011 to be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendment. NMFS soon expects to publish and request public comment on a proposed rule that would implement the measures recommended in Amendment 5.

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

          Dated: May 17, 2011.
          Margo Schulze-Haugen,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-12648 Filed 5-20-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P