        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223
        [Docket No. 040127028-4028-01; I.D 012104B]
        RIN 0648-AR69
        Sea Turtle Conservation; Restrictions to Fishing Activities

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to prohibit the use of all pound net leaders from May 6 to July 15 each year in the Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the James and York Rivers downstream of the first bridge in each tributary.  Additionally, NMFS proposes to prohibit the use of all leaders with stretched mesh greater than or equal to 8 inches (20.3 cm) and leaders with stringers from May 6 to July 15 each year in the Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay outside the aforementioned area, extending to the Maryland-Virginia State line and the Rappahannock River downstream of the first bridge, and from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel to the COLREGS line at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.  This action, taken under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), is necessary to conserve sea turtles listed as threatened or endangered.

          DATES:

          Comments on this action are requested, and must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
            ADDRESSES) by no later than 5 p.m., eastern daylight time, on March 8, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this action or requests for copies of the literature cited, the draft Environmental Assessment (EA), or Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis should be addressed to the Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Comments and requests for supporting documents may also be sent via fax to 978-281-9394.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Upite (ph. 978-281-9328 x6525, fax 978-281-9394), or Barbara Schroeder (ph. 301-713-1401, fax 301-713-0376).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA.  Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles are listed as endangered.  Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.  Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking listed sea turtles—even incidentally—is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206 for threatened sea turtles.  The incidental take of endangered species may only legally be authorized by an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 7 or 10 of the ESA.

        On June 17, 2002, based upon the best available information on sea turtle and pound net interactions at the time, NMFS issued an interim final rule that prohibited the use of all pound net leaders measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) and greater stretched mesh and all pound net leaders with stringers in the Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay and portions of the Virginia tributaries from May 8 to June 30 each year (67 FR 41196).  Included in this interim final rule was a year-round requirement for fishermen to report all interactions with sea turtles in their pound net gear to NMFS within 24 hours of returning from a trip, and a year-round requirement for pound net fishing operations to be observed by a NMFS-approved observer if requested by the Northeast Regional Administrator.  The interim final rule also established a framework mechanism by which NMFS may make changes to the restrictions and/or their effective dates on an expedited basis in order to respond to new information and protect sea turtles.  Under this framework mechanism, if NMFS believes that sea turtles may still be vulnerable to entanglement in pound net leaders after June 30 of any given year, the Assistant Administrator, NOAA, (AA) may extend the effective dates of the restrictions established by the regulations.  Additionally, if monitoring of pound net leaders during the time frame of the gear restriction, May 8 through June 30 of each year, reveals that one sea turtle is entangled alive in a pound net leader less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh or that one sea turtle is entangled dead and NMFS determines that the entanglement contributed to its death, then NMFS may determine that additional restrictions are necessary to conserve sea turtles and prevent entanglements.  As a result of sea turtle entanglements observed during the spring of 2003, NMFS issued a temporary final rule restricting all pound net leaders throughout the Virginia Chesapeake Bay and portions of the tributaries from July 16 to July 30, 2003, pursuant to the framework mechanism of the 2002 interim final rule (68 FR 41942, July 16, 2003).
        Sea Turtle and Pound Net Interactions

        Sea turtles have been documented entangled in pound net leaders.  Data collected in 1983 and 1984 found turtle entanglement in pound nets with small mesh leaders (defined as 8 to 12 inch (20.3 to 30.5 cm) stretched mesh) to be insignificant, but in 173 of the pound nets examined with large mesh leaders (defined as >12 to 16 inch (>30.5 to 40.6 cm) stretched mesh), 30 turtles were found entangled (0.2 turtles per net; Bellmund et al., 1987).  This study also found that in 38 nets examined with stringer mesh, 27 turtles were documented entangled (0.7 turtles per net).  The sampling area was concentrated in the western Chesapeake Bay, with some sampling occurring in other portions of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.  Surveys in 1979 and 1980 also found that most of the pound net leaders that captured sea turtles consisted of large mesh (12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 cm)) and were found in the lower Chesapeake Bay (Lutcavage 1981).
        In recent years, pound nets have been observed, and sea turtles have been documented in the leaders.  During the spring of 2001, with limited monitoring effort, a NMFS observer reported finding five moderately to severely decomposed loggerhead turtles against four different large mesh pound net leaders (approximately 13 inch (33 cm) mesh) along the Eastern shore of Virginia in early June.  Given the decomposition state and lack of multiple wrapped, entangling line around the turtles, these turtles were determined to be not entangled in the leaders, and the cause of death was uncertain.  Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) law enforcement agents also documented one live and three dead sea turtles in pound net leaders along the Eastern shore during the spring of 2001.  The live turtle was entangled in a leader with greater than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh, but the leader mesh size of the other entanglements was not recorded.  Additionally, during June of 2000, VMRC law enforcement agents reported disentangling two live sea turtles from two Eastern shore leaders with greater than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh.
        To better understand the interactions between sea turtles and pound net gear, NMFS conducted pound net monitoring during the spring of 2002 and 2003.  In 2002, NMFS monitored the active pound nets (n=70) throughout the Virginia Chesapeake Bay from April 25 to June 1.  As the 2002 interim final rule was not yet in place, approximately 8 of the leaders surveyed had stretched mesh greater than or equal to 12 inches (30.5 cm) or leaders with stringers.  Eleven sea turtles were found in pound net gear, but not all of the mortalities could be directly attributed to interactions with pound nets.  Four sea turtles were found entangled in leaders, including two dead Kemp's ridley and two dead loggerhead sea turtles.  One of the Kemp's ridleys was found in a leader with 8 inch (20.3 cm) stretched mesh, one loggerhead was found in a leader with stringers, and the other two animals were found in leaders with 14 inch (35.6 cm) stretched mesh.  Based upon necropsy reports, constriction wounds, and the magnitude of entanglement, entrapment in pound net leaders was determined to be the cause of death of these animals.  Two additional loggerhead sea turtles were found alive in pound net leaders, impinged on the leaders with their head and front flippers through the mesh.  These two animals were observed as not being able to swim off of the leaders under their own ability.  One moderately decomposed loggerhead was found in the top line of a leader, but given the lack of tight multiple wraps of line around the turtle, it was inconclusive as to whether it was entangled before death or whether it washed into the net after having died elsewhere.  Four moderately to severely decomposed loggerheads were found in leaders, but due to their decomposition state and lack of entanglement in the mesh, it appeared that the animals floated into the nets.  These four sea turtles were not considered as entangled in or impinged on the pound net leaders.

        From April 21 to June 11, 2003, NMFS monitored the active pound net leaders (n=56) with stretched mesh measuring less than 12 inches (30.5 cm).  This monitoring effort resulted in the documentation of 17 sea turtles found in pound net leaders.  Of the 17 sea turtles, five sea turtles were entangled in pound net leaders, of which two were loggerheads (one dead) and three were Kemp's ridleys (two dead).  There is sufficient information to conclude that the death of these turtles was attributable to entanglement in the pound net leaders given the degree of entanglement and multiple wrapping of line around their flippers, their decomposition state (fresh dead to moderately decomposed), and their buoyancy (negatively buoyant, which typically suggests recent mortality).  Additionally, 12 sea turtles were found held against, or impinged on, pound net leaders by the current.  Of these 12 impingements, 10 were loggerhead sea turtles (one dead), one was an alive Kemp's ridley sea turtle, and one alive sea turtle's species identification was unable to be determined.  Two of these live animals had their head and/or flipper through the leader mesh, but when observed, the line was not wrapped multiple times around the turtle.  As the impinged turtles were not observed being able to move vertically on the net, if a turtle could not breathe from the position where it was impinged, it would have a low likelihood of survival if it remained on the net for longer than approximately an hour.  Of the 11 live impingements, approximately 7 were found underwater, unable to reach the surface to breathe, with an average of 3 hours until slack tide.  Eleven of the 17 incidents involved leaders measuring 11.5 inches (29.2 cm) stretched mesh, while six of the sea turtles were entangled in or impinged on 8 inch (20.3 cm) stretched mesh leaders.  In 2002 and 2003, most of the observed sea turtles were found in nets along the Eastern shore of Virginia, but three turtles were found in leaders in the Western Chesapeake Bay.

        Sea turtle entanglements in pound net leaders are difficult to detect.  The sea turtles previously observed in leaders were found at depths ranging from the surface to approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) under the surface.  The ability to observe a turtle below the surface depends on a number of variables, including water clarity, sea state, and weather conditions.  Generally, turtles entangled more than a few feet below the surface cannot be observed due to the poor water clarity in the Chesapeake Bay.  In 2001 and 2002, side scan sonar was used to attempt to detect sub-surface sea turtle entanglements; no verified sea turtle acoustical signatures were observed during these surveys (Mansfield et al., 2002a; Mansfield et al., 2002b).  However, the effectiveness of side scan sonar surveys are limited by weather and sea conditions (e.g., suspended sediments are reflected by the sonar and monitoring is only successful in calm seas), and the acoustical signature may vary with the sea turtle's orientation and location in the net, size, and decomposition state (Mansfield et al. 2002a; Mansfield et al. 2002b).  Sonar surveys have potential in detecting sub-surface turtle entanglements and impingements, but given the caveats, the results obtained to date must be treated cautiously.  While most of the previously observed sea turtles were found near the surface, it remains unclear whether the visual surface monitoring biased the location of the take results.  Sea turtles may be found throughout the water column given their preferences for water temperature (e.g., generally greater than 11° C) and foraging (e.g., loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys in Virginia are primarily benthic foragers).  Mansfield and Musick (2003) found that 7 sea turtles (6 loggerheads and 1 Kemp's ridley) tracked in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay from May 22 to July 17, 2002, dove to maximum depths ranging from approximately 13.1 ft (4 m) to 41 ft (12.5 m).  While the percentage of time sea turtles spend at the surface compared to at depth is still being clarified, sea turtles may be found throughout the water column.  As pound net leader characteristics are generally consistent from top to bottom, it is probable that more sea turtles are in pound net leaders than are observed or reported and the previous monitoring efforts represent a minimum record of sea turtle entanglement and impingement.
        The 2002 and 2003 monitoring results documenting the entanglement of sea turtles in leaders with less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh represents new information not previously considered in prior assessments of the Virginia pound net fishery, and entanglements in and impingements on these leaders appear to be more of a significant problem than originally believed.  As such, additional restrictions are warranted to prevent sea turtle entanglement in and impingement on pound net gear.
        Spring Sea Turtle Stranding Event
        High strandings of threatened and endangered sea turtles are documented on Virginia beaches each spring.  The magnitude of this stranding event has increased in recent years.  During May and June, total reported Virginia sea turtle strandings were 84 in 1995, 85 in 1996, 164 in 1997, 183 in 1998, 129 in 1999, 161 in 2000, 256 in 2001, and 180 in 2002.  In 2003, preliminary data indicate that 312 dead sea turtles stranded on Virginia beaches during May and June, with most of these occurring during the latter half of June.  Strandings have also been elevated in July, generally the first half of the month.  For instance, in 2003, the stranding peak occurred during the last two weeks of June, but strandings remained consistent through the second week of July, with a preliminary total of 48 turtles stranding from July 1 to 15.  Furthermore, from 1996 to 2003, strandings were generally elevated during the first half of July, with an average of 23 strandings documented from July 1 to 15.  In the latter half of July, strandings typically decrease; from 1996 to 2003, an average of 11 strandings were documented from July 16 to 31.
        Most of the stranded sea turtles in Virginia have been threatened loggerheads, but endangered Kemp's ridley, green and leatherback sea turtles have also stranded.  Out of 1,559 total strandings in May and June from 1995 to 2003, 1,372 loggerheads, 108 Kemp's ridleys, 28 leatherbacks, 1 green, and 50 unidentified turtles were found in Virginia.  The majority of stranded turtles have been of the juvenile/immature life stage.  Most of the stranded turtles reported in Virginia during the spring have been moderately to severely decomposed.  For instance, in the spring of 2003, approximately 85 percent of the strandings were either moderately to severely decomposed, compared to approximately 6 percent that were fresh dead.  The ability to conduct necropsies is compromised by the condition of the stranded animals, and severely decomposed turtles are not usually necropsied.  The majority of the stranded turtles that were examined by necropsy in the spring of previous years had relatively good fat stores and full stomachs/digestive tracts, suggesting that the animals were in good health prior to their death.

        From mid-May to mid-July 2003, approximately 47 percent of the stranded animals were found along the Chesapeake Bay side of the Eastern shore of Virginia, 23 percent were found in the Virginia Beach ocean area, 15 percent in the Western Bay, 8 percent along the oceanside of the Eastern shore, and 7 percent in the southern Chesapeake Bay areas.  While the distribution of sea turtle strandings in Virginia varies slightly from year to year, there has been a high concentration of stranded sea turtles found along the Eastern shore in recent years.  It is possible that some Virginia Chesapeake Bay turtle strandings are swept into the Chesapeake Bay from elsewhere, as the water patterns and currents entering the Chesapeake Bay could concentrate sea turtle strandings around the mouth with certain wind conditions (Valle-Levinson et al., 2001).  Similarly, southwesterly winds result in surface water outflows throughout the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, which could result in sea turtles being carried out of the Chesapeake Bay.  However, it is likely that in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, most mortalities have occurred relatively close to the stranding location (Lutcavage 1981).  A NMFS observer tagged 6 floating dead sea turtles during the spring of 2003, and 2 sea turtles were recovered the next day - one stranded approximately 500 yards (457 m) away on the Eastern shore and another was found 6-7 nautical miles (11.1-13 km) south of the Western Bay tagging location.

        NMFS has evaluated the potential sea turtle mortality sources in Virginia waters, and will continue to do so in the future.  While some turtles with traumatic carapace injuries, propeller-like wounds or imbedded fish hooks have been documented each year, no cause of mortality is obvious for the majority of turtles that strand.  Determining the cause of death in stranded sea turtles is difficult, given the level of decomposition of most stranded turtles and the lack of evidence, due in part to sea turtles' anatomy (e.g., hard carapace, scaly skin).  However, the circumstances surrounding the spring strandings are consistent with fishery interactions as a likely cause of some   perhaps a significant number   of sea turtles deaths and, therefore, strandings.  These circumstances include relatively healthy turtles prior to the time of their death, a large number of strandings in a short time period, no external wounds on the majority of the turtles, no common characteristic among stranded turtles that would suggest disease as the main cause of death, and turtles with finfish in their stomachs (which has been believed to indicate interactions with fishing gear (Bellmund et al., 1987) or bycatch discarded from vessels (Shoop and Ruckdeschel, 1982)).
        While a concentration of strandings has been consistently found in the vicinity of pound nets, and a number of dead floating sea turtles were documented around pound nets in recent years, a cause and effect relationship between pound net interactions and high spring strandings cannot be statistically derived based on the available data.  However, NMFS has documented that fishing with pound net leaders results in lethal and non-lethal take of sea turtles.  NMFS concludes that this constitutes sufficient evidence to form the basis for these proposed restrictions on pound net leaders.
        Impact of High Mortality on Sea Turtle Populations
        Sea turtles have been documented entangled in and impinged on pound net leaders, and the purpose of this proposed action is to prevent sea turtle entanglements in and impingements on Virginia pound net gear.  The documented interactions between sea turtles and pound net leaders, as well as the annual Virginia spring strandings, are of concern for the following reasons:   (1) All of the entangled, impinged and stranded animals are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA which means these species are in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered; (2) the level of strandings in Virginia has been elevated the last seven years, and there is no reason to believe that high spring strandings will abate in future years without regulatory action; (3) sea turtles have been observed entangled in leader mesh sizes smaller than what is currently restricted; (4) sea turtles have been observed impinged on leaders by the current, a phenomenon not previously believed to occur with such frequency, and impingements are likely to continue to occur on small mesh leaders in areas where impingements have been documented; (5) the greatest percentage of Virginia spring strandings in recent years has been along the southern tip of the Eastern shore, where a large number of pound nets are located; (6) approximately 50 percent of the Chesapeake Bay loggerhead foraging population is composed of the northern subpopulation, a subpopulation that may be declining; and (7) most of the stranded turtles have been juveniles, a life stage found to be critical to the long term survival of the species.

        Most loggerheads in U.S. waters come from one of five genetically distinct nesting subpopulations.  The largest loggerhead subpopulation occurs from 29° N. lat. on the east coast of Florida to Sarasota on the west coast and shows recent increases in numbers of nesting females based upon an analysis of annual surveys of all nesting beaches.  However, a more recent analysis limited to nesting data from the Index Nesting Beach Survey program from 1989 to 2002, a period encompassing index surveys that are more consistent and more accurate than surveys in previous years, has shown no detectable trend (B. Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 2002).  Thus, it is unclear whether the increase in documented sea turtle mortalities in Virginia could partly be a function of the status of the South Florida subpopulation of loggerheads, which make up approximately 50 percent of the loggerheads found in the Chesapeake Bay.  The northern subpopulation that nests from northeast Florida through North Carolina is much smaller, and nesting numbers are stable or declining.  Genetic studies indicate that approximately one-half of the juvenile loggerheads inhabiting Chesapeake Bay during the spring and summer are from the smaller, northern subpopulation (TEWG, 2000; Bass et al., 1998; Norrgard, 1995).  Approximately 3,800 nesting females are estimated for the northern subpopulation of loggerhead sea turtles (TEWG, 2000).  The impact of the high level of mortality experienced by loggerhead turtles each spring off Virginia on the population's ability to recover is of significant concern.  The northern subpopulation produces 65 percent males, while the South Florida subpopulation is estimated to produce 20 percent males (NMFS SEFSC, 2001).  As males do not appear to show the same degree of site fidelity as females, the high proportion of males produced in the northern subpopulation may be an important source of males for all loggerheads inhabiting the Atlantic.  The loss of the male contribution from the northern subpopulation may restrict gene flow and result in a loss of genetic diversity to the loggerhead population as a whole.  The loss of females from the northern subpopulation may preclude future reproduction, reducing the likelihood of both future survival and recovery of the northern subpopulation of loggerheads.  Given the vulnerability of these subpopulations to chronic impacts from human-related activities, the high level of spring sea turtle mortality in Virginia must be reduced to help ensure that these subpopulations of loggerheads will recover.

        Most of the turtles stranding in Virginia waters during the spring are of the juvenile/immature life stages.  The specific age at maturity for most sea turtles is unknown; the age of maturity for loggerheads occurs from approximately 21-35 years (TEWG, 2000).  Studies have concluded that sea turtles must have high annual survival as juveniles and adults to ensure that sufficient numbers of animals survive to reproductive maturity to maintain stable populations (Crouse et al., 1987; Crowder et al., 1994; Crouse, 1999).  Given their long maturation period, relatively small decreases in annual survival rates of both juvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles may destabilize the population, thereby potentially reducing the likelihood of survival and recovery of the population.  As such, the historical high level of mortality in Virginia plus the increase in loggerhead mortality documented during the last several years may negatively affect the recovery of the loggerhead population.
        Restrictions on Pound Net Leaders

        To conserve sea turtles, the AA proposes to prohibit the use of all pound net leaders from May 6 to July 15 each year in the Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (extending from approximately 37° 05′ N. lat., 75° 59′ W. long. to 36° 55′ N. lat., 76° 08′ W. long.) at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the portion of the James River downstream of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (I-64; approximately 36° 59.55′ N. lat., 76° 18.64′ W. long.) and the York River downstream of the Coleman Memorial Bridge (Route 17; approximately 37° 14.55′ N. lat, 76° 30.40′ W. long.).   Additionally, the AA proposes to prohibit the use of all leaders with stretched mesh greater than or equal to 8 inches (20.3 cm) and leaders with stringers from May 6 to July 15 each year in the Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay outside the aforementioned closed area, extending to the Maryland-Virginia State line (approximately 37° 55′ N. lat., 75° 55′ W. long.) and the Rappahannock River downstream of the Robert Opie Norris Jr. Bridge (Route 3; approximately 37° 37.44′ N. lat, 76° 25.40′ W. long.), and from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel to the COLREGS line at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.
        This prohibition of pound net leaders would be effective from 12:01 a.m. local time on May 6 through 11:59 p.m. local time on July 15 each year.  For the duration of this proposed gear restriction, fishermen would be required to stop fishing with pound net leaders altogether or pound net leaders measuring 8 inches (20.3 cm) or greater stretched mesh and pound net leaders with stringers, depending upon the location of their pound net site as indicated above.

        NMFS has sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a localized interaction between sea turtles and pound nets along the Eastern shore of Virginia and in the Western Chesapeake Bay.  Sea turtles have been observed in pound net gear along the Eastern shore in recent years.  Sea turtles have also been found impinged on and entangled in leaders in the Western Bay, during recent monitoring studies as well as surveys in the 1980s.  Entanglements in and impingements on pound net leaders have been documented in leaders with as small as 8 inch (20.3 cm) stretched mesh and in leaders with stringers.  Impingements occur when the sea turtles are held against the net by the current, which could happen with any mesh size (i.e., on leaders smaller than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh) in areas where impingements were previously documented (e.g., the southern portion of the Eastern shore, where currents appear to be strong).  At this time, NMFS cannot determine the current strength that results in impingements, but available data show that impingements have only occurred in certain areas, locations where observer reports and anecdotal information suggest currents are “strong”.  During 2003 monitoring efforts, there were few active pound nets found in the southern Chesapeake Bay outside the Eastern shore and Mobjack Bay (in the Western Chesapeake Bay) areas.  The area where leaders would be prohibited was defined to exclude those pound nets in locations where sea turtles have never been found entangled or impinged, despite monitoring efforts.  To prevent entanglements and impingements (leading to the potential subsequent drowning of sea turtles), NMFS proposes to prohibit all pound net leaders in a portion of the southern Chesapeake Bay.

        While there have not been any documented entanglements or impingements outside the southern Chesapeake Bay area where all pound net leaders would be prohibited, NMFS is proposing to restrict leader mesh size in the remainder of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay to less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh and prohibit the use of stringers, because the best available information shows that sea turtles have been entangled in pound net leaders with stretched mesh 8 inches (20.3 cm) and greater and in leaders with stringers.  Given that gillnets with less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh have been found to entangle sea turtles (Gearhart, 2002), there is the possibility that entanglements in leader mesh smaller than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh could occur.  However, given the differences between gillnet gear and pound net leaders (e.g., monofilament versus multifilament material; drift, set, and runaround versus fixed stationary gear; gilling vs. herding fishing method), the lack of reported entanglements in pound net leaders with stretched mesh less than 8 inches (20.3 cm), and the lack of reported impingements in the area in which leader mesh size would be restricted, NMFS believes that allowing the use of leaders but restricting the stretched mesh size to less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) is protective of sea turtles.  NMFS does not expect sea turtle impingements on pound net leaders to occur outside the leader prohibited area given the lack of observed impingements on pound net leaders, which appears to be related to geographical location and current strength.  No sea turtles have been found entangled in or impinged on the pound or heart of pound net gear to date, and as such, the use of those components of the pound net gear is not restricted.

        From 1994 to 2003, the average date of the first reported stranding in Virginia was May 13.  However, sea turtle mortality would have occurred before the animals stranded on Virginia beaches.  In order for the proposed pound net restrictions to reduce sea turtle interactions with pound net leaders, the proposed measures should go into effect at least one week prior to the stranding commencement date, or on May 6 each year.  Implementing restrictions on this date would ensure protective measures would be in place at the time when sea turtles are expected to be in the Chesapeake Bay and are becoming vulnerable to mortality sources.  Note that this is two days earlier than the date of the restrictions enacted in the 2002 interim final rule, as the date was modified based upon updated stranding information.  Additionally, water temperature data support implementation of the proposed measures on May 6.  Mansfield et al. (2001) and Mansfield and Musick (2003) state that analyses by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science have estimated that sea turtles migrate into the Chesapeake Bay when water temperatures warm to approximately 16 to 18° C.  However, sea turtles do frequent waters as cool as 11° C (Epperly et al., 1995).  From 1999 to 2003, the average water temperature on May 6 at the NOAA National Ocean Service Kiptopeke, Virginia station was 15.7° C, with average water temperatures increasing to 16.3° C on May 7 and 17.1° C on May 8.   An additional analysis conducted by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center found that in week 18 (April 30 to May 6) and week 19 (May 7 to May 13), approximately 85 percent and 90 percent, respectively, of the area encompassing the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (from the COLREGS line to the 20 m (65.6 ft) depth contour) contained sea surface temperatures of 11° C and warmer (NMFS, unpub. data, 2003).  This indicates that water temperatures around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay are within sea turtles' preferred temperature range in early May and, therefore, supports the effective date of the proposed regulations.

        A previous study in 1983 and 1984 found that sea turtle entanglements in pound net gear increased slowly until early June, then increased sharply and reached a plateau by late June, with few entanglements occurring after June (Bellmund et al., 1987).  Since the early 1980s, there has not been a directed pound net monitoring effort from mid-June to July, but monitoring for sea turtle strandings has continued during this time frame.  As mentioned, typically the peak of Virginia strandings has been from mid-May to mid-June.  However, strandings data show that the peak can occur earlier and later.  For instance, in 2003, the stranding peak occurred during the last two weeks of June and strandings remained consistent through the second week of July (e.g., 48 sea turtles stranded from July 1-15, 2003).  The 2003 stranding peak was 10-15 days later than in 2001 and 2002 (Swingle and Barco, 2003).  Given that sea turtle presence in the Chesapeake Bay is dependent upon water temperature, which makes the stranding peak somewhat variable, it is important to ensure sea turtles are protected during the period of apparent vulnerability (as indicated by elevated strandings).  While there is some concern that entanglements could continue until the end of July or throughout the sea turtle residency period in the Chesapeake Bay, based upon the available data on sea turtle entanglements, impingements, and stranding patterns, the greatest potential for sea turtles to interact with pound net leaders would occur during May and June, and extend into the first half of July.

        The time frame of the 2002 interim final rule extended until June 30.  This end date was based on the previous Bellmund et al. (1987) study and the historical stranding patterns, showing that documented sea turtle entanglements and strandings, respectively, taper off at the end of June.  The 2002 interim final rule also contained a framework mechanism that enabled NMFS to extend the regulations for up to 30 days, but that measure was not included in this proposed action due to difficulties experienced with enacting regulations on a real time basis.  Given the variability in the stranding peak, the elimination of the framework mechanism, and the need to be protective of these listed species, the proposed measures would extend to July 15.  Implementation of the proposed measures during this time period is expected to prevent sea turtle entanglement in and impingement on pound net leaders in the spring.  Note that NMFS is seeking public comments not only on the measures included in this proposed rule (e.g., the closure to the use of all pound net leaders, its geographical extent, the restrictions on leader mesh size and stringers, and their geographical extent), but also on the suitability of the time frame of the proposed measures.  NMFS will consider comments on those topics as well as new developments in the scientific information base during the preparation of the final rule for this action.
        NMFS plans to continue analyzing the potential natural and anthropogenic mortality sources in Virginia inshore, nearshore, and offshore waters.  As part of this larger initiative, NMFS intends to continue to closely monitor sea turtle stranding levels and other fisheries active in the Chesapeake Bay and nearshore and offshore Virginia waters.  Further, NMFS is beginning to implement a coordinated research program with pound net industry participants and other interested parties to develop and test pound net leader modifications with the goal of eliminating or reducing sea turtle interactions while retaining an acceptable level of fish catch.  Additionally, in the near future, NMFS plans to holistically evaluate the impacts of pound nets (as well as other fishing gear types) on sea turtles throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, as part of the Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (NMFS 2001).

        The year-round reporting and monitoring requirements for this fishery established by the 2002 interim final rule remain in effect.  For instance, all Virginia pound net fishermen are still required to report all sea turtle interactions (e.g., dead or alive; entangled, impinged, or floated into their net) in any part of their pound net gear (e.g., pound, heart, or leader) to NMFS within 24 hours of returning from the trip in which the take was documented.  To date, NMFS has not received any reports from fishermen of sea turtles in their pound net leaders, but NMFS observers have documented these interactions.  In 2003, several live sea turtle captures in pounds were reported to NMFS.  Note that this action would change the telephone number to which to report sea turtle interactions from the telephone number previously included in the 2002 interim final rule.
        NMFS is also proposing to modify the titles of adjacent sections of regulatory text for sea turtles and fishery interactions, in order to make the appropriate sections of regulatory text more easily identifiable to readers.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 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 the preamble and in the SUMMARY section.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        The fishery affected by this proposed rule is the Virginia pound net fishery in the Chesapeake Bay.  The proposed action prohibits all pound net leaders in a portion of the southern Chesapeake Bay, and prohibits leaders with stretched mesh greater than or equal to 8 inches (20.3 cm) and leaders with stringers in the remainder of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, from May 6 to July 15 each year.  Non-preferred alternative 1 is the same as the proposed action, but the time period of the restrictions is from May 6 to June 30.  Non-preferred alternative 2 prohibits pound net leaders with 8 inches (20.3 cm) and greater stretched mesh, as well as leaders with stringers, in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay from May 6 to July 15.  Non-preferred alternative 3 is the same as the proposed action, but the pound and heart, in addition to the leader, must also be removed in a portion of the southern Chesapeake Bay.  Non-preferred alternative 4 prohibits all pound net leaders from May 6 to July 15 in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.  Finally, in addition to the mesh size restrictions in a portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, non-preferred alternative 5 modifies the pound net leader configuration in a portion of the southern Chesapeake Bay (i.e., the area where all leaders are proposed to be prohibited in the proposed action) so that the mesh height is restricted to one-third the depth of the water, the mesh must be less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) and held with ropes 3/8 inches (0.95 cm) or greater in diameter strung vertically a minimum of every 2 feet (61 cm) and attached to a top line.
        According to the 2002 VMRC data, there are 31 harvesters actively fishing pound nets from May 6 to July 15, with 10 harvesters located in the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay and 21 harvesters located in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.  These 31 harvesters fish approximately 40 pound nets in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay (=21 harvesters x 1.9 pound nets/harvester) and 30 pound nets in the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay (=10 harvesters x 3.0 pound nets/harvester).  Based on 2000 to 2002 data, annual landings per harvester were 280,996 pounds (127,457 kg) in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay and 257,491 pounds (116,795 kg) in the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.  Annual revenues per harvester were $64,483 and $105,298 in the upper and lower region, respectively.  From May 6 to July 15, landings per harvester were 96,946 pounds (43,973 kg) in the upper region and 95,380 pounds (43,263 kg) in the lower region.  Estimated revenues per harvester were $18,102 and $40,474 in the upper and lower region, respectively.
        Of the 31 harvesters, 45 percent of the harvesters (=[4 located in the upper region +10 located in the lower region]/31 total harvesters) fishing from May 6 to July 15 would be affected by this proposed action.  Approximately 34 pound nets in total would be affected by this proposed action, with 4 in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay and 30 in the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.

        In the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, two potential responses to the leader mesh size restrictions would be either choosing to not fish or switching to a smaller leader mesh size during the restricted period.  If a harvester chooses not to fish, their revenues decrease by 17.1 percent, since they incur revenue losses and the cost of removing their gear.  If a harvester switches to a smaller mesh leader, his or her revenues would be reduced by 8.4 percent.  For purposes of this analysis, we assumed the harvester will modify their gear since they want to minimize their economic loss.  Therefore, in the upper bay region, annual revenues may be reduced by 8.4 percent per harvester under the proposed action.  In the upper bay region, five of the six alternatives, not counting the “no action” alternative, are the same.  The proposed action and non-preferred alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 require the leader mesh to be less than 8 inches (20.3 cm).  As such, the impacts of those non-preferred alternatives would be the same as those for the proposed action in the upper bay area; annual revenues would be reduced by a low of 8.4 percent per harvester and 4 harvesters would be affected.  Under non-preferred alternative 4, all leaders must be removed from the Virginia Chesapeake Bay.  This alternative impacts all 21 harvesters in the upper region, and annual revenues per harvester would be reduced by 33.5 percent.
        In the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay where all leaders are prohibited under the proposed action, management actions vary between alternatives.  Under all of the alternatives, all 10 harvesters would be impacted.  With the proposed action, annual revenues per harvester would be reduced by a high of 43.2 percent.  The proposed action and non-preferred alternative 4 are the same, and annual revenues per harvester would be reduced by 43.2 percent.  The economic impact under non-preferred alternative 1 would be less compared to the proposed action (34.5 percent reduction in annual revenues versus 43.2 percent), because the restricted time period is shorter.  The impact under the non-preferred alternative 3 would be greater than the proposed action (50.3 percent reduction in annual revenues versus 43.2 percent), because additional labor costs are incurred to remove the heart and pound in addition to the leader.  Reductions in annual revenues per harvester would be less under non-preferred alternatives 2 and 5 in comparison to the proposed action, since these non-preferred alternatives allow a harvester to modify their gear and continue to fish.  In the lower bay area, the non-preferred alternative 2 would reduce annual revenues per harvester by 8.6 percent to 12.1 percent, depending on how many nets they set.  Under non-preferred alternative 5, annual revenues per harvester would be reduced by 12.1 percent.  Taking no action would not have economic consequences, at least in the short term.
        Annual industry revenues are $2.6 million for the pound net fishery.  Under the proposed action, industry revenues would be reduced by 18.3 percent (=$0.476M/$2.6M).  Under non-preferred alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5, industry revenues would be reduced by 14.8 percent, 4.9 percent, 21.2 percent, and 5.8 percent, respectively.  With the preceding five alternatives, 14 of 31 harvesters would be affected by the management actions.  Under non-preferred alternative 4, all harvesters would be affected and forgone industry revenues would be reduced by 34.9 percent. Again, these numbers assume fishermen will switch to a smaller mesh leader and continue to fish in those areas with leader mesh size restrictions, instead of removing their leaders entirely.
        This action does not proposed new reporting or record keeping requirements.
        This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal rules.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

          February 2, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
          Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

        1.  In § 223.205, paragraph (b)(15) is revised to read as follows:

          § 223.205
          Sea turtles.

          (b) * * *
          (15) Fail to comply with the restrictions set forth in § 223.206(d)(9) regarding pound net leaders; or

        2.  In § 223.206, paragraph (d) (2)(iv) is removed; (d) introductory text and (d)(2) paragraph heading are revised; and paragraph (d)(9) is added to read as follows:

          § 223.206
          Exemptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.

          (d) Exception for incidental taking.  The prohibitions against taking in § 223.205(a) do not apply to the incidental take of any member of a threatened species of sea turtle (i.e., a take not directed towards such member) during fishing or scientific research activities, to the extent that those involved are in compliance with all applicable requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(9) of this section, or in compliance with the terms and conditions of an incidental take permit issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

          (2) Gear requirements for trawlers-* * *

          (d) * * *
          (9) Restrictions applicable to pound nets in Virginia-(i) Area closed to use of pound net leaders.  During the time period of May 6 through July 15 each year, any pound net leader in the Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (extending from approximately 37° 05′ N. lat., 75° 59′ W. long. to 36° 55′ N. lat., 76° 08′ W. long.) at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the portion of the James River downstream of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (I-64; approximately 36° 59.55′ N. lat., 76° 18.64′ W. long.) and the York River downstream of the Coleman Memorial Bridge (Route 17; approximately 37° 14.55′ N. lat, 76° 30.40′ W. long.) must be removed from the water so that no part of the leader contacts the water.  All pound net leaders must be removed from the waters described in this subparagraph prior to May 6 and may not be reset until July 16.

          (ii) Area with pound net leader mesh size restrictions.  During the time period of May 6 to July 15 each year, any pound net leader in the Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay outside the area described in (i), extending to the Maryland-Virginia State line (approximately 37° 55′ N. lat., 75° 55′ W. long.) and the Rappahannock River downstream of the Robert Opie Norris Jr. Bridge (Route 3; approximately 37° 37.44′ N. lat, 76° 25.40′ W. long.), and from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (extending from approximately 37° 05′ N. lat., 75° 59′ W. long. to 36° 55′ N. lat., 76° 08′ W. long.) to the COLREGS line at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, must have only mesh size less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh and may not employ stringers.  Any pound net leader with stretched mesh measuring 8 inches (20.3 cm) or greater or any pound net leader with stringers must be removed from the waters described in this subparagraph prior to May 6 and may not be reset until July 16.
          (iii) Reporting requirement. At any time during the year, if a turtle is taken live and uninjured in a pound net operation, in the pound or in the leader, the operator of vessel must report the incident to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, (978) 281-9328 or fax (978) 281-9394, within 24 hours of returning from the trip in which the incidental take was discovered.
          (iv) Monitoring. Owners or operators of pound net fishing operations must allow access to the pound net gear so it may be observed by a NMFS-approved observer if requested by the Northeast Regional Administrator.  All NMFS-approved observers will report any violations of this section, or other applicable regulations and laws.  Information collected by observers may be used for law enforcement purposes.

      [FR Doc. 04-2633 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        RIN 0648-BC25
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 42 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 42 would revise the annual economic data reports (EDRs) currently required of participants in the Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) fisheries. The EDRs include cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS use to study the economic impacts of the CR Program on harvesters, processors, and affected communities. Amendment 42 is necessary to eliminate redundant reporting requirements, standardize reporting across participants, and reduce costs associated with the data collection. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be submitted on or before May 13, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by NMFS docket number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0111, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0111 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “submit a comment” icon on that line.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, telephone number) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 42, the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the categorical exclusion prepared for this action, and the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karen Palmigiano, 907-586-7228 or karen.palmigiano@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.
        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP on November 19, 2004. NMFS published final regulations implementing the Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) in 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). Regulations implementing the FMP, including the CR Program, are located at 50 CFR part 680.
        The CR Program is a limited-access system that allocates crab managed under the FMP among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Each year, the quota share (QS) issued to a person yields an amount of individual fishing quota (IFQ), which is a permit providing an exclusive harvesting privilege for a specific amount of raw crab pounds, in a specific crab fishery, in a given season. The size of each annual IFQ allocation is based on the amount of QS held by a person in relation to the total QS pool in a crab fishery. For example, a person holding QS equaling 1 percent of the QS pool in a crab fishery would receive IFQ to harvest 1 percent of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) in that crab fishery.

        As part of the CR Program, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented a comprehensive economic data collection program. The CR Program requires participants to complete an annual economic data report (EDR) based on harvesting and processing activities for that fishing season. The Council and NMFS use the EDR to assess the success of the CR Program and develop amendments to the FMP necessary to mitigate any unintended consequences of the CR Program. An annual EDR is currently required for four categories of participants in the CR Program fisheries: catcher vessels, catcher/processors, shoreside processors, and stationary floating crab processors.

        The information collected in the EDR is intended to provide comprehensive data to assist the Council and analysts in understanding the costs and benefits of the CR Program on harvesters' and processors' crab operations. Specifically, the Council and analysts use the data to examine changes in usage of the crab, excess harvesting and processing capacity, economic returns, variable costs and revenues, economic efficiency, and the stability of harvesters, processors and coastal communities. Data submission is mandatory (see regulations at § 680.6(a)). The EDR Program is administered by NMFS through contracts with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). NMFS collects fees from CR Program participants to recover the costs of administering the EDR (see regulations at § 680.44 for cost recovery fee collection under the CR Program). Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS collect fees necessary to recover the actual costs directly related to data collection of limited access privilege programs, such as the CR Program.
        Since the beginning of the CR Program, EDRs containing cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data have been collected by NMFS annually from the harvesting and processing sectors. This comprehensive approach to collecting data was implemented because the data collection programs in place at the time the CR Program began did not collect employment, cost, and sales information necessary to adequately examine how processing plants and vessels were being affected by the implementation of the CR Program. Collection of these data could help the Council understand the economic performance of crab fishermen, determine how this performance has changed after rationalization, and assess what aspects of these changes are specifically attributable to crab rationalization.
        In 2010, the Council initiated an analysis to modify the EDR based on the results of its data quality review process and public comment received during the Council's 5-year review of the CR Program. As part of this analysis, the Council considered input from a Center for Independent Experts review of the data collection program that was completed in October 2011 (see Section 2.4.3 of the analysis for additional detail). In February 2012, the Council recommended Amendment 42 to the FMP to modify the EDR. This proposed rule would implement the Council's recommended changes to the EDR under Amendment 42. The proposed modifications to the current EDRs are presented in the analysis for this action (see Section 2.2. of the analysis) and summarized below.
        Amendment 42 to the FMP is the Council's solution to these issues that would increase the quality of data collected, as well as reduce the burden on the submitters. If approved, this action would also reduce the amount of data collected from each of the three sectors: catcher vessels, shoreside and stationary floating crab processors, and catcher/processors. The Council's objective is to collect data that can be accurately and reliably reported, and to only collect data that is unavailable through other data collection programs.
        Annual Catcher Vessel Crab EDR
        Much of the data requested on the current annual catcher vessel Crab EDR is available through other sources (e.g., eLandings data collected by NMFS contains information on the specific quota accounts debited during a landing). Further, the quality of some data currently collected is poor and results in limited usefulness of the data for analyses (e.g., estimates of bait used are known to be inaccurate and unreliable). The Council recommended scaling back the data collection in the EDR, including eliminating the data collected in some categories so that only data that could be accurately and reliably collected would be required.
        The proposed catcher vessel EDR would continue the collection of revenue data, including landings by share type by crab fishery (pounds and revenue), and market-value or negotiated-price transfers of IFQ and community development quota (CDQ) received for harvest on the vessel during the calendar year, by fishery and harvest quota permit type (pounds and revenue). Data on payments to captains and crew would still be collected by fishery. Crew license and Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit numbers would also continue to be collected to facilitate analysis of demographic distribution of crew benefits. The proposed EDR would also require the reporting of vessel costs such as bait, food, and provisions purchased by crab fishery. This is slightly different from the current forms, which require submitters to include the quantity of these items used versus what is purchased. This new data on the quantity of items purchased would provide some understanding of expenditures and would be more easily reported by submitters than the quantity of items used.
        Annual Shoreside Processor/Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR
        Amendment 42 proposes an Annual Shoreside Processor/Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR (processor EDR), which combines the Annual Shoreside Processor Crab EDR and the Annual Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR into a processor EDR. The proposed processor EDR would eliminate several elements from the current data collections. Most of the deleted elements represent production data, which are similar to data found within the State of Alaska's Commercial Operators Annual Report (COAR). Crab processors must submit the COAR annually and report processing and plant costs in it. The production data that is not available through other sources could be estimated by NMFS based on landings data. Therefore, the proposed exclusion of these data from the processor EDR would not affect the analysis of EDR data and may decrease the submitter's time burden required to fill in the form.
        Revenue data collected under the proposed processor EDR would remain essentially the same. However, the proposed processor EDR would not require sales data by crab size or grade. Packing box sizes would continue to be reported by categories. Revenues from custom processing (an arrangement under which a person processes crab on behalf of another) would be added. Reporting of labor data (i.e., man-hours, total processing labor payments, and crab processing employees by residence) would not change from the status quo. Custom processing services purchased would be reported with some differences from the status quo (i.e., excluding crab size and grade and box size). Crab purchases by share type would still be collected.
        Annual Catcher/Processor Crab EDR
        Catcher/processors participate in both harvesting and processing. Therefore, the proposed catcher/processor EDR includes elements for the collection of harvesting and processing information.

        Amendment 42 would eliminate some of the current reporting requirements for catcher/processors, which have been deemed to be inaccurately reported. Several elements would remain, including sales by species by packing box size to affiliated entities and unaffiliated entities, custom processing revenue and production, payments to captains and crews, crew license, CFEC permit numbers and residence information, custom processing services purchased, and crab purchases by share type. All this information provides data that is not found in other data collections and is useful to analysts when assessing the CR Program.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 42 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). Public comments on the proposed FMP amendment must be received by the close of the comment period on Amendment 42 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 42. All comments received by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 42. Comments received after the end of the public comment period for Amendment 42, even if received within the comment period for the proposed rule, will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: March 7, 2013.
          Kara Meckley,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-05636 Filed 3-11-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 71
        [OST Docket No. OST-2010-0046]
        Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of North Dakota: Proposed Change for Mercer County, North Dakota, From Mountain to Central Time Zone

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Mercer County, North Dakota, petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation to move Mercer County from the mountain to the central standard time zone. The Department believes that the petition makes a prima facie case for the proposed time zone change, and we are using this notice to solicit public comment on the proposal.

          DATES:
          Public comments to the docket should be submitted by June 14, 2010. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. The Department has scheduled a public hearing on this issue from 7-10 p.m. (Mountain Daylight Time) on Friday, May 14, 2010, in the “Large Room” of the City Hall, 146 East Main Street, Hazen, North Dakota.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and DOT Docket ID Number OST-2010-0046) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name (Office of the Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2010-) for this notice at the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided and will be available to internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

            Docket: For internet access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W94-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9310, bob.ashby@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For more than a century, time zone boundaries in North Dakota have had an interesting and varied history. Beginning in 1883, mountain time was observed in the southwest portion of the state and a few locations in the northwest, with central time being used elsewhere. In 1929, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which then had jurisdiction over time zone boundaries, extended central time to cover all but a cluster of counties in the southwest corner of the state. Congress transferred the ICC's time zone boundary powers to the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1967. DOT exercises these powers under the provisions of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64).
        The Department has exercised its authority under this statute in several proceedings affecting North Dakota. In 1968, in response to a petition from the Governor of North Dakota, the Department placed 14 counties lying south and west of the Missouri River into mountain time. The change was made to accommodate the historical pattern of time observance in the state. In 1992, in response to a petition from the Board of Commissioners of Oliver County (which is adjacent to Mercer County), the Department moved that county into the central time zone. The Department took similar action with respect to Morton County and a portion of Sioux County in 2003.
        In 2000-2003, the Department considered a petition from the Mercer County Commission to move the county to the central time zone. The proposal was controversial in the county. A 2000 referendum favored changing to central time by a vote of 1,180 to 1038. However, a majority of written comments to the Department's docket favored keeping the county in the mountain time zone. After considering the comments, and while acknowledging the reasons supporting a change, the Department decided to deny the petition (68 FR 53082; September 9, 2003). The Department's decision noted that the Commission was free to file a new petition on the subject in the future. In a petition dated October 9, 2009, Mr. Lyle L. Latimer, Chairman of the Mercer County Board of County Commissioners, asked the Department to move the county from the mountain time zone to the central time zone.
        Under the Uniform Time Act, the Secretary of Transportation has authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is “regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.” The principal standard for deciding whether to change a time zone is defined very broadly to include consideration of all the impacts upon a community of a change in its standard of time. DOT has developed a series of questions to assist communities and us in determining the impact of a time zone change on the “convenience of commerce.” The Department considers information bearing on these questions in making its decision on a proposed time zone change.
        1. From where do businesses in the community get their supplies, and to where do they ship their goods or products?
        2. From where does the community receive television and radio broadcasts?
        3. Where are the newspapers published that serve the community?
        4. From where does the community get its bus and passenger rail services; if there is no scheduled bus or passenger rail service in the community to where must residents go to obtain these services?
        5. Where is the nearest airport; if it is a local service airport, to what major airport does it carry passengers?
        6. What percentage of residents of the community work outside the community; where do these residents work?
        7. What are the major elements of the community's economy; is the community's economy improving or declining; what Federal, State, or local plans, if any, are there for economic development in the community?
        8. If residents leave the community for schooling, recreation, health care, or religious worship, what standard of time is observed in the places where they go for these purposes?
        The current Mercer County petition stated several reasons for the request, outlining the Commission's view of why the change would meet the ”convenience of commerce” standard. The following is a summary of the reasons asserted in support of the request, which facially address several of the Department's questions.
        * Almost all supplies for businesses in Mercer County, including the coal and agriculture industries, are shipped from the Bismarck/Mandan area and other points in the central time zone.
        * Communications media (newspapers, radio and television stations) serving Mercer County are based in the Bismarck/Mandan area.
        * There is no regular passenger transportation serving Mercer County. Residents go to the Bismarck/Mandan area to catch planes, trains, and buses.
        * The main offices for several Mercer County energy industry facilities are located in Bismarck.
        * Many residents regularly travel to the Bismarck/Mandan area for recreation, health care, and other purposes.
        * Geographically, Mercer County is adjacent to the central time zone on the east, north, and south sides of the county, and is therefore well-located for inclusion in the central time zone. The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, located in Mercer County, is currently in the central time zone.
        The current petition represents that local government, industry, and education leaders recently brought the matter to the Commission's attention, requesting that the question of changing the time zone be raised. One change affecting the schools that has been mentioned is that a school in Stanton, in Mercer County, has closed, with Mercer students now being transported to a school in Center, in Oliver County, which is located in the central time zone. In addition, it has been suggested that commuting patterns may be more oriented toward areas in the central time zone than was the case in the 2000-2003 period.

        When DOT considers a petition to change a time zone boundary, the Department will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected officials in the area make a prima facie case for the proposed change. The Department believes that the Mercer County Commission's petition does make a prima facie case to change the time zone of Mercer County from mountain to central. Consequently, we are issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would move the county into the central time zone.
        The Department is opening a comment period on this matter. The public hearing is scheduled during this comment period, to give interested persons the opportunity to develop their thoughts and comments before the hearing and to respond in writing after the hearing, if they wish, to information presented at the hearing.
        The Department wants to make clear that, by issuing this NPRM, we are not taking a position on the merits of the petition. The Department does not have a “going-in position” on whether the county should remain in the mountain time zone or change to the central time zone. The effect of the NPRM is simply to begin a public input process that will include the opportunity for written comments and the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in the county.

        In making a decision based on what the Department learns from this process, the Department will focus on matters affecting the “convenience of commerce,” which we interpret broadly to encompass matters concerning the effects of a potential change on the economy of the jurisdiction in question, transportation, education and other public institutions, and other factors including the personal views of residents. Our ultimate decision will be based on information provided to the written docket or at the hearing. Commenters and participants at the public hearing should present all the information they can, in as great detail as possible, relevant to the Department's questions concerning whether the proposal meets the “convenience of commerce” standard. Comments that explain why mountain time or central time is preferable, in terms of the Department's “convenience of commerce” standard, will be of greater use to the Department than unexplained expressions of liking one outcome better than the other.
        We believe that the views of community members and leaders is an important part of the Department's decisionmaking process, on the assumption that the people and organizations who would be most affected by a proposed change are in the best position to advise us on the effects of a change. The process is not simply a matter of a vote, however. As in all rulemaking proceedings, the Department's decision is not made solely on the basis of the number of comments that persons favoring one outcome or another sent to us.
        If the Department decides to move Mercer County into the central time zone, we would time the decision to be effective on November 7, 2010, to coincide with the change from daylight to standard time. The purpose of this timing would be to minimize disruption from the change.
        Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Department has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature, affecting only the residents of a single county. We expect the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. While some small entities (i.e., small business or governmental entities in Mercer County) would be affected by setting their clocks differently than in the past, the economic effects of doing so would not be significant. Therefore, the Department certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Federalism
        This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). The NPRM does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
        Unfunded Mandates
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093; October 28, 1993), govern the issuance of Federal regulations that impose 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 NPRM would not impose an unfunded mandate.
        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this NPRM under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This NPRM is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety as defined by the Executive Order that may disproportionately affect children. The Department will consider any comments it receives about potential safety effects on children of a time zone change.
        Environment
        This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
        Privacy Act

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule does not create any information collection requirements covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71
          Time zones.

          Robert S. Rivkin,
          General Counsel.

        For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 71, as follows:

          PART 71—STANDARD TIME ZONE BOUNDARIES
          1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Secs. 1-4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended; secs. 2-7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat. 764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97-449, 15 U.S.C. 260-267; Pub. L. 99-359; Pub. L. 106-564, 15 U.S.C. 263, 114 Stat. 2811; 49 CFR 1.59(a), unless otherwise noted.

          2. Revise § 71.7 (a) to read as follows:

            § 71.7
            Boundary line between central and mountain zones.
            (a) Montana-North Dakota. Beginning at the junction of the Montana-North Dakota boundary with the boundary of the United States and Canada southerly along the Montana-North Dakota boundary to the Missouri River; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of that river to the midpoint of the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of the Yellowstone River to the north boundary of T. 150 N., R. 104 W.; thence east to the northwest corner of T. 150 N., R. 102 W.; thence south to the southwest corner of T. 149 N., R. 102 W.; thence east to the northwest corner of T. 148 N., R. 102 W.; thence south to the northwest corner of 147 N., R. 102 W.; thence east to the southwest corner of T. 148 N., R. 101 W.; thence south to the middle of the Little Missouri; thence easterly and northerly along the middle of that river to the midpoint of its confluence with the Missouri River; thence southerly and easterly along the middle of the Missouri River to the midpoint of its confluence with the western land boundary of Mercer County; thence south along the western county line of Mercer County to the southwest boundary; thence east and south along the southwestern county boundary of Morton County to the intersection with the boundary with Sioux County; thence west and south along the northern boundary of Sioux County to the center of State Highway 31; thence south along the center of State Highway 31 to the state border with South Dakota; thence east along the southern boundary of Sioux County to the middle of the Missouri River.

      [FR Doc. 2010-4372 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 08-1485; MB Docket No. 08-98; RM-11435]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Honolulu, Hawaii and Waimanalo, HI

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission requests comments on a joint channel substitution proposed by Pacifica Broadcasting Company (“PBC”) and Oceania Christian Church (“OCC”). PBC is the permittee of KALO-DT, DTV channel *10, Honolulu, Hawaii. OCC is the permittee of KUPU-DT, channel 38, Waimanalo, Hawaii. PBC and OCC requests the substitution of DTV channel *38 for channel *10 at Honolulu, Hawaii and DTV channel 15 for channel 38 at Waimanalo, Hawaii.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before August 27, 2008 and reply comments on or before September 11, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Harry F. Cole, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, 11th Floor, 1300 North 17th Street, Arlington, VA 22209.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shaun Maher, shaun.maher@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-98, adopted July 18, 2008, and released July 21, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via e-mail http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television, Television broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

            § 73.622
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the DTV Table of Allotments under Hawaii, is amended by adding channel *38 and removing channel *10 at Honolulu and by adding channel 15 and removing channel 38 at Waimanalo.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Clay C. Pendarvis,
            Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E8-17243 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 58 and 81
        [LA-31-1-7189b; FRL-7374-2]
        Modification of the Ozone Monitoring Season; Louisiana; and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Louisiana; Revised Geographical Designation of Certain Air Quality Control Regions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the EPA, are proposing to take direct final action to approve a request from the State of Louisiana to revise the geographical boundaries of the three Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in the State of Louisiana, which are the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas AQCR, the Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCR, and the Monroe-El Dorado AQCR. The EPA is also taking direct final action to shorten the ozone season for the Monroe-El Dorado and Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCRs, from year-round, to March 1 through October 31.
          In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are approving the State's request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no relevant adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive relevant adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by October 10, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours in advance.
          Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
          Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, H. B. Garlock Building, 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA 70810.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joe Kordzi of the EPA Region 6 Air Planning Section, at (214) 665-7186 and at the Region 6 address above.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This document concerns a modification to the geographical boundaries of the three AQCRs located in the State of Louisiana, and a revision to the ozone monitoring season for two of these AQCRs. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

          Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: August 27, 2002.
          Lawrence E. Starfield,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 02-22984 Filed 9-9-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 112205A]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting and public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 130th meeting to consider and take action on fishery ecosystem plans for the Western Pacific Region. The Council will also hold public hearings throughout Hawaii the week prior to its 130th meeting, as well as during the 130th meeting.

          DATES:

          The 130th Council meeting and the public hearings will be held December 20, 2005, and December 12-15, 2005, respectively. For specific dates, times and locations of the public hearings, and the agenda for the 130th Council meeting, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          ADDRESSES:
          The 130th Council meeting will be held at the Council's office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. The 130th Council meeting telephone conference call-in-number is: (866)867-8289, passcode 1683776. For Guam and International Participants, the call-in-number is: (813)376-1442, passcode 1683776.

          The public hearings will held in Hilo, HI; Kailua-Kona, HI; Lihue, HI; Kahului, HI; and Honolulu, HI. For specific dates, times and locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808)522-8220; FAX: (808)522-8226.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background Information
        The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has recently initiated a shift towards ecosystem approaches to fisheries management by drafting place-based fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs)to amend and reorganize the existing species-based fishery management plans (FMPs). The draft FEPs include the: (a) American Samoa Archipelago FEP, (b) Hawaii Archipelago FEP, (c) Mariana Archipelago FEP, (d) Pacific Pelagic FEP, and e) Pacific Remote Island Areas FEP.
        Recognizing that implementation of a successful ecosystem approach to fisheries management will require incremental steps as well as broad public and governmental agency collaboration, these FEPs lay the institutional framework on which further fisheries ecosystem management measures will be built. Pending final action by the Council and the approval of the FEPs by the Secretary of Commerce, the current FMP regulations will be reorganized and consolidated into place-based regulations specific to each FEP area however, no substantive changes to current regulations will occur at this reorganization stage.
        In October and November 2005, public hearings on the draft FEPs were conducted throughout the Western Pacific Region in the following areas: Tutuila, AS; Saipan, CNMI; Tinian, CNMI; Rota, CNMI; Honolulu, HI; and Tumon Bay, GU. At the 129th Council meeting held November 8-11, 2005, in Tumon Bay, Guam, the Council recommended to tentatively adopt the draft FEPs and to consider final approval at the next Council meeting.
        130th Council Meeting Agenda
        Tuesday December 20, 2005, 12 noon Hawaii Standard Time
        1. Introductions
        2. Approval of Agenda
        3. Western Pacific Fishery Ecosystem Plans
        A. Final Action on FEP Objectives
        B. Final Action on FEP Boundaries
        C. Final Action FEP Management Unit Species designations
        D. Final Action on Structure of Council Advisory Bodies
        E. Final Action on Regional and International Coordination and Community Participation
        4. Public Hearing
        5. Council Discussion and Action
        6. Update on Hawaii Bottomfish Overfishing
        7. Other Business
        Dates, Times, and Locations of Public Hearings
        (1) Hilo, HI - Monday, December 12, 2005, from 6-9 p.m. at the University of Hawaii-Hilo Campus Center, 200 W. Kawili St., Hilo, HI 96720;
        (2) Kailua-Kona, HI - Tuesday, December 13, 2005, from 6-9 p.m. at the King Kamehameha Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Rd., Kona, HI 96740;
        (3) Kauai, HI - Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from 6-9 p.m. at Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School, 4431 Nuhou St., Lihue, HI 96766.

        (4) Maui, HI - Thursday, December 15, 2005, from 6-9 p.m. at the Maui Beach Hotel, 170 Kaahumanu Ave., Kahului, HI 96732;
        (5) Oahu, HI - Tuesday, December 20, 2005, at 12 noon at the 130th Council meeting at the Council's office, 1164 Bishop St., Ste. 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813;
        Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during its 130th meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808)522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: November 22, 2005.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-23364 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S