        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        [Docket No. 040113012-4012-01; I.D. 121903D]
        RIN 0648-AR62
        50 CFR Part 648
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 4

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 4 (Framework 4) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that would allow for the transfer at sea of scup between commercial fishing vessels, and clarify the circumstances under which a vessel must operate with the specified mesh.  Regulations regarding the establishment and administration of research set-aside (RSA) quota would also be amended to clarify how unused RSA quota is to be returned to the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by February 9, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the Framework 4 document, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the Environmental Assessment (EA), and other supporting documents for the framework adjustment are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE  19901-6790.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.nmfs.gov.  Written comments on the proposed rule should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Framework 4 (Scup).”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Perra, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9153, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail paul.perra@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.  The management unit for scup (Stenotomus chrysops), specified in the FMP, is defined as U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border.  The FMP and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (general provisions), and H (scup) describe the process for specifying commercial scup measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  The states manage these fisheries within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's Interstate Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan.  The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish.
        The Council initiated Framework 4, pursuant to § 648.127(a), to reduce regulatory discards of scup that can occur when vessels catch large amounts of scup, which would exceed their trip limits, and must discard them.  The majority of these discarded scup would die, and thus be counted as fishing mortality, rather than landings that would be counted under the quota.  Framework 4 would allow the commercial scup fishery to be more efficient and to better achieve the management objectives of the FMP, specifically regarding attainment of optimum yield from the scup fishery.

        The commercial scup fishery is managed under a system that allocates the annual quota to three periods:   Winter I, January-April (45.11 percent); Summer, May-October (38.95 percent); and Winter II, November-December (15.94 percent).  During the Winter periods, the quota is monitored on a coastwide basis.  During the Summer period, the quota is also monitored on a coastwide basis, but the Commission uses a state-by-state allocation system to help manage the Federal quota.  The Federal commercial scup fishery is closed coastwide when the allocation for a period is reached.  In addition, any overages during a quota period are subtracted from that period's allocation for the following year.  Any quota overages by a state during the Summer period (whether or not the total Summer period quota is exceeded) are subtracted by the Commission from that state's Summer period share the following year.  Also, the regulations allow for the rollover of unused quota from the Winter I period to the Winter II period within a fishing year (68 FR 62250, November 3, 2003).  The final rule to implement the 2003 annual quota specifications (68 FR 60, January 2, 2003) established possession limits of 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) per trip during Winter I and 1,500 lb (680 kg) during Winter II, and specified that the Winter I possession limit be reduced to 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip when 80 percent of the commercial quota allocated to that period is projected to be harvested.
        Framework 4 proposes to allow the transfer at sea of scup between commercial fishing vessels, subject to certain requirements, to improve the enforceability of the transfers and to ensure that they are used to respond to occasional unanticipated catches, rather than targeted fishing.  Any amount of scup less than the possession limit could be transferred between two vessels, given the following conditions:   Transfers could only occur between vessels with Federal scup permits; transfers could only occur seaward of a boundary line that is roughly 20 nm from shore; the donating and receiving vessels must possess gear that meets the regulatory requirements at § 648.123(a)(2), (3), and (4) for commercial scup fishing gear; transfers could occur in the Winter I or Winter II periods only; only one transfer would be allowed per fishing trip for the donor vessel; after the donor vessel removes only enough scup to attain the scup possession limit, the transfer would include the entire codend; only scup and its normal bycatch could be transferred; only scup could be retained by the receiving vessel; while fishing for scup, all other nets must be stored below deck; and the donating and receiving vessels would report the transfer amount on the vessel trip report for each vessel.
        Framework 4 was initiated to address discard issues, because otter trawl vessels targeting scup occasionally make very large hauls consisting almost entirely of scup, which can easily exceed the scup possession limit.  Currently, when one of these large hauls occurs, most scup in the net are dead, and all scup in excess of the possession limit must be discarded.  Under Framework 4, the contents of a large scup haul could be transferred to another federally permitted scup vessel under prescribed circumstances.  This would convert regulatory discards of scup into landings, thus reducing bycatch and improving the efficiency of the commercial scup fishery.  Both the donor and receiver vessels could benefit financially.  The donor vessel could benefit by selling fish that would otherwise be discarded, and the receiver vessel could benefit from obtaining fish while using less resources than under a typical fishing operation.  It is possible that allowing the transfer of scup at sea could result in an earlier closure of the fishery because of higher scup retained catch rates.  However, discard rates of scup are expected to be less during a scup fishery closure, because vessels would not be directing on scup.  Thus, the proposed measures would serve to minimize bycatch and improve efficiency in fleet operations.
        It is the Council's intention that the framework adjustment apply only to the scup otter trawl fishery, and that the transfer of scup at sea would occur only under safe weather and sea conditions, as determined by the participants in any such transfer.
        NMFS proposes to implement the conditions on the transfer of scup at sea that the Council included in Framework 4, as summarized in this preamble.  In addition, NMFS has defined a boundary beyond which transfers of scup may occur.  This boundary is intended to improve enforceability of these regulations and to restrict transfers at sea to vessels already on the fishing grounds.  The proposed boundary line begins at 40°50′ N. lat., 70°00′ W. long., and runs south to connect the points at 40°15′ N.  lat., 73°30′ W. long.; 37°50′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long; and 35°30′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.  Further, NMFS proposes to modify the Council's recommendations that the transfer include the entire codend, and that only scup and its normal bycatch could be transferred by requiring that the donor vessel may only remove enough scup from the net to attain the scup possession limit for the donor vessel, and that, after removal of scup from the net by the donor vessel, only the entire codend, with all its contents, could be transferred to the receiving vessel.  This is intended to allow for retention of scup by the donor vessel up to its possession limit, and to improve at-sea enforcement of the proposed measures.
        Need for Correction/Clarification
        NMFS also proposes to clarify the circumstances under which a vessel must operate consistent with the specified mesh size restrictions for otter trawl vessels that possess scup.  This proposed rule would modify current regulations to indicate that no owner or operator of an otter trawl vessel that is issued a scup moratorium permit may possess 500 lb (226.8 kg) or more of scup from November 1 through April 30, or 100 lb (45.4.kg) or more of scup from May 1 through October 31, unless fishing with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) diamond mesh for no more than 25 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the codend, and with at least 100 continuous meshes of 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) mesh forward of the 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh, and all other nets are stored in accordance with § 648.23(b).  For trawl nets with codends (including an extension) less than 125 meshes, the entire trawl net must have a minimum mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.4-cm) throughout the net.  Scup on board these vessels would be required to be stored separately and kept readily available for inspection.

        Also, current regulations state that unused RSA quota from disapproved RSA proposals may be reallocated to the respective commercial and recreational fisheries by the Regional Administrator,  but the regulations are silent regarding the reallocation of RSA quota from approved but discontinued projects.  Framework 1 to the FMP states that, in the event approved proposals do not make use of any or all of the set-aside quota for a particular species, the Regional Administrator would be authorized to restore the unutilized portion to its respective commercial and recreational fisheries.  In order to clarify the circumstances under which the Regional Administrator shall reallocate unutilized RSA quota, NMFS proposes a change to the RSA provisions which appear in the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish regulations.  Therefore, this proposed rule would modify current regulations to indicate that, if a RSA proposal is disapproved, or if the Regional Administrator determines that the allocated RSA quota cannot be utilized by a project, the Regional Administrator shall reallocate the unused amount of RSA quota to the respective commercial and recreational fisheries by notice in the Federal Register, provided that the reallocation of the unused amount of RSA quota is in accord with National Standard 1, and must be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year in which the initial RSA allocation was made.  Any reallocation of unused RSA quota would be consistent with the proportional division of quota between the commercial and recreational fisheries in the relevant FMP, and allocated to the remaining quota periods for the fishing year, proportionally.  The intent is to ensure that unused quota be returned to the fishery, if possible.

        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble.  The preamble to this proposed rule also includes complete descriptions of the proposed and no action alternatives discussed here.  There are no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements proposed in this rule.  There are no relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.  All vessels that would be impacted by this proposed rulemaking are considered to be small entities; therefore, there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        The purpose of this framework is to reduce discards and improve efficiency in the scup fishery by allowing for the transfer at sea of scup between commercial fishing vessels, and  clarifying the circumstances under which a vessel must operate with the specified mesh.   Alternative 1 (No Action) would not affect the manner in which the commercial fishery operates or the quantity of scup landed in the commercial sector.  The Preferred Alternative would allow for the transfer of scup at sea; both the donor and receiver vessels may benefit economically.  The owner of the donor vessel may benefit by selling fish that would otherwise be discarded to the owner of the receiving vessel and the owner of the receiving vessel may benefit from acquiring fish obtained from fishing activity of another vessel, thus requiring less resources (e.g., less fuel and wear and tear on the net) than under a typical fishing operation.  It is possible that allowing the transfer of scup at sea could result in the scup fishery being closed earlier because of higher retained catch rates.  This would depend on the number of vessels that have large scup catches, and the opportunity to conduct transfers.  If a scup period were to close sooner under the Preferred Alternative, the level of discards during a longer closure may not offset the saving of discards realized through the ability to transfer.  However, scup discards are expected to be lower during a closure of the directed scup fishery, because vessels will not be directing on scup.  Also, it is reasonable to expect that the ability to transfer scup would be limited to a somewhat narrow window of time and would depend on the proximity of a nearby, permitted scup vessel, and how quickly that vessels could retrieve the codend of the donor vessel.  Large catches of scup in the net die quickly and may sink to a point where they are irretrievable or, if held in the codend on board the donor vessel for too long, they spoil and become unmarketable.  A longer closure may also have adverse economic impacts if affected fishermen do not have suitable alternative opportunities.  However, since there are no data available to determine accurately how many vessels would participate in the transfer of scup at sea and how much scup would be transferred at sea under this alternative, the full impact of this alternative on early closures cannot be fully assessed.
        The Council's recommendation on this action was predicated upon the need to make a decision to either allow at-sea transfers of scup to reduce regulatory discards (the preferred alternative), or to maintain the current prohibition on at-sea transfers (the no action alternative).  Other alternatives to address the larger issues of regulatory discards and/or economic efficiency of the fleet were not considered to be within the scope of this action (which is a Framework Adjustment and therefore of limited scope).  The Council did identify and discuss additional options to be part of the preferred alternative, but these were determined to be either unenforceable (e.g., allowing transfers of scup in excess of the possession limit to occur off the fishing grounds), cost prohibitive (e.g., requiring vessels to obtain a vessel monitoring system prior to participating), or not practicable (e.g., requiring participating vessels to contact NMFS personnel prior to conducting an at-sea transfer).

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

          Dated:  January 16, 2004.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1.  The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2.  In § 648.6, paragraph (a)(1) is revised by adding a new final sentence to read as follows:

          § 648.6
          Dealer/processor permits.
          (a) General.  (1)  * * *   Persons aboard vessels receiving transfers of scup at sea from other vessels are deemed not to be dealers, and are not required to possess a valid dealer permit under this section, for purposes of receiving scup, provided the vessel complies with § 648.13(2).

        3.  In § 648.13, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.13
          Transfers at sea.

          (i) Scup.   (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, all persons or vessels issued a Federal scup permit are prohibited from transferring, or attempting to transfer, at sea any scup to any vessel, and all persons or vessels are prohibited from transferring, or attempting to transfer, at sea to any vessel any scup while in the EEZ, or any scup taken in or from the EEZ portion of the Scup Management Unit.
          (2) The owner or operator of a vessel issued a Federal scup permit under § 648.4(a)(6)(i)(A) may transfer at sea scup taken in or from the EEZ portion of the Scup Management Unit, provided:
          (i) The transfer occurs between vessels with Federal scup permits;
          (ii) The transfer occurs seaward of a boundary line that begins at 40°50′ N. lat., 70°00′ W. long., and runs south to connect points at 40°15′ N. lat., 73°30′ W. long.; 37°50′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.; and 35°30′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.;
          (iii) The donating and receiving vessels possess gear that meets the requirements at § 648.123(a)(2), (3), and (4) for commercial scup fishing gear;
          (iv) The transfer occurs in the Winter I or Winter II periods of the scup fishing year;
          (v) There is only one transfer per fishing trip for the donor vessel;
          (vi) The donor vessel removes only enough scup from the net to attain the scup possession limit;
          (vii) After removal of scup from the net by the donor vessel, only the entire codend, with all its contents, is transferred to the receiving vessel;
          (viii) Only scup are retained by the receiving vessel;
          (ix) While fishing for scup, all other nets are stored in accordance with § 648.23(b)(1); and
          (x) The donating and receiving vessels report the transfer amount on the vessel trip   report for each vessel.

        4. In § 648.14, new paragraph (k)(13) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (k) * * *
          (13) Transfer scup at sea, except pursuant to provisions of § 648.13(i).

        5. In § 648.21, paragraph (g)(5) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.21
          Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.

          (g) * * *

          (5) If a proposal is disapproved by the Regional Administrator or the NOAA Grants Office, or if the Regional Administrator determines that the allocated research quota cannot be utilized by a project, the Regional Administrator shall reallocate the disapproved or unused amount of research quota to the respective commercial and recreational fisheries by notice in the Federal Register, provided:
          (i) The reallocation of the disapproved or unused amount of research quota is in accord with National Standard 1, and can be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year in which the initial allocation was made; and
          (ii) Any reallocation of unused research quota shall be consistent with the proportional division of quota between the commercial and recreational fisheries in the relevant FMP and allocated to the remaining quota periods for the fishing year proportionally.

        6. In § 648.123, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.123
          Gear restrictions.
          (a) * * *
          (1) Minimum mesh size.  No owner or operator of an otter trawl vessel that is issued a scup moratorium permit may possess 500 lb (226.8 kg) or more of scup from November 1 through April 30, or 100 lb (45.4 kg) or more of scup from May 1 through October 31, unless fishing with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) diamond mesh for no more than 25 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the codend, and with at least 100 continuous meshes of 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) mesh forward of the 4.5-inch (11.4-cm) mesh, and all other nets are stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b)(1).  For trawl nets with codends (including an extension) less than 125 meshes, the entire trawl net must have a minimum mesh size of 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) throughout the net.  Scup on board these vessels shall be stowed separately and kept readily available for inspection.  Measurement of nets will be in conformity with § 648.80(f)(2)(ii).

      [FR Doc. 04-1481 Filed 1-22-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 11-140, RM-11638; DA 11-1413]
        Television Broadcasting Services; Panama City, FL

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (“Gray”), the licensee of station WJHG-TV, channel 7, Panama City, Florida, requesting the substitution of channel 18 for channel 7 at Panama City. WJHG's viewers continue to experience problems receiving the station's VHF channel 7 digital broadcasts despite two power increases since it began operations on digital channel 7. Gray states that the best solution to resolve the majority of viewers reception problems is to move to a UHF channel, which serves the public interest by resolving over-the-air reception problems in certain areas of WJHG's predicted service areas.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before September 22, 2011, and reply comments on or before October 7, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joyce L. Bernstein, joyce.bernstein@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 11-140, adopted August 15, 2011, and released August 17, 2011. 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 (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.
        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.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Barbara A. Kreisman,
          Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rules
        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, and 339.

            § 73.622(i)
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Florida is amended by removing channel 7 and adding channel 18 at Panama City.

      [FR Doc. 2011-21544 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 110218142-1146-02]
        RIN 0648-BA91
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex Fishery; Framework Adjustment 1

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in Framework Adjustment 1 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (Skate FMP). Framework Adjustment 1 was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to adjust the possession limits for the skate wing fishery in order to slow the rate of skate wing landings, so that the available Total Allowable Landings limit (TAL) is taken by the fishery over a longer duration in the fishing year (FY) than occurred in FY 2010, thus ensuring a steady market supply. The action would also allow vessels that process skate wings at sea to land skate carcasses for sale into the bait market, without counting the carcass landings against the TAL (skate wings are already converted to live weight for monitoring). Although recommended by the Council as part of Framework 1, this proposed rule announces NMFS's intention to disapprove a proposal to increase the incidental possession limit for skate wings that would apply after the skate wing possession limit trigger is reached. This proposed rule does not adjust the skate fishery specifications for FY 2011.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on April 19, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for Framework Adjustment 1 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Framework 1, the EA, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (Council), 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.

          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA91, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Michael Pentony.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Skate Framework 1 Proposed Rule.”

            Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9283; fax: (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        In 2003, NMFS implemented the Skate FMP to manage a complex of seven skate species in the Northeast Region: Winter (Leucoraja ocellata); little (L. erinacea); thorny (Amblyraja radiata); barndoor (Dipturus laevis); smooth (Malacoraja senta); clearnose (Raja eglanteria); and rosette (L. garmani) (see 68 FR 49693, August 19, 2003). The FMP established biological reference points and overfishing definitions for each species based on abundance indices in the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl survey.
        Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP, which was implemented in July 2010, instituted an annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measures (AMs) for the skate fishery (see 75 FR 34049, June 16, 2010). To ensure that the ACL is not exceeded, regulations implementing Amendment 3 established a possession limit of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of skate wings (11,350 lb (5,148 kg) whole weight) per trip for the skate wing fishery, and an AM that further reduces the wing fishery possession limit to an incidental level of 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings (1,135 lb (515 kg) whole weight) when 80 percent of the TAL for the wing fishery is reached. In FY 2010, the combination of increased landings of skate wings and a delay in implementation of the 5,000-lb (2,268-kg) skate wing possession limit resulted in the fishery reaching the 80-percent TAL trigger in early September. Consequently, the wing fishery has been limited to the incidental possession limit of 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings per trip from September 3, 2010, through the end of FY 2010 on April 30, 2011.
        Asserting that the imposition of the 500-lb (227-kg) skate wing possession limit so early in the FY caused disruptions in the supply of skate wings, economic hardship on fishing vessels and dealers, and threatened to undermine the market position of U.S. suppliers, members of the skate wing fishing industry requested that the Council consider options to mitigate the potential for this situation to be repeated in FY 2011. In November 2010, the Council initiated Framework 1 to change the skate wing possession limits in order to maximize the duration of the skate fishing season in FY 2011. In January 2011, the Council approved Framework 1 and recommended that NMFS implement new possession limits for the skate wing fishery, as described below.
        Proposed Measures
        Framework 1 proposes the following changes to the regulations governing the skate fishery:
        1. That the skate wing fishery possession limit be changed from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of skate wings per trip to 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) per trip from May 1 through August 31, and 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) per trip from September 1 through April 30;
        2. That the skate wing fishery incidental possession limit (the limit that applies to all landings of skate wings once landings reach the appropriate TAL trigger percentage) be changed from 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings per trip to 1,250 lb (567 kg) per trip;
        3. That the skate wing fishery incidental possession limit trigger be changed from 80 percent of the skate wing TAL to 85 percent of the skate wing TAL; and
        4. That the regulations governing the allowable forms of skates that may be possessed and landed be changed to allow the landing of skate carcasses separate from skate wings (currently, only whole skates or skate wings—without the associated carcasses—may be possessed and landed).
        By reducing the skate wing possession limit from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of skate wings per trip to the lower amounts identified above, the Council intends to slow the landings of skate wings in order to promote an extended directed fishery. The Council's recommendation to impose different possession limits at different times of the year reflects advice from members of the skate fishing industry regarding the times of year when demand for skate wings is generally higher and the price is also likely to be higher. Based on data from 2009 and 2010, the average price per lb of skate wings was $0.33 for May-August and $0.64 for September-April. Thus, the proposed 2,600-lb (1,179-kg) limit would serve to constrain landings when demand and price are both lower, preserving more of the available TAL to be harvested under the higher 4,100-lb (1,860-kg) limit when demand and price are more favorable.

        The Council's recommendation to change the trigger point at which the incidental possession limit is imposed is also an attempt to lengthen the duration of the directed skate wing fishery. However, based on the analysis prepared by the Council's Skate Plan Development Team and presented to the Council at its January 2011 meeting, the combination of a 1,250-lb (567-kg) incidental possession limit and an 85-percent trigger point would be expected to result in landings exceeding the skate wing TAL by more than 7 percent. Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP established the TAL as the limit for skate landings, taking into account the needs of the skate wing and bait fisheries (i.e., allocating the overall skate TAL to the skate wing and bait fisheries according to specific percentages), discards of skates in all fisheries that encounter skates, and the biological status of the resource. The management measures implemented in Amendment 3 were designed to constrain overall skate landings to the TAL, and, in situations in which a TAL is exceeded, the Amendment 3 regulations require automatic adjustments to the TAL trigger threshold (on a point-for-point basis). If the wing TAL were to be exceeded by 7 percent, as the Council's analysis indicates is likely, then the Amendment 3 regulations would require the TAL trigger for the following FY to be reduced from 85 percent of the TAL to 78 percent of the TAL, forcing an even earlier transition to the incidental possession limit. It would be inconsistent with the intent of Framework 1 (implement measures to extend the length of the directed skate wing fishery) and the objectives of Amendment 3 (implement measures to constrain landings to within the available TAL) to alter both the incidental skate wing possession limit and the TAL trigger point, as proposed by the Council. The Council's analysis suggests that the trigger point could be increased to 85 percent of the TAL if the incidental wing limit is maintained at the current 500-lb (227-kg) level, while still remaining within the TAL. Therefore, this proposed rule announces NMFS's intention to disapprove the proposed change to the incidental skate wing possession limit at § 648.322(b)(2). Disapproving the change in the incidental limit would not affect the other measures proposed in this action. NMFS seeks comments on the Council's proposed action, as well as keeping the incidental possession limit at 500 lb (227 kg) in the event this proposed measure is disapproved.
        The Council's recommendation to allow possession and landing of skate carcasses is intended to promote a fuller utilization of the skate resource, by enabling fishermen to retain the carcasses that would otherwise be discarded at sea once the skate wings are cut and removed. Currently, vessels must either retain the whole skates and cut the wings after landing, or discard the skate carcasses at sea once the wings are removed. This proposed change would allow fishermen to retain the skate carcasses and sell them as bait, increasing the economic yield of the skate resource without any change in fishing mortality. Under the proposed revision to the regulations, skates could be possessed or landed either as wings only, wings with associated carcasses possessed separately, or in whole form, or any combination of the three, provided that the weight of skate carcasses does not exceed 1.27 times the weight of skate wings on board. This ratio, based upon established wing-to-whole weight conversion factor for skates, would help assure that the only carcasses possessed and landed correspond to skates which have had their wings removed and retained by the vessel for sale. When any combination of wings, carcasses, and whole skates are possessed, the possession limit would be based on the equivalent whole weight limit where wing weight is converted to whole weight using the wing to whole weight conversion factor of 2.27. For example, 100 lb (45.4 kg) of skate wings × 2.27 = 227 lb (103.1 kg) of whole skates. If wings and carcasses were possessed separately in this case, the vessel could possess 100 lb (45.4 kg) of skate wings and 100 × 1.27 = 127 lb (57.6 kg) of carcasses. The sum of the two products must not exceed the whole weight possession limit. This action is not intended to allow the landing of skate carcasses without skate wings.
        NMFS seeks comments on all of the proposed measures in Framework 1, as well as on keeping the incidental skate wing possession limit at 500 lb (227 kg) if this measure is disapproved.
        As required under section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council reviewed the draft regulations and deemed them necessary and appropriate for implementation of Framework 1. Technical changes to the regulations deemed necessary by the Secretary for clarity may be made, as provided under section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule, subject to NMFS's concern about the proposed increase in the incidental skate wing possession limit, is consistent with the Skate FMP, Amendment 3, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), included in Framework 1 and supplemented by information contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section of the preamble and in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        All of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the Small Business Administration size standards for small fishing businesses ($4.0 million in annual gross sales). Therefore, there are no disproportionate effects on small versus large entities. Information on costs in the fishery is not readily available and individual vessel profitability cannot be determined directly; therefore, expected changes in gross revenues were used as a proxy for profitability.
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply
        The participants in the commercial skate fishery were defined using Northeast dealer reports to identify any vessel that reported having landed 1 lb (0.45 kg) or more of skates during calendar year 2010. These dealer reports identified 690 vessels that landed skates for the skate wing market in states from Maine to North Carolina out of 2,607 vessels that held a Federal skate permit. Of the 690 vessels that landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of skates for the wing market, 592 vessels landed at least some amount of skates in wing form, and these vessels would be affected by the proposed change to allow vessels landing skate wings to also land the associated carcasses for sale as bait.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives

        The purpose of Framework 1 is to adjust the possession limits affecting the skate wing fishery in order to extend the duration of the fishing season during which the fishery could land skate wings at “directed” levels (i.e., before the possession limits are reduced to incidental landings levels), while constraining the overall skate wing landings to remain within the TAL. To achieve these ends, the Council considered several alternatives for each of three principal management measures: (1) The primary possession limit affecting the directed skate wing fishery; (2) the trigger point (as a percentage of the TAL) at which the primary possession limit is reduced to a lower, incidental level of allowable landings; and (3) the possession limit that would be imposed once the possession limit trigger is reached.

        The Council considered several alternatives for the primary skate wing possession limit: (1) 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of wings per trip (the status quo); (2) 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of wings per trip; (3) 3,200 lb (1,451 kg) of wings per trip; (4) 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) of wings per trip; and (5) the proposed action of a 2,600-lb (1,179-kg) possession limit from May 1 through August 31, and a 4,100-lb (1,860-kg) possession limit from September 1 through April 30. The challenge in achieving the objective of this action is to determine a possession limit low enough to prolong the directed fishing season without substantially reducing the efficacy of the skate wing fishery by choosing a possession limit too low to make profitable fishing trips. Compared to the other alternatives considered, the proposed action is expected to maximize profitability for the skate wing fishery by constraining landings during the spring and summer months (May-August) when demand and price are generally lower (average of $0.33/lb during 2009 and 2010), preserving more of the available TAL for the fall and early winter months when demand and price are generally higher (average of $0.64/lb during 2009 and 2010) and allowing higher levels of landings during this time.
        In addition to changing the primary possession limit, the Council also considered three alternatives for the trigger point at which the possession limit is reduced: (1) 80 percent of the TAL (the status quo); (2) 85 percent of the TAL; and (3) 75 percent of the TAL. The higher the trigger percentage, the longer the directed fishing season would last before the possession limit is reduced; however, because landings continue—at albeit reduced rates due to the lower possession limit—the desire to extend the directed fishing season must be balanced with the need to prevent the overall landings from exceeding the TAL. The Council's analysis shows that a 5-percent change in the trigger point could make a 2-week difference in the length of the directed fishing season. The likelihood of exceeding the TAL at the different potential trigger points depends, in part, on the incidental possession limit that would be imposed once the trigger is reached.
        The Council considered three alternatives for the incidental possession limit: (1) 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings per trip (the status quo); (2) 750 lb (340 kg) of skate wings per trip; and (3) 1,250 lb (567 kg) of skate wings per trip. Although the Council recommended increasing the incidental possession limit to 1,250 lb (567 kg) per trip in order to increase the potential revenue of vessels landing skates after the possession limit is reduced, NMFS intends to disapprove this particular proposal as inconsistent with the requirement to ensure that overall skate landings do not exceed the available TAL (the Council's analysis indicates that this combination of measures would result in landings exceeding the TAL by more than 7 percent). The Council's analysis shows that the overarching purpose of Framework 1 to lengthen the directed fishing season while not exceeding the TAL is best served by increasing the trigger point to 85 percent of the TAL but maintaining the status quo incidental possession limit of 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings per trip. Although an increase in the incidental possession limit from 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings per trip to 1,250 lb (567 kg) of skate wings per trip would increase the potential vessel revenue by up to $250-$500 per trip (based on the average ex-vessel price paid for skate wings in 2009 and 2010), NMFS's disapproval of this measure would impose no additional costs on the affected industry, as the disapproval leaves in place the current 500-lb (227-kg) possession limit.
        In addition to the primary alternatives considered in this action, the Council also considered a change in the regulations to allow skate carcasses to be landed rather than discarded at sea. This proposed measure is expected to have no effect on the overall mortality of skates caught, but could result in marginal increases in per trip fishing revenue for vessels that cut skate wings at sea and land the remaining carcasses for sale as lobster bait (estimates range from approximately $360 per trip at the 2,600-lb (1,179-kg) possession limit to approximately $570 per trip at the 4,100-lb (1,860-kg) possession limit). Because the only significant alternative considered in this case is the status quo, under which the landing of skate carcasses would continue to be prohibited, the Council's proposed action in this case maximizes the potential revenue available to the fishing industry.

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

          Dated: March 29, 2011.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
          1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 648.322, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 648.322
            Skate allocation, possession, and landing provisions.

            (b) Skate wing possession and landing limits. A vessel or operator of a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal skate permit under this part, provided the vessel fishes under an Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, or monkfish DAS as specified at §§ 648.53, 648.82, and 648.92, respectively, or is also a limited access multispecies vessel participating in an approved sector described under § 648.87, unless otherwise exempted under § 648.80 or paragraph (c) of this section, may fish for, possess, and/or land up to the allowable trip limits of skate wings (with appropriate whole weight equivalents) specified as follows:
            (1) Up to 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) of skate wings (5,902 lb (2,677 kg) whole weight) per trip from May 1 through August 31, and 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of skate wings (9,307 lb (4,222 kg) whole weight) per trip from September 1 through April 30, except for a vessel fishing on a declared NE multispecies Category B DAS described under § 648.85(b), which is limited to no more than 220 lb (100 kg) of skate wings (500 lb (227 kg) whole weight) per trip (or any prorated combination of skate wings and whole skates based on the conversion factor for wing weight to whole weight of 2.27—for example, 100 lb (45.4 kg) of skate wings × 2.27 = 227 lb (103.1 kg) of whole skates).
            (2) In-season adjustment of skate wing possession limits. When the Regional Administrator projects that 85 percent of the annual skate wing fishery TAL has been landed, the Regional Administrator shall, through a notice in the Federal Register consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, reduce the skate wing trip limit to 1,250 lb (567 kg) of skate wings (2,837 lb (1,287 kg) whole weight, or any prorated combination of skate wings and whole skates based on the conversion factor for wing weight to whole weight of 2.27) for the remainder of the fishing year, unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent attainment of the annual TAL.
            (3) Incidental possession limit for vessels not under a DAS. A vessel issued a Federal skate permit that is not fishing under an Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, or monkfish DAS as specified at §§ 648.53, 648.82, and 648.92, respectively, or is a limited access multispecies vessel participating in an approved sector described under § 648.87 but not fishing on one of the DAS specified at §§ 648.53, 648.82, or 648.92, may retain up to 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings or 1,135 lb (515 kg) of whole skate, or any prorated combination of skate wings and whole skates based on the conversion factor for wing weight to whole weight of 2.27, per trip.
            (4) Allowable forms of skate landings. Except for vessels fishing under a skate bait letter of authorization as specified at § 648.322(c), a vessel may possess and/or land skates as wings only (wings removed from the body of the skate and the remaining carcass discarded), wings with associated carcasses possessed separately (wings removed from the body of the skate but the associated carcass retained on board the vessel), or in whole (intact) form, or any combination of the three, provided that the weight of the skate carcasses on board the vessel does not exceed 1.27 times the weight of skate wings on board. When any combination of skate wings, carcasses, and whole skates are possessed and/or landed, the applicable possession or landing limit shall be based on the whole weight limit, in which any wings are converted to whole weight using the wing to whole weight conversion factor of 2.27. For example, if the vessel possesses 100 lb (45.4 kg) of skate wings, the whole weight equivalent would be 227 lb (103.0 kg) of whole skates (100 lb (45.4 kg) × 2.27), and the vessel could possess up to 127 lb (57.6 kg) of skate carcasses (100 lb (45.4 kg) of skate wings × 1.27). A vessel may not possess and/or land skate carcasses and only whole skates.

      [FR Doc. 2011-7949 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No.  010413093-2190-02; I.D.  032301C]
        RIN 0648-AP18
        American Lobster; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

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

          ACTION:
          Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), Notice of Intent (NOI) to combine rulemaking and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces its intent to consider revisions to the Federal lobster regulations in response to the recommendations of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) in Addendum III to Amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP), and prepare one EIS to assess the impact on the human environment of potential management measures for the American lobster fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as recommended by the Commission in Addenda II and III to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP (Addendum II and Addendum III; Addenda II and III).  Written comments are requested from the public regarding issues that NMFS should address in the EIS relative to Addenda II and III.  NMFS is also soliciting comments with this notification of potential modifications to parts of  the current Federal lobster regulations to clarify these rules, assist with their enforcement, and better describe the inter-relationship between the Federal lobster regulations, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA), and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the intent to prepare the EIS relative to Addenda II and III and on the potential modifications to parts of the current lobster regulations must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on or before October 7, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be sent to Harold C. Mears, Director, State, Federal, and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Comments may also be sent via fax to (978) 281-9117. Comments submitted via e-mail or Internet will not be accepted.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Burns, (978) 281-9144, fax (978) 281-9117, e-mail peter.burns@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS proposes to combine measures related to Addenda II and III to Amendment 3 into one  rulemaking.  Addenda II and III are both designed to address overfishing of lobster by increasing egg production, and as such, lend themselves to a single rulemaking.
        In response to the Commission’s recommendation that NMFS implement regulations in the EEZ that are compatible with Addendum II to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP for American Lobster, NMFS published an ANPR (66 FR 28726) on May 24, 2001, and an NOI (66 FR 48853) on September 24, 2001.  These documents solicited written comments and informed the public of NMFS’ intent to develop an EIS relative to Addendum II.  Subsequently, the Commission adopted Addendum III to Amendment 3 which modified Addendum II and included new measures for the majority of the lobster conservation management areas (LCMA).  The Commission has recommended that NMFS implement regulations compatible with Addendum III as well.
        Addenda II and III are part of an overall management regime set forth in Amendment 3 to the ISFMP.  The intent of Amendment 3, approved by the Commission in December of 1997, is to achieve a healthy American lobster resource and to develop a management regime that provides for sustained harvest, maintains opportunities for participation, and provides for the cooperative development of conservation measures by all stakeholders. Amendment 3 employed a participatory management approach by creating the seven LCMAs, each with its own lobster conservation management team (LCMT) comprised of industry members.
        Amendment 3 tasked the LCMTs with providing recommendations for area-specific management measures to the Commission’s American Lobster Management Board (Board) to meet the lobster egg production and effort reduction goals of the ISFMP.  The effort reduction measures of the area plans were approved by the Board in August of 1999 as part of Addendum I to Amendment 3 (Addendum I).  The Board then released the egg production measures as Addenda II and III in February 2001 and February 2002, respectively, and recommended that NMFS implement complementary Federal regulations.  NMFS has the authority under the ACFCMA to implement regulations in Federal waters that are compatible with the effective implementation of the ISFMP and consistent with the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  These Federal regulations are promulgated pursuant to ACFCMA and are codified at 50 CFR part 697.
        The requirements of the two addenda are summarized in the following sections.
        Addendum II Summary
        Specific measures under Addendum II to help achieve the egg production goals of the ISFMP included a series of minimum gauge size increases (increases to the minimum legal length of the carapace, defined as the unsegmented body shell of the American lobster) and an increase in the minimum escape vent size of lobster trap gear fished in state and Federal waters of LCMA 2 (inshore Southern New England), LCMA 3 (offshore area, comprised entirely of Federal waters), LCMA 4 (nearshore Northern Mid-Atlantic), LCMA 5 (nearshore Southern Mid-Atlantic), and the Outer Cape Management Area (nearshore waters east of Cape Cod).  However, Addendum II did not require the implementation of these specific measures to either LCMA 1 (Gulf of Maine) or LCMA 6 (Long Island Sound).
        Addendum II required the states to promulgate regulations to increase the minimum allowable harvest size of American lobster in LCMAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and the Outer Cape LCMA from 3 1/4 inches (in) (8.26 cm) to 3 9/32 in (8.33 cm) by December 31, 2001, and to increase 1/32 in (0.08 cm) by the end of each calendar year from 2002 through 2004 to an ultimate minimum size of 3 3/8 in (8.57 cm).  If the LCMA 3 egg production targets of the ISFMP are not reached by 2004, Addendum II requires additional annual minimum gauge size increases in LCMA 3 of 1/32 in (0.08 cm), until 2008, to an ultimate minimum size of 3 and one-half (8.89 cm).  The Commission recommended that the Secretary of Commerce take action to implement gauge increases in the Federal waters of the associated LCMAs consistent with this same schedule.  The current minimum allowable harvest size for American lobster in all Federal waters is 3 1/4 in (8.26 cm).  This gauge increase schedule was revised under Addendum III.
        Addendum II required all lobster traps fished either commercially or recreationally in LCMAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and the Outer Cape LCMA to have in place by 2003, at least one rectangular escape vent measuring 2 in (5.08 cm) by 5 3/4 in (14.61 cm) per trap, or at least two circular escape vents per trap, measuring 2 and one-half in (6.35 cm) in diameter.  The Commission recommended that NMFS implement these new lobster trap escape vent size requirements in Federal waters.  At the current time, Federal regulations require that all lobster trap gear have a rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 1 15/16 in (4.92 cm) by 5 3/4 in (14.61 cm); or two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 7/16 in (6.19 cm) in diameter.  The escape vent size requirement was not modified further in Addendum III.
        Addendum II also recommended that the lobster trap reduction schedule previously adopted for LCMA 3 in Addendum I be updated to account for the elapsed time between the two addenda.   Implementation of the updated lobster trap reduction schedule for LCMA 3 is contingent upon Federal rulemaking procedures currently underway to address historical participation in the lobster trap fishery as recommended by the Commission in Addendum I.
        Addendum II, furthermore, recommended that NMFS require LCMA 3 lobstermen to maintain vessel logbooks to record lobster harvest.  Current Federal lobster regulations do not require vessel logbooks.  No additional modifications were adopted in Addendum III regarding the LCMA 3 trap reduction schedule or vessel logbook requirement.
        Addendum III Summary
        Addendum III updates the implementation dates for the minimum gauge size increases initially approved in Addendum II, includes additional management measures for LCMAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and the Outer Cape Area, and adopts management programs for LCMAs 1 and 6, neither of which submitted LCMT plans for Board approval under Addendum II..

        Addendum III carries forward the Addendum II gauge increase schedule with some modification.  Consistent with Addendum II, the initial 1/32 in (0.08 cm) gauge increase must be implemented by the associated states for LCMAs 2, 3, and the Outer Cape Management Area by December 31, 2001.  However, Addendum III modifies the implementation date to July 1 (formerly December 31 as presented in Addendum II) for gauge increases in each of the subsequent years through 2004 until the 3 3/8 in (8.57 cm) minimum size is reached (or through 2008 if increases up to 3 and one-half in (8.89 cm) are necessary in LCMA 3 and the Outer Cape LCMA).
        Additionally, Addendum III allows LCMAs 4 and 5 the option to either follow this same gauge increase schedule, or take no action in 2001 and implement a 1/16 in (0.16 cm) gauge size increase to 3 5/16 in (8.42 cm) by July 1, 2002, and implement the subsequent annual 1/32 in (0.08 cm) increases consistent with the approved Addendum III gauge increase schedule in the following years (July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2004).
        Addendum III also includes additional (new) minimum gauge size increases for the Outer Cape LCMA, if necessary to meet the egg production targets of the ISFMP.  After annual implementation of the first four gauge increases up to 3 3/8 in (8.57 cm) from 2001 through 2004, a 1/32 in (0.08 cm) increase would be implemented by July 1 annually during the subsequent 4-year period (2005 through 2008), to a final minimum gauge size in the Outer Cape LCMA of 3 and one-half in (8.89 cm).
        In addition to the modifications of existing measures adopted under Addendum II, Addendum III includes several new management measures.  Those new measures are detailed in this section for each LCMA.  As written in Addendum III, some of the new measures need only be implemented if it is determined in subsequent years that a particular LCMA is not on target to achieve the egg production goals of the ISFMP.  These contingent measures were provided as a safety net by some of the LCMTs to ensure that the necessary level of egg production is met.  However, review of the LCMT plans by the Commission’s Lobster Technical Committee (Technical Committee) concluded that all the contingent measures identified are, in fact, necessary to achieve the egg production goals based on the most recent 2000 lobster stock assessment.  Subsequent to the next lobster stock assessment scheduled for late 2003, it is anticipated that the Technical Committee will reassess the need for the contingent   provisions for each LCMA.
        LCMA 1
        Several new measures were adopted into the LCMA 1 management program in Addendum III:

          Escape Vent Size Increase. If necessary, all lobster traps fished either commercially or recreationally in LCMA 1 must, by July 1, 2007, have at least one escape vent per trap measuring 2 in (5.08 cm) by 5 3/4 in (14.61 cm) or two circular vents with a diameter measuring 2 and one-half in (6.35 cm).

          Zero-Tolerance V-Notching. Addendum III establishes a zero-tolerance approach to the determination of a v-notched female and defines a v-notched female lobster in LCMA 1 as any female lobster bearing a v-shaped notch of any size in the flipper immediately to the right of the center flipper as viewed when the underside of the lobster is down and its tail is toward the person making the determination.  In the context of Addendum III, V-notched female lobster also means any female that is mutilated in a manner which could hide, obscure or obliterate such a mark.

          Mandatory V-notching Requirement. All LCMA 1 lobster fishers are required by Addendum III to v-notch all egg-bearing female lobsters caught in the process of lobstering.  This facet of the LCMA 1 plan was approved by the Board with the understanding that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) will monitor the percentage of v-notched egg-bearing female lobster in commercial catches during 2002.  If the observed percentage of v-notched females does not reach 50 percent by the end of 2002, MA DMF will consider additional measures in 2003 to help achieve the goals of the ISFMP.  In this situation, at a minimum, all regulations promulgated to implement Addendum III in LCMAs 2, 3 and the Outer Cape LCMA would be expanded to include the Massachusetts portion of LCMA 1.  Other entities of LCMA 1 may also consider additional management measures in 2003 to achieve the goals of Adde ndum III.
        LCMA 2
        No new measures were adopted for LCMA 2 under Addendum III.  However, as previously described, the implementation date for annual increases of 1/32 in (0.08 cm) to the minimum gauge size as required under Addendum II was changed from December 31 to July 1 for calendar years 2002 through 2004.
        LCMA 3

          Mandatory V-Notch Requirement. All vessels fishing in LCMA 3 north of 42° 30′ N. lat. are required to v-notch all egg-bearing female lobsters caught while lobster fishing.

          Overlap Boundary Between LCMA 3 and LCMA 5. Addendum III adopted a 5-mile (8.05 km) overlap along the entire length of the boundary between LCMAs 3 and 5.  This overlap area is defined by the following coordinates:

          LMCA 3/LCMA 5 OVERLAP BOUNDARY AREA

            POINT
            CURRENT COORDINATES (LAT/LONG)
            OVERLAP COORDINATES (LAT/LONG)

            V
            39°50′ N/73°01′ W
            39°48′ N/72°55′ W

            X
            38°39′ N/73°40′ W
            38°38.2′ N/73°33.8′ W

            Y
            38°12′ N/73°55′ W
            38°10.4′ N/73°49′ W

            Z
            37°12′ N/74°44′ W
            37°10.6′ N/74°38′ W

            ZA
            35°34′ N/74°41.′ W
            35°31.9′ N/74°45.5′ W

            ZB
            35°14.5′ N/75°31′ W
            35°10.3′ N/75°27.7′ W

          From point V, current coordinates extending out to new overlap coordinates, back to point ZB

          Choose and Use Provision. This measure would require those vessels qualifying for access under a historical participation effort reduction program, if implemented under Federal regulations in LCMA 3, to designate LCMA 3 each year on the vessel’s Federal permit, or else forego subsequent participation in the LCMA 3 lobster trap fishery.
        LCMA 4

          Maximum Gauge Size. The maximum gauge size for American lobster in LCMA 4 shall be no greater than 5 1/4 in (13.34 cm) beginning July 1, 2002.  A 5 in (12.7 cm) maximum gauge size may also be considered if, following an updated stock assessment, it is deemed necessary to meet the lobster management plan goals and objectives.  If maximum gauge sizes are not in place in adjacent management areas, then LCMA 4 fishermen may v-notch female lobsters above the maximum size.

        LCMA 5
        Maximum Gauge Size.  The maximum gauge size for American lobster in LCMA 5 shall be no greater than 5 and one-half in (13.97 cm) beginning July 1, 2004.  The 5 and one-half  in (13.97 cm) maximum size will be implemented in LCMA 5 if, following an updated stock assessment, this measure is considered necessary to meet the lobster management plan goals and objectives.  If maximum gauge sizes are not in place in adjacent management areas, then LCMA 5 fishermen may v-notch female lobsters above the maximum size.

          Vessel Upgrade Limit. This measure restricts the limit on increases in vessel length to no more than 10 percent and limits increases in vessel horsepower through upgrading or replacement by no more than 20 percent.
        LCMA 6
        A combination of minimum gauge size increases and escape vent size increases has been approved for LCMA 6 in Addendum III.  Although LCMA 6 is comprised entirely of New York and Connecticut state waters within Long Island Sound, Federal lobster permit holders authorized by these states to fish for lobster in this LCMA will be affected by these measures.

          Minimum Gauge Size. The minimum gauge size for American lobster in LCMA 6 shall be no lower than the minimum carapace length identified in the following table.  The implementation date for associated regulations mandating each gauge increase is also indicated.

          LMCA 6

            July 1, 2004*-3 9/32 in (8.33 cm)

            July 1, 2005*-3 5/16 in (8.42 cm)

          *  NOTE-LCMA  6  will  implement  minimum  size  increases  beyond  3  1/4  in  (8.26  cm)  at  the  rate  of  1/32  in  (0.08  cm)  per  year,  beginning  in  2004,  until  a  final  minimum  size  of  3  5/16  in  (8.42  cm)  is  reached,  if,  following  an  updated  stock  assessment,  it  is  necessary  to  meet  lobster  management  plan  goals  and  objectives.

        LCMT 6 will choose among two possible paths for lobster management beyond 2005. Regulations for these measures must be in place according to the following implementation schedule.

          PATH 1

            YEAR
            ACTION

            July 1, 2006
            Elevate gauge increase and effort reduction from trap tag buy back program

            July 1, 2007*
            Implement  1 32  in  (0.08  cm)  gauge  size increase,  and or  2  in  (5.08  cm)  escape  vent  size  increase,  and or  V-notch  some  percentage  of  female  lobsters,  and or  establish  a  maximum  gauge  size*

            July 1, 2008*
            Implement  1/32  in  (0.08  cm)  gauge  size  increase,  and/or  2  in  (5.08  cm)  escape  vent  size  increase,  and/or  V-notch  some  percentage  of  female  lobsters,  and/or  establish  a  maximum  gauge  size

          NOTE:   LCMA  6  will  implement  the  above  management  measures,  if,  following  an  updated  stock  assessment,  it  is  necessary  to  meet  lobster  management  plan  goals  and  objectives.

        OR

          PATH 2

            YEAR
            ACTION

            July 1, 2006
            Implement  a  2  in  (5.08  cm)  escape  vent  size  if  a  gauge  increase  was  implemented  in  2005

            July 1, 2007
            Evaluate  with  new  information,  confirm  that  the  overfishing  threshold  has  been  met  or  exceeded

            July 1, 2008
            Evaluate  with  new  information,  confirm  that  the  overfishing  threshold  has  been  met  or  exceeded

        If Path 2 is selected for implementation, then all lobster traps in LCMA 6, whether fished commercially or recreationally, must contain at least one rectangular escape vent per trap or at least two circular escape vents according to the following schedule.  Regulations must be implemented in accordance with the dates indicated.

            One rectangular Vent
            Two Circular vents

            July 1, 2006*
            2 in (5.08 cm) by 5 3/4 in (14.61 cm)
            2 and one-half in (6.35 cm)

          *NOTE:   LCMA  6  will  implement  a  2  in  (5.08  cm)  escape  vent  size  if  a  gauge  size  increase  is  implemented  in  2005,  as  outlined  in  Section  2.1.5.1  of  Addendum  III.

        Outer Cape LCMA

          Minimum Gauge Size Increases. Addendum II adopted increases to the minimum gauge size for lobster harvested in the Outer Cape LCMA that would result in achievement of a 3 3/8 in (8.57 cm) minimum size in 2004.  Addendum III mandates implementation of additional 1/32 in (0.08 cm) increases annually beginning July 1 of each year from 2005 through 2008 to a final minimum size of 3 ½ in (8.89 cm) if such measures are deemed necessary to meet the egg production goals of the ISFMP.
        Trap Reduction Schedule.  To control expansion of fishing effort, the overall total number of traps allowed to be fished in the Outer Cape LCMA will be established from the sum of the individual maximum traps reported by each Outer Cape lobster fisherman on their 1998 MA DMF catch report.  Addendum III mandates that beginning in 2002 and extending through 2008, a 20 percent reduction of the total number of traps allowed to be fished will occur in the Outer Cape LCMA.  An additional 5-percent reduction of the number of the total number of traps allowed to be fished per year may be employed in 2006 and 2007, if necessary, to meet lobster egg production goals and objectives.  The initial trap allocations for each lobsterman will be based on catch report statistics from MA DMF and will be reduced annually during the reduction period.  Those who fished in the Outer Cape LCMA in 2001 but have no prior fishing history there (in other words, have not submitted MA DMF catch reports) will be issued a trap allocation based on proof of documentation of the number of traps they fished during 2001.  In such situations, allocations will be apportioned from a percentage of the overall trap cap number, not to exceed 2 percent of that total.  Those who received a transferred license with an Outer Cape LCMA fishing history (based on submission of MA DMF catch reports) will receive an initial trap allocation based on that history.

        Annual Trap Transfer Period and Passive Reductions.  Trap transfers are allowed annually from January 1 through March 31.  Trap tags may be transferred among Outer Cape lobster fishers to allow individual operations to build up or down within the maximum allowable 800 trap limit.  For each trap tag transfer event, a 10 percent passive reduction in traps will occur for that allocation.  For example, a 100-trap tag transaction will result in a net amount of 90 tags transferred.  The overall Outer Cape trap cap will be reduced accordingly through active and or passive trap reduction measures until the fishing mortality rate in the Outer Cape LCMA is reduced to a level consistent with the egg production goals of the ISFMP.  Each time a lobster license is transferred within this LCMA, the trap tag allocation associated with that license will be reduced by 10 percent.  No new participants will be allowed to participate in the Outer Cape lobster fishery unless they receive trap tags through a transfer from fishermen operating under the established total trap cap.  A trap haul-out period is also established under Addendum III for the Outer Cape LCMA from January 1 through March 31 annually to assist in the enforcement of the trap cap.  No trap gear will be allowed in the Outer Cape LCMA during this period.
        Additional Issues for Consideration
        NMFS seeks comments on the following potential changes to the Federal lobster regulations, in addition to those as described in Addenda II and III to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP, to more effectively express their initial intent and facilitate enforcement:
        (1) Modification of 50 CFR 697.4(a)(7)(iv),Vessel permits and trap tags, to allow a change to a vessel’s lobster trap area designations on the Federal limited access lobster permit when the vessel and permit are sold to a second party.  Currently, the regulations prohibit such changes during the course of the Federal permit year once the permit has been issued unless the permitted vessel becomes a replacement vessel for another qualified vessel.

        (2) Inclusion of a specific reference to already existing enforcement measures in the conditions section of 50 CFR 697.4(b), Vessel permits and trap tags.
        (3) Modification of 50 CFR 697.7(c)(1)viii, Prohibitions, to more directly specify that Federal lobster permit holders are prohibited from hauling or possessing lobster trap gear belonging to another vessel.
        (4) Modification of 50 CFR 697.22, Exempted fishing, to specify, consistent with the wording in 50 CFR part 600.745, that either the Regional Administrator for the Northeast Region, or the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, as appropriate, may exempt any person or vessel from the regulations in 50 CFR part 697 for the conduct of exempted fishing pursuant to the provisions of 50 CFR part 600.745.  This modification would also provide additional language to allow the Regional Administrator for the Northeast Region, or the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, as appropriate, to authorize a substitute vessel to haul ashore the lobster trap gear of an inoperable or mechanically impaired federally permitted lobster vessel without having to engage in the exempted fishing process outlined at 50 CFR 600.745, Exempted fishing.  This revision would allow NMFS to more expeditiously address exigent needs than is currently provided in the regulations.
        If revised regulations relative to the management measures  as described in this notice are promulgated they may have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, including Federal lobster permit holders.  Accordingly, NMFS requests public input on the entire suite of Addenda II and III measures and additional issues relative to the Federal lobster regulations as identified to assist in conducting a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of these and other associated measures to the human and natural environment in the EIS.
        Classification
        This ANPR has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

          Dated: August 29, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory programs, National Marine Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-22620 Filed 9-4-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Transit Administration
        49 CFR Part 661
        [Docket No. FTA-2005-23082]
        RIN 2132-AA90
        Buy America Requirements; End Product Analysis and Waiver Procedures; Public Meeting and Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice announcing public meeting and extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is holding a public meeting on the Buy America second notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). The purpose of this meeting is to allow the public to ask questions regarding the notice published on November 30, 2006 (71 FR 69411). Furthermore, due to the complexity of the issues presented in the SNPRM, FTA is extending the comment period to February 28, 2007, which will allow affected parties time to carefully consider the changes made in the SNPRM and the information presented at the public meeting.

          DATES:
          Comments should be submitted before February 28, 2007. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

            Public Meeting Date: FTA will hold a public meeting on February 13th and 14th of 2007 from 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. at the Department of Transportation (DOT) headquarters building (400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Room 2201). Anyone interested in attending the meeting should arrive at the southwest entrance of the DOT building to go through security screening. Please allow a minimum of 15 minutes to clear security. A summary of the meeting will be posted in the docket. FTA will not accept public comment during the public meeting. Instead, attendees must submit their comments to the docket in order to have their comments considered by FTA.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by the docket number [FTA-2005—23082] by any of the following methods:
          1. Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          2. Fax: 202-493-2251.
          3. Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          4. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit Administration and Docket number (FTA-2005—23082) for this Notice at the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.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:// dms.dot.gov. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Richard Wong, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4011 or Richard.Wong@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 28, 2005, FTA published an NPRM in the Federal Register (70 FR 71246) discussing a number of proposals as mandated by SAFETEA-LU and to provide further clarification of existing FTA decisions on Buy America. Due to the complexity of many of the Buy America issues addressed in the NPRM and the divergence of opinion on important areas, FTA issued a final rule that addressed fewer issues than proposed in the NPRM. (71 FR 14112, March 21, 2006.) These more routine topics covered in the final rule included: (1) Administrative review; (2) A definition of “negotiated procurement;” (3) A definition of “contractor;” (4) Repeal of the general waiver for Chrysler vehicles; (5) Certification under negotiated procurements; (6) Pre-award and post-award review of rolling stock purchases; and (7) Miscellaneous corrections and clarifications to the Buy America regulations.
        FTA issued a second notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on November 30, 2006, to address the remaining issues identified in the NPRM, but not covered in the final rule, including: (1) Justification for public interest waiver; (2) Microprocessor and post-award waivers; (3) Definition of “final assembly;” (4) The definition of “end product,” “system end products,” and a representative list of end products; and (5) Proposed changes to communication equipment and the list of rolling stock items in Part 661.

        During the public meeting on February 13th and 14th at DOT headquarters, FTA staff will summarize its proposals in the SNPRM and staff will be available to answer questions regarding those proposals. This is an opportunity for affected parties to receive clarification regarding FTA's proposals. The public meeting is not, however, an opportunity to submit comments to FTA regarding the proposals contained in the SNPRM. Rather, interested parties should submit their comments to the docket for this rulemaking as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
        In addition, because of the complexity of the issues involved in the SNPRM, FTA is extending the comment period for the SNPRM until February 28, 2007. This additional time should be sufficient to allow those who attend the public meeting to submit comments to the docket for this rulemaking.

          Issued this 10th day of January, 2007.
          James S. Simpson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E7-473 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-57-P