        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2014-0002]
        RIN 1625-AA11
        Regulated Navigation Area, Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay; Bayonne, NJ, NY

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The United States Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) on the navigable waters of Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay surrounding the Bayonne Bridge. In response to a planned Bayonne Bridge construction project, this proposed rule would establish a speed restriction in the waters surrounding the Bayonne Bridge. Also, this proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to prohibit vessel traffic through the RNA when necessary to safeguard people and vessels from the hazards associated with bridge construction.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 9, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
          (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
          (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.

          See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this rule, call Lieutenant Commander Myles Greenway, Waterways Management at First Coast Guard District at 617-223-8385 or email at Myles.J.Greenway@uscg.mil; or call LT Hannah Eko, Waterways Management Division at Sector New York at 718-354-4114, or email hannah.o.eko@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Acronyms

          COTP NY Captain of the Port New York
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
          RNA Regulated Navigation Area

        A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.
        1. Submitting Comments

        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2014-0002] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.
        2. Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-0002) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        3. Privacy Act

        Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
        4. Public Meeting

        We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
        B. Regulatory History and Information

        The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) have received approval to perform construction on the Bayonne Bridge, and the Coast Guard has published certain documents in the Federal Register related to the bridge construction permit. However, this proposed rulemaking is the first regulatory action that the Coast Guard has taken related to regulating vessel traffic along the affected waterway.
        There is insufficient time before the planned start of the construction project to accommodate the notice and comment process and have a thirty day period before the effective date of the regulation. The currently planned start of the construction and the associated regulated navigation area is February 1, 2015. This date is based on a number of factors, including weather and the availability of construction equipment and other resources, and would be difficult to change. However, the Coast Guard is taking several steps to mitigate the impact of this shortened period. First, the Coast Guard has reached out to waterway users to discuss the impact of this regulated navigation area. In addition, the Coast Guard has drafted a rule designed to have minimum impact on waterway traffic. Finally, if the planned construction date remains February 1, 2015, the Coast Guard intends to continue to receive comments in the first few months of the effective period of the regulated navigation area, and may change the regulation as a result of those comments. A good cause statement, if required, will be published as part of the final rule.
        C. Basis and Purpose
        Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the authority to establish Regulated Navigation Areas in defined water areas that are hazardous or in which hazardous conditions are determined to exist. See 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
        The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and workers from hazards associated with construction on the Bayonne Bridge. The current Bayonne Bridge was built in 1931 and carries the NY/NJ Route 440. PANYNJ has contracted Skanska-Koch Inc. and Kiewit Infrastructure for this project.
        Construction operations are sensitive to water movement, and wake from passing vessels could pose significant risk of injury or death to construction workers. In order to minimize such unexpected or uncontrolled movement of water, the RNA will limit vessel speed and wake of all vessels operating in the vicinity of the bridge construction zone. This will be achieved by implementing a five (5) knot speed limit and “NO WAKE” zone in the vicinity of the construction as well as providing a means to suspend all vessel traffic for emergent situations that pose imminent threat to waterway users in the area.
        After consulting with PANYNJ, Skanska-Koch Inc, and Kiewit Infrastructure, the Coast Guard has determined that certain aspects of the construction project can only be completed in the channel and will require closing the waterway. For instance, barges are expected to be used at times while portions of the bridge are being raised and the barges' presence might limit maneuverability in the waterway. Also, the Coast Guard anticipates that crane and cutting operations may create the potential for falling debris into the waterway. It is expected that the construction efforts that might require waterway closures will not take place until the fall of 2015.
        D. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        To address the aforementioned hazards, this proposed rule would establish speed and wake restrictions in the vicinity of the Bayonne Bridge. Also, this proposed rule would establish intermittent closures of the waterway along portions of Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay when necessary for the safety of vessels and workers during construction work in the channel. This proposed regulation will be effective at 8:00 a.m. on February 1, 2015. The proposed speed restrictions of five (5) knots will be in effect at all times within the RNA and all vessels must proceed through the area with caution and operate in such a manner as to produce no wake unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerage. The Coast Guard will enforce waterway closures, however, only when necessary to protect people and vessels from hazards associated with bridge construction.

        Whenever it is determined that a waterway closure is necessary, the Coast Guard will provide the public with as much advanced notice as possible of the closure times. Such notice will be provided via http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyorkvia, via Local Notice to Mariners, via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and via other methods described in 33 CFR 165.7.
        E. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to the rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
        1. Regulatory Planning and Review
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

        The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal as this proposed RNA will not necessarily prohibit vessel traffic in the affected waterways. Rather, this proposed RNA will primarily establish a speed and wake restriction along the waters surrounding the Bayonne Bridge. There may be times that the Coast Guard will prohibit vessel traffic through the RNA, but such closures are expected to take place during off peak hours. Moreover, even when the Coast Guard generally prohibits vessel traffic through the RNA, specific vessels may still obtain permission to transit through the RNA. Additionally, the Coast Guard will provide the public with advanced notification of waterway closures so that mariners may plan accordingly. Such notifications will be made through various means, including, but not limited to, Local Notice to Mariners and at http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork. For all of these reasons, the Coast Guard has determined that this proposed rulemaking would not be a significant regulatory action.
        2. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. For all of the reasons discussed in the REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW section, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        3. Assistance for Small Entities

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        4. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
        5. Federalism
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
        6. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
        7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        8. Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        9. Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
        11. Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
        12. Energy Effects
        This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
        13. Technical Standards
        This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
        14. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a Regulated Navigation Area and thus, is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

        1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. Add § 165.168 to read as follows:

          § 165.168
          Regulated Navigation Area; Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay; Bayonne, NJ, NY Regulated Area.
          (a) Location. The following area is a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA): all waters of Bergen Point East and West Reaches in the Kill Van Kull, and all waters of Newark Bay South Reach, bound by the following approximate positions: 40°38′51.93″ N, 074°06′47.90″ W; thence to 40°38′41.53″ N, 074°07′18.54″ W; thence to 40°38′38.20″ N, 074°07′41.30″ W; thence to 40°38′40.47″ N, 074°08′01.61″ W; thence to 40°38′34.20″ N, 074°08′41.71″ W; thence to 40°38′39.67″ N, 074°08′51.86″ W; thence to 40°38′50.20″ N, 074°08′55.19″ W; thence to 40°39′17.54″ N, 074°08′38.20″ W; thence to 40°39′19.00″ N, 074°08′53.09″ W; thence to 40°39′07.94″ N, 074°08′59.04″ W; thence to 40°38′46.87″ N, 074°09′23.03″ W; thence to 40°38′33.40″ N, 074°09′19.87″ W; thence to 40°38′24.86″ N, 074°09′02.71″ W; thence to 40°38′23.93″ N, 074°08′52.56″ W; thence to 40°38′31.40″ N, 074°08′07.56″ W; thence to 40°38′31.80″ N, 074°07′55.66″ W; thence to 40°38′30.06″ N, 074°07′41.13″ W; thence to 40°38′33.80″ N, 074°07′14.86″ W; thence to 40°38′43.93″ N, 074°06′45.45″ W; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
          (b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.10, 165.11, and 165.13 apply within the RNA.
          (2) Any vessel transiting through the RNA must make a direct passage. No vessel may stop, moor, anchor or loiter within the RNA at any time unless they are working on the bridge construction. Movement within the RNA is subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. All vessels may not produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
          (3) There may be times that the First District Commander or the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York finds it necessary to close the RNA to vessel traffic. All closures will be limited to specific hours of the day. Mariners will be advised of all closure dates and times via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners in advance of closure times. During such closures, persons and vessels may request permission to enter the RNA by contacting the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative on VHF-16 or via phone at 718-354-4353 (Sector New York Command Center).
          (4) Vessels in the RNA must comply with directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's on-scene representative. The “on-scene representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. The on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel; or other designated craft; or on shore and communicating with a Vessel Traffic Service New York Watchstander or vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
          (5) All other relevant regulations, including but not limited to the Rules of the Road, as codified in 33 CFR Subchapter E, Inland Navigational Rules, remain in effect within the RNA and must be strictly followed at all times.
          (c) Enforcement period. This regulation will be in place from 8:00 a.m. on February 1, 2015 until December 31, 2016. This RNA's speed restrictions are enforceable 24 hours a day as long as this RNA is in place. The Coast Guard will enforce waterway closures only when necessary to protect people and vessels from hazards associated with bridge construction.
          (d) Notification. The Coast Guard will rely on the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public of the time and duration of any closure of the RNA. Violations of this RNA may be reported to the COTP at 718-354-4353 or on VHF-Channel 16.

          Dated: December 22, 2015.
          L.L. Fagan,
          Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2015-00178 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 160301165-6165-01]
        RIN 0648-BF88
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Proposed 2016-2018 Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This rulemaking proposes catch limits, commercial quotas, and possession limits for the spiny dogfish fishery for the 2016-2018 fishing years. The proposed action was developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils pursuant to the fishery specification requirements of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan. These management measures are supported by the best available scientific information and reflect recent declines in spiny dogfish biomass, and are expected to result in minor positive economic impacts for the spiny dogfish fishery while maintaining the conservation objectives of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the specifications, including the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), and other supporting documents for the action are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The framework is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0061, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0061, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Spiny Dogfish Specifications.”

            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 www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) 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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9182.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Atlantic spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) fishery is jointly managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission also manages the spiny dogfish fishery in state waters from Maine to North Carolina through an interstate fishery management plan. The Federal Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was implemented in 2000, when spiny dogfish were determined to be overfished. The spiny dogfish stock was declared to be successfully rebuilt in 2010, and it continues to be above its target biomass.
        The regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L, outline the process for specifying an annual catch limit (ACL), commercial quota, possession limit, and other management measures for a period of 1-5 years. The Mid-Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews the best available information on the status of the spiny dogfish population and recommends acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels. This recommendation is then used as the basis for catch limits and other management measures developed by the Council's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee and Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (which includes members of both Councils). The Councils then review the recommendations of the committees and make their specification recommendations to NMFS. NMFS reviews those recommendations, and may modify them if necessary to ensure that they are consistent with the FMP and other applicable law. NMFS then publishes proposed measures for public comment.
        Spiny Dogfish Stock Status Update
        In November 2015, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center updated spiny dogfish stock status, using the most recent catch and biomass estimates from the spring trawl surveys, and a new model to help account for the missing spring 2014 trawl survey value. Updated estimates indicate that the female spawning stock biomass (SSB) for 2015 was 371 million lb (168,207 mt), about 6 percent above the target maximum sustainable yield biomass proxy (SSBmax) of 351 million lb (159,288 mt). The 2015 fishing mortality (F) estimate for the stock was 0.21, below the overfishing threshold (FMSY) of 0.2439. Therefore, the spiny dogfish stock is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing.

        However, the 3-year average survey index of female SSB dropped substantially in 2015. This decline was not unexpected and is primarily due to (1) high variance in the survey, and (2) poor spiny dogfish pup production (i.e., recruitment to the dogfish stock). The 2012 survey index value (a point estimate) was very high. Because of this, it was expected that the 3-year average survey index would decline as that high value worked out of 3-year average calculation. Further, the 2015 survey index value was the lowest value in 15 years. As a result, the 3-year average survey index has declined. Similar to the expected reduction in the 3-year average survey index, the effect of poor pup production has been anticipated for some time. Poor pup production from approximately 1997-2003 has reduced SSB. Because of the formulaic method used to drive the ABC, consistent with the Council's risk policy, a reduction in the SSB calculated from the 3-year average survey index leads directly to a reduction in the ABC value.

        The Mid-Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee reviewed this information and recommended reducing the ABC levels for spiny dogfish for the 2016-2018 fishing years. The ABC recommendations were based on an overfishing level (OFL) of median catch at the FMSY proxy and the Council's risk policy. The resulting new spiny dogfish ABCs are 52.1 million lb (23,617 mt) for 2016, 50.8 million lb (23,045 mt) for 2017, and 49.9 million lb (22,635 mt) for 2018 (decreases from 62.4 million lb (28,310 mt) in 2015).
        Proposed Specifications
        The Councils' Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee and the Commission's Spiny Dogfish Technical Committee met in Fall 2015 to determine the resulting ACLs and quotas following the FMP's process. To calculate the commercial quota for each year, deductions were made from the ABC to account for Canadian landings (143,300 lb (65 mt)), U.S. discards (11.494 million lb (5,214 mt)), and U.S. recreational harvest (68,343 lb (31 mt)). The resulting ACLs and commercial quotas are summarized in Table 1.

          Table 1—Proposed 2016-2018 ACL and Commercial Quota Specifications for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery

            Fishing year
            ACL (lb)

            ACL (mt)

            Commercial quota (lb)

            Commercial quota (mt)

            Change from 2015 (percent)

            2016
            51,923,272
            23,552
            40,360,761
            18,307
            −20

            2017
            50,662,228
            22,980
            39,099,717
            17,735
            −23

            2018
            49,758,333
            22,570
            38,195,822
            17,325
            −25

        Because of the proposed harvest reductions, the Councils initially recommended the status quo spiny dogfish trip limit of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) in their October and December 2015 meetings. This recommendation was submitted to NMFS when the Councils took final action. However, these reduced quotas are still significantly higher than actual landings in recent years due to limited demand. At their April 2016 meetings both Councils voted to request an increase in the trip limit to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg), based upon input from the Commission and a number of fishing industry representatives.
        In this rule, NMFS is proposing the status quo (5,000 lb (2,268 kg)) trip limit because this was the recommendation originally submitted to us by the Councils. However, we will review the Commission's and Councils' more recent requests along with other public comments, and consider increasing the trip limit to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg), as recommended by the Councils and Commission, in the final rule.
        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 is consistent with the Spiny Dogfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of the specifications document, the EA for the specifications, and this preamble to the proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from the Councils (see ADDRESSES).
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the Background section of the preamble and in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        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
        This proposed rule would impact fishing vessels, including commercial fishing entities. In 2014, there were 2,473 vessels that held an open access spiny dogfish permit. Cross-referencing those permits with vessel ownership data revealed that 1,830 entities owned those vessels. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), firms are classified as finfish or shellfish firms based on the activity from which they derive the most revenue. Using the $5.5 million cutoff for shellfish firms (NAICS 114112) and the $20.5 million cutoff for finfish firms (NAICS 114111), 18 entities (1.0 percent) qualified as large businesses in 2014. Of the 1,812 small entities, 570 were finfish small entities, 580 were shellfish small entities, and 244 were for-hire small entities. Additionally, 418 small entities had no revenue in 2014. On average, for small entities, spiny dogfish is responsible for a small fraction of total landings, and active participants derive a small share of gross receipts from the spiny dogfish fishery.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

        These proposed specifications include management measure alternatives for (1) the spiny dogfish ACLs and associated commercial quotas, and (2) spiny dogfish trip limits, which are fully described in the EA supporting this action (see ADDRESSES). The preferred ACL/quota alternative described in the preamble of this proposed rule (Alternative 2), as well as Alternative 3, represent reductions (20-25 percent for Alternative 2; 50-51 percent for Alternative (3) in the allowable landings as compared to the no action alternative. Therefore, as compared to the other alternatives, the no action alternative would have a higher potential of minimizing short-term economic impacts on small entities. However, the potential negative economic impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to be realized because they would not constrain landings in the fishery, and not result in revenue losses commensurate with the quota reductions. Average spiny dogfish landings for 2012-2014 was approximately 22 million lb (9,979 mt), which is lower than any of the analyzed quota alternatives. Therefore, the proposed action is expected to have neutral economic impacts compared to no action in the short-term, but have potentially low positive impacts in the long-term due to maintaining sustainability of the spiny dogfish resource.
        Regarding spiny dogfish trip limits, the proposed action is to maintain the status quo (5,000 lb (2,268 kg)). Higher trip limits were considered in Alternative 4 (6,000 lb (2,722 kg)) and Alternative 5 (7,000 lb (3,175 kg)). In general, higher trip limits could result in greater immediate revenue per trip, but would increase the potential for an abbreviated season if the quota or processing capacity is reached. Large increases in trip limits may also contribute to lower and more unstable prices. Given the currently limiting overall demand for spiny dogfish, trip limits may not have a large effect on overall revenue across the fishery, only the rate of landings. Therefore, the alternatives with higher trip limits may help minimize economic impacts, but only if prices remain relatively stable and demand increases.

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

           Dated: June 15, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-14815 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [CGD01-04-133]
        RIN 1625-AA11
        Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Buzzards Bay, MA

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of public meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is considering amending the existing Regulated Navigation Area for navigable waters within the First Coast Guard District, to require additional navigation safety measures within Buzzards Bay, including tug escorts and use of Recommended Routes. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks public comment on the merits, advantages, and disadvantages of any amendment to the currently-existing RNA that would require tug escort of tank barges transiting Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. In addition, the Coast Guard seeks comments on the merits of formally designating the existing Recommended Route in Buzzard's Bay.

          DATES:

          1. Comments are due on or before December 27, 2004.
          2. Public hearings will be held at 7:30 p.m. on November 16, 2004, and at 7:30 p.m. on November 17, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          The Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence maintains the public docket for this ANPRM. Comments and documents will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may submit comments and related material by:
          (1) Mail or delivery to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI, 02914-1208.
          (2) Fax to 401-435-2399.
          (3) Electronically via e-mail at EleBlanc@msoprov.uscg.mil.

          The public hearing locations are:
          (1) New Bedford Whaling Museum, 18 Johnny Cake Hill, New Bedford, MA; and
          (2) Massachusetts Maritime Academy, 101 Academy Drive, Buzzard's Bay, MA.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this ANPRM, address mail to, or call, e-mail, or fax, Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, c/o Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914-1208, telephone 401-435-2351, or e-mail at EleBlanc@msoprov.uscg.mil, or fax 401-435-2399.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Request for Comments

        We encourage you to participate by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this ANPRM (CGD01-04-133), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the project officer at the addresses or phone numbers listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
        Public Meetings
        We intend to hold two public meetings to receive comments on this ANPRM. The times, dates, and locations for these meetings are:
        (1) 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, New Bedford Whaling Museum, 18 Johnny Cake Hill, New Bedford, MA; and
        (2) 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, 101 Academy Drive, Buzzards Bay, MA.
        Background and Purpose
        Congress designated Buzzards Bay as an Estuary of National Significance in 1985, one of only five estuaries in the U.S. so designated. The Bay has some of Massachusetts' most productive shellfish beds. It interacts with three very different marine systems, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, Vineyard Sound to the east, and Cape Cod Bay to the north. In 2002, there were nearly 10,000 commercial vessel transits and over 1200 tank barge transits in Buzzards Bay, and an estimated 80% of those tank barges were single hull vessels. Since 1969 there have been several significant incidents of tank barge groundings and tank barge groundings with oil spills in Buzzards Bay, including the grounding of the tank barge Florida in 1969 with a spill of approximately 175,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil; the grounding of the tank barge Bouchard in 1977 with a spill of approximately 81,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil; the grounding of the tank barge ST-85 in 1986 with a spill of approximately 119,000 gallons of gasoline; the grounding of the tug Marie J. Turecamo and its asphalt-laden barge in 1999; the grounding of the tug Mary Turecamo and its barge Florida in 1999 carrying 4.7 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil; and the grounding of the barge B-120 in April 2003 with a spill of No. 6 oil estimated to be of approximately 22,000 to 98,000 gallons.   Groundings or collisions of tank barges could lead to a significant discharge or release of oil or other hazardous materials, as demonstrated by the incidents noted above, with potentially significant adverse impacts on the coastal and maritime environment, and the local economy. The purpose of examining strategies for navigation and waterways management improvements in Buzzards Bay is to reduce the likelihood of another accident that might result in the discharge or release of oil or hazardous material into the navigable waters of the United States.

        After a previous oil spill from the tank barge North Cape off of Point Judith, Rhode Island, in 1996, the Coast Guard chartered a Regional Risk Assessment Team (RRAT), comprised of government, commercial, and environmental entities, to examine navigation safety issues within New England waters. The RRAT recommended, and the Coast Guard implemented, a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) that imposed certain requirements on single-hulled tank barges transiting New England waters, including Buzzards Bay. Subsequent to an oil spill in Buzzards Bay in April, 2003, noted above, the Coast Guard sponsored a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA), which was conducted by a cross-section of key Buzzards Bay waterways users and stakeholders, resulting in numerous suggestions for improving navigation safety in the Bay. The PAWSA report suggested, in part, that the risk for oil or hazardous material discharge in Buzzards Bay is relatively high, and that one method of reducing that risk, among many that were suggested, might be to “establish requirements for escort tugs.” (The PAWSA report is available in docket CGD01-04-133. See
          ADDRESSES above on procedures to access the docket.) The PAWSA also recommended that Recommended Routes be established to help assist vessel traffic and provide safer transit routes for commercial vessels. Additionally, in a letter from several members of the U.S. Congressional delegation from Massachusetts, the Coast Guard was asked to consider measures similar to those recommended in the PAWSA, specifically: Assist tugs, Recommended Routes, and an Automatic Identification System (AIS). This letter, along with the Coast Guard's response, in available in the public docket.

        AIS is currently the subject of a separate Coast Guard rulemaking process. See docket USCG-2003-14878, 68 FR 39369, or at http://dms.dot.gov/. Under the AIS rule, tank barges, among others, transiting Buzzards Bay would be required to carry AIS, although an implementation date for that carriage requirement has not yet been established, except for certain vessels on international voyages. Additionally, the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Providence, RI, has requested that Buzzards Bay be designated a Vessel Movement Reporting System under 33 CFR 161 to monitor the movements of certain vessels, including tank barges under tow, within Buzzards Bay. That request is currently under review by Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, DC. A copy of this request is available in the public docket for this ANPRM (CGD01-04-133).
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at the request of the Coast Guard, has already indicated Recommended Routes on navigational charts for Rhode Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, and Buzzards Bay. These recommended Routes are currently included on all new editions of charts 13205, 13218, 13221, and 13230. Currently, an escort tug is required in Buzzards Bay only for single hull tank barges, unless the single hull tank barge is being towed by a primary towing vessel with twin-screw propulsion and with a separate system for power to each screw. Consequently, the vast majority of tug and barges transiting Buzzards Bay (of which most barges are single hull) employ tugs with twin screws and twin engines, but with no additional positive control. The Coast Guard is considering a regulation that would require a tug escort of all tank barges carrying oil or hazardous material regardless of the towing vessel's propulsion configuration, to ensure positive control of the tank vessel.
        Discussion of Proposed Regulation
        The Coast Guard is considering a regulation that would require tug escorts of all laden tank barges. The Coast Guard is also seeking comments on the merits of formally designating the existing Recommended Route, currently in place in Buzzards Bay.
        For the purposes of this Notice, the following terms are as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101:

          Tank vessel is defined as “a vessel that is constructed or adapted to carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous material in bulk as cargo or cargo residue.”

          Barge is defined as a non-self-propelled vessel.

          Oil is defined as “oil of any type or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes except dredged spoil.”

          Hazardous material is defined as “a liquid material or substance that is flammable or combustible; designated a hazardous substance under section 311(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1231); or designated a hazardous material under 49 U.S.C. 5103(a)”.
        For the purposes of this Notice, “tank barge” is a non-self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted to carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous material in bulk as cargo or cargo residue.
        For the purposes of this Notice, the following term is as defined in 33 CFR 165.100, “Regulated Navigation Area: Navigable waters within the First Coast Guard District:”

          Tug escort is an escort or assist tug “of sufficient capability to promptly push or tow the tank (vessel) away from danger of grounding or collision in the event of a propulsion failure; a parted towing line; a loss of tow; a fire; grounding; a loss of steering; or any other casualty that affects the navigation or seaworthiness of either vessel.”
        For the purposes of this Notice,

          Buzzards Bay is the body of water east and north of a line drawn from the southern tangent of Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, in approximate position latitude 41°27.2′ N, longitude 70°11.7′ W, to the Buzzards Bay Entrance Light in approximate position latitude 41°23.5′ N, longitude 71°02.0′ W, and then to the southwestern tangent of Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts, at approximate position latitude 41°24.6′ N, longitude 70°57.0′ W, and including all of the Cape Cod Canal to its eastern entrance, except that the area of New Bedford harbor within the confines (north of) the hurricane barrier, and the passages through the Elizabeth Islands, would not be considered to be Buzzards Bay.

          Recommended Route is the light green-shaded route contained on the most recent editions of NOAA navigational charts 13230 and 13218, and accompanied by a “Note” on each chart which reads “Recommended Routes for deep draft vessels (including tugs and barges) entering and departing Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, and Buzzards Bay. While not mandatory, deep draft commercial vessels (including tugs and barges) are requested to follow the Recommended Routes at the master's discretion. Other vessels, while not excluded from these Recommended Routes, should exercise caution in and around these areas and monitor VHF channel 16 or 13 for information concerning deep draft vessels (including tugs and barges) transiting these routes. See U.S. Coast Pilot Section 2, Chapter 5, 6 or 7 as appropriate.” These Recommended Routes are not part of the internationally recognized and approved Narragansett Bay Traffic Lane and Buzzards Bay Traffic Lane in Rhode Island Sound, and have not been formally adopted by the Coast Guard.
        Questions
        We invite the public to answer the following questions. Any additional information provided on this topic is welcome. In responding to each question, please identify the question to which your response applies, and explain your reasoning as fully as possible so that we can carefully weigh the consequences and impacts of any future regulatory actions the Coast Guard may take.
        In preparing your responses to these questions, please indicate your position in the maritime industry, if applicable.
        Tug Escorts
        1. What would constitute an effective “tug escort?” Does the definition in this ANPRM suffice?
        2. What would be the costs, if any, to tank barge owners, operators, and consumers, of requiring a tug escort for all tank barges transiting Buzzards Bay?

        3. What would be the economic impact to small entities, if any, of a requirement that all tank barges have tug escorts? “Small entities” is as defined by Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601], and generally refers to an enterprise or business that “is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant it its field of operation.”
        4. Would a requirement that all tank barges have tug escorts cause a shortage of tug availability in the Buzzards Bay or Northeast U.S. areas? If so, what are the likely, potential economic impacts? Would rates for hiring tugs in the Buzzards Bay or Northeast U.S. areas change significantly as a result of such a requirement? If so, how much would rates change?
        5. Are there alternatives to tug escorts, such as increased manning or pilotage requirements on tugs, or double hulls on barges, that would provide an equivalent or improved level of navigational safety in Buzzards Bay?
        Vessel Routing
        6. Would a requirement that tank barges under tow, and with tug escort, use the Recommended Route in Buzzards Bay currently displayed on NOAA charts have any adverse economic or navigation safety impacts?
        7. Are there other alternatives to required routing that would enhance navigational safety in Buzzard's Bay, such as a Recommended Route approved by the International Maritime Organization? If so, should such a route differ from the Recommended Route currently shown on navigational charts?
        Comments are not limited to the preceding questions and are invited on any aspect of the proposed regulation.
        Federalism

        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on state or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the cases of United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) and Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978) has ruled that certain categories regulation issued pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended, are reserved exclusively to the Coast Guard, and that state regulation in these areas is preempted.

        On August 4, 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted Chapter 251 of the Acts of 2004, an Act Relative to Oil Spill Prevention and Response in Buzzard's Bay and Other Harbors and Bays of the Commonwealth. It is the view of the Coast Guard that several provisions of the Massachusetts Act touch categories of regulation reserved to the Federal Government and are preempted per the rulings in Locke and Ray. It is likely that any regulations promulgated as a result of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking would likewise touch categories of regulation reserved to the Federal Government, thus becoming further indicia of preemption.
        Section 17 of the Massachusetts Act purports to impose a state pilotage requirement on certain vessels engaged in the coastwise trade. It is the view of the Coast Guard that this provision is void by operation of law pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 8501. Coast Guard regulations promulgated as a result of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking may also address pilotage.
        Because of the preemption issues described above, the Coast Guard will conduct a Federalism analysis pursuant to E.O. 13132 for any rules promulgated as a result of this notice. Sections 4 and 6 of E.O. 13132 require that for any rules with preemptive effect, the Coast Guard shall provide elected officials of affected state and local governments and their representative national organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate participation in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such officials early in the rulemaking process. Although it is the view of the Coast Guard that certain sections of the Massachusetts law are preempted for reasons independent of any potential rulemaking action here, in order to comply with the spirit of E.O. 13132, the Coast Guard has already begun consultations with the state government of Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We invite other affected state and local governments and their representative national organizations to indicate their desire for participation and consultation in the rulemaking process by submitting comments to this notice.

          Dated: October 14, 2004.
          David Pekoske,
          Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 04-23963 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-15-P