        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [PS Docket No. 07-114; DA 08-2129]
        Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Federal Communications Commission sought comment on proposals in certain ex parte filings submitted by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), AT&T, Sprint Nextel Corporation, and Verizon Wireless regarding location accuracy requirements for wireless licensees subject to the Commission's rules that specify standards for wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II location accuracy and reliability. The proposed rule stated that “Comments are due October 6, 2008 by 12 p.m. Reply Comments are due October 14, 2008 by 12 p.m.” Only Reply Comments are due by 12 p.m. Comments are due on October 6, 2008.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Thomas J. Beers, Chief, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-0952.
          Correction
          In the Federal Register of September 25, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-22645, on page 55473, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read:

          DATES:
          Comments are due October 6, 2008. Reply Comments are due October 14, 2008 by 12 p.m.

          Thomas J. Beers,
          Division Chief, Policy, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E8-22932 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 160810719-7041-01]
        RIN 0648-BG29
        Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to implement measures described in Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), Amendment 7 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), and Amendment 6 to the FMP for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule refers to these amendments, in combination, as the Accountability Measure (AM) Timing Amendment. This proposed rule to implement the AM Timing Amendment would modify the date for the implementation of AM-based closures for all species and species groups managed by the Council under the subject FMPs. The purpose of the AM Timing Amendment and this proposed rule is to minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse socio-economic impacts of AM-based closures, while constraining catch levels to the applicable annual catch limits (ACLs) and preventing overfishing.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before March 13, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0013” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0013, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to María del Mar López, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the AM Timing Amendment, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/caribbean/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          María del Mar López, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: maria.lopez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the reef fish, spiny lobster, and corals and reef associated plants and invertebrates (corals) fisheries are managed under their respective FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the Council and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
        Background
        The current AMs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ for reef fish, spiny lobster, and corals require NMFS to reduce the length of the Federal fishing season in the year following a determination that the landings for a species or species group exceeded the applicable ACL. As specified in the FMPs, the landings determination is based on the applicable 3-year landings average. However, if NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season the following fishing year. The fishing year for Council-managed species in Caribbean Federal waters is the calendar year of January 1 through December 31. If an AM-based closure is required, the closure period currently extends from December 31 backward into the fishing year of the closure (closure year), for the number of days necessary to constrain harvest to the applicable ACL. Fishers in the USVI and Puerto Rico have stated that implementing AM-based closures at the end of the fishing year results in negative socio-economic impacts, for example, by resulting in multiple and potentially overlapping closures during the important December holiday season. Additionally, fishers in Puerto Rico have stated that timing AM-based closures with a September 30 end date would be expected to reduce adverse socio-economic impacts.
        Management Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would modify the date for implementation of an AM-based closure in the event of an ACL overage for a species or species group managed by the Council in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs. Specifically, an AM-based closure would be implemented from September 30 of the closure year backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year, for the number of days necessary to achieve the reduction in landings required to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year (December 31). Caribbean fishers have indicated that this approach to implementing AM-based closures is desirable, because it would be expected to reduce the likelihood that these fishers would lose market access during periods of high demand for fish. Modifying the date for the implementation of AM-based closures through this proposed rule would not change the level of harvest reduction if an AM-based closure were required. This proposed rule to implement the AM Timing Amendment is thus expected to minimize adverse socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs, while still helping to ensure that AM-based closures constrain harvest to the ACL and prevent overfishing. NMFS notes that the method for calculating the landings determination using the 3-years landings average for a species or species group will not change through this proposed rule.
        The FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI is not included in the AM Timing Amendment because queen conch are managed with an in-season closure when the ACL is reached or projected to be reached, rather than a post-season reduction in the fishing year.
        Additional Action Contained in the AM Timing Amendment But Not Codified Through This Proposed Rule
        In addition to the measure discussed above, the AM Timing Amendment requires that the Council revisit the practice of using September 30 as the end date for AM-based closures no longer than 2 years from the implementation of the AM Timing Amendment and no longer than every 2 years thereafter. Any associated formal review would allow NMFS and the Council to consider changing the implementation date for AM-based closures based on new information, and would be expected to result in additional positive social and economic effects.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, the AM Timing Amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination follows.
        In approving the AM Timing Amendment, the Council determined that AM-based closures need to be better timed so that they successfully achieve their conservation objective and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse social and economic impacts to fishers and fishing communities. The purpose of this proposed rule is to change the end date from which AM-based closures are calculated, so that adverse social and economic effects are minimized to the extent practicable, while still ensuring that harvest does not exceed the applicable ACLs required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and implementing regulations.
        This proposed rule, if implemented, would directly affect all entities that commercially harvest federally managed species under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. This proposed rule would be expected to directly affect approximately 1,000-1,200 commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico, 200-250 commercial fishermen in St. Croix, and 70 commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John, resulting in a total of 1,270-1,520 fishermen. The average annual revenue from commercial fishing for 2012-2014 is estimated to be approximately $7,250-$8,700 for Puerto Rico fishermen, $10,500-$13,100 for St. Croix fishermen, and $29,600 for St. Thomas and St. John fishermen (2014 dollars). Total average annual revenue (2014 dollars) for all fishermen for 2012-2014 was approximately $8.7 million for Puerto Rico, $2.6 million for St. Croix, and $2.1 million for St. Thomas and St. John. More recent information is not available.
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities.
        NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule. Although this proposed rule would also directly affect recreational anglers, recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA. Changes in angler demand for for-hire services (charter vessels and headboats, as applicable) as a result of this proposed rule could affect for-hire businesses; however, these changes would be indirect effects of this proposed rule and, therefore, are outside the scope of the RFA.
        The AM Timing Amendment contains two actions. The first action would modify the implementation date for any AM-based closure implemented under the subject FMPs, and the second action would require the Council to periodically reconsider its proposed approach. Changing the end date for required AM-based closures to September 30 would be expected to result in unquantifiable economic benefits to the directly affected commercial fishing businesses. An AM-based closure is required in the year following the determination that the ACL is exceeded. The fishing year for Caribbean fisheries is the calendar year of January 1 through December 31, and the current date for determining the AM-based closure period is December 31. If an AM-based closure is required, the closure period extends from December 31 backward into the fishing year until a sufficient number of days are closed to constrain harvest to the applicable ACL and prevent another ACL overage. Fishermen have reported that AM-based closures extending from December 31 backward into the closure year conflict with periods of high consumer demand. Because the end of the year is a period of high consumer demand, AM-based closures during this period result in reduced revenue and profits to affected fishermen. This proposed rule would change the time period of any necessary AM-based closure. The intent of the closure would be to allow the ACL to be harvested, but not exceeded, regardless of the timing or duration of the AM-based closure. AM closures would be applied from September 30 of the closure year and extend backward into the fishing year, in order to better time the closure and reduce or avoid conflict with economically and socially important seasons. Although the amount of harvest reduction during an AM-based closure would be unaffected by changing the implementation date, avoiding closures during periods of increased demand would be expected to enable fishermen to better meet market demand and maintain product flow, and to receive higher prices and associated profits. Available data are insufficient to document seasonal price variability or to demonstrate the benefits of allowing the possibility of keeping fisheries open, and thus supplying fish during these periods of high demand. Quantitative documentation of demand-driven price increases during the end-of-year and special seasons is not currently available. Additionally, any future ACL overages and associated closures cannot be reasonably predicted. Therefore, it is not feasible to provide quantitative estimates of the potential expected economic benefits of changing the timing of these closures. Nevertheless, the Council selected the proposed action based on extensive input from fishers and expects that the action would result in increases in revenue and associated profits, even if these predicted increases cannot be quantified.
        The second action in the AM Timing Amendment would specify when the Council must revisit and possibly review the practice of using September 30 as the end date for AM-based closures. This is an administrative action because it would establish a procedural requirement as part of the Council's management process. This second action would not be expected to have any direct economic effects on any small entities. Although the review could lead to the Council's subsequent consideration of management changes that may have economic effects on fishing businesses, these would be indirect effects of this action to establish the timing for the Council's review and deliberation, and indirect economic effects are outside the scope of the RFA.
        Based on the discussion above, NMFS determines that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Caribbean, Fisheries, Fishing.

          Dated: February 7, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.12, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

          § 622.12
           Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for Caribbean island management areas/Caribbean EEZ.
          (a) If landings from a Caribbean island management area, as specified in Appendix E to this part, except for landings of queen conch (see § 622.491(b)), or landings from the Caribbean EEZ for tilefish and aquarium trade species, are estimated by the SRD to have exceeded the applicable ACL, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for Puerto Rico management area species or species groups, paragraph (a)(2) of this section for St. Croix management area species or species groups, paragraph (a)(3) of this section for St. Thomas/St. John management area species or species groups, or paragraph (a)(4) of this section for the Caribbean EEZ, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species groups that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. As described in the respective FMPs, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any required fishing season reduction will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. If NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMPs. With the exceptions of Caribbean queen conch in the Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John management areas, goliath grouper, Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for each management area. The ACLs specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section are given in round weight.

      [FR Doc. 2017-02787 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223
        [Docket No. 050323081-5081-01; I.D. 031505C]
        RIN 0648-AT02
        Endangered and Threatened Species: Notification of Public Hearing on Proposed Listing Determination for the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American Green Sturgeon as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule: notification of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          On April 6, 2005, NMFS proposed threatened status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris; hereafter “green sturgeon”) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In this notice, NMFS is announcing that a public hearing has been scheduled at one location in Sacramento, CA, in July 2005 to provide additional opportunities for the public and other interested parties to comment on the subject proposal.

          DATES:
          The hearing will be held on July 6, 2005, from 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
          Written comments on the proposed threatened listing for the Southern green sturgeon DPS must be received by July 6, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          The hearing will be held in the Stanford Room at 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814. Please enter the building through the main entrance, which is located on the Capitol Mall side of the building.
          You may submit comments on the proposed threatened listing of the Southern green sturgeon DPS, identified by Docket Number 050323081-5081-01 and RIN 0648-AT02, by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: GreenSturgeon.Comments@noaaa.gov. Include docket number and RIN number in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments and information to Assistant Regional Administrator, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, California, 90802-4213. You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the address given above.
          • Fax: 562-980-4027.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melissa Neuman, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4115; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On April 6, 2005, NMFS proposed threatened status for the Southern DPS of green sturgeon under the ESA (70 FR 17386). The Southern DPS of green sturgeon includes coastal and Central Valley populations south of the Eel River, with the only known population in the Sacramento River. The public comment period for this proposal opened on April 6, 2005, and was originally scheduled to close on July 5, 2005. NMFS is extending the deadline for written comments to coincide with the date of the public hearing (July 6, 2005).
        Public Hearing
        Joint U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of the Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Although no requests were received, NMFS is holding a public hearing to provide an additional opportunity for the public and other interested parties to comment on the subject proposal. One public hearing will be held in California on the specific date and at the specific location listed here:
        Please be advised that weapons, cameras, and cell phones with cameras are prohibited in the building. Members of the public attempting to enter 650 Capitol Mall with any of these items will be denied access and will be asked to return said item(s) to their vehicle before entering the building.

        NMFS has scheduled this hearing to allow affected stakeholders and members of the public the opportunity to provide comments directly to agency staff. However, this public meeting is not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to provide written input to NMFS on the proposal (via correspondence, e-mail, fax, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES, above) during the public comment period, which closes on July 6, 2005.
        References
        Copies of the Federal Register notices and related materials cited herein are available on the Southwest Region's website at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov. or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).

          Dated: June 13, 2005.
          James H. Lecky,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-12105 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0071; FRL-9961-78-Region 9]
        Delegation of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the States of Arizona and Nevada

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve updates to the Code of Federal Regulations delegation tables to reflect the current delegation status of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in Arizona and Nevada.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by June 12, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0071 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152, buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving updates to the Code of Federal Regulations delegation tables to reflect the current delegation status of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in Arizona and Nevada. We are approving these updates in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
        We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Dated: March 24, 2017.
          Elizabeth J. Adams,
          Acting Director, Air Division, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2017-09496 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding for Petitions To List Horkelia hendersonii (Henderson's horkelia) and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis (Ashland lupine) as Threatened or Endangered and Commencement of Status Review

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on two petitions to list Horkelia hendersonii (Henderson's horkelia) and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis (Ashland lupine) as endangered or threatened species throughout their ranges under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petitions presented substantial information indicating that listing of both species may be warranted. We are initiating a status review to determine if listing of either or both species is warranted.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made May 31, 2000. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, information and comments should be submitted to us by September 11, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this petition should be submitted to the State Supervisor, Oregon State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266. The petition finding, supporting data, and comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Andrew F. Robinson, Jr. (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 503/231-6179).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, or to revise a critical habitat designation, presents substantial scientific or commercial information to demonstrate that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and we are to publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register. If the finding is that substantial information was presented, we are also required to promptly commence a review of the status of the involved species and to disclose its findings within 12 months (12-month finding).

        We received two separate formal petitions from the Rogue Group Sierra Club of Ashland, Oregon, both dated September 9, 1999, to list Horkelia hendersonii (Henderson's horkelia) and Lupinus ariduse ssp.
          ashlandensis (Ashland lupine) as endangered or threatened throughout their ranges, and to designate critical habitat. Accompanying the petitions was supporting information relating to taxonomy, ecology, threats, and past and present distribution of H. hendersonii and L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis.

        The processing of the petitions conforms with our Listing Priority Guidance published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR57114). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing emergency listing rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent risk to its well-being (Priority 1). Second priority (Priority 2) is processing final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Third priority is processing new proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of administrative petition findings (petitions filed under section 4 of the Act) is the fourth priority. The processing of this petition finding is a Priority 4 action and is being completed in accordance with the current Listing Priority Guidance.

          Horkelia hendersonii, a member of the rose family, is a perennial, mat-forming, rhizomatous herb with several stems arising from a branching, woody crown, approximately 10-15 centimeters (cm) (3.9-5.9 inches (in.)) high. Leaves are silky, 4-6 cm (1.6-3.3 in.) long with 11-19 leaflets arranged pinnately. Flowers are white to pink with petals 4 millimeters (mm) (0.16 in.) long in a somewhat clustered terminal inflorescence. The species occurs in alpine areas between 1,829-2,286 meters (m) (6,000 to 7,500 feet (ft)) elevation, in habitat that includes open granitic gravels, alpine forblands, and dwarf shrublands.

          Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis is an erect perennial herb forming clumps 15-20 cm (5.9-7.9 in.) in diameter and 7-12 cm (2.8-4.7 in.) tall. The leaves are palmately compound with 5 to 7 leaflets that are up to 3 cm (1.2 in.) long. Leaves are numerous and crowded from the basal crown, with pubescent (downy) undersurfaces and glabrous (smooth) upper sides. Flowers are blue with petals 10-12 mm (0.39-0.47 in.) long. The banner is glabrous and the keel ciliate (fringed with hairlike processes) on the margin. L. a. ssp. ashlandensis grows on gravelly, granitic soils on the south to southwest slopes near the summit at elevations from 2,100 m (6,900 ft) to 2,280 m (7,480 ft). The lupine will not grow in dense brush.
        Federal action on Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis began as a result of section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report (House Document No. 94-51) was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis as threatened. We published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of our acceptance of the Smithsonian Institution report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and our intention to review the status of the reported plant species.
        Both Horkelia hendersonii and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis were included as category 2 candidates in a Notice of Review (NOR) published on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82510). Category 2 formerly included species for which information in our possession indicated that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule. The plant NOR was again revised on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). In this notice, Horkelia hendersonii and L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis remained category 2 candidates. Another revision of the plant notice was published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), which again included H. hendersonii as a category 2 candidate. However, L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis was upgraded to category 1 status. Category 1 candidates were formerly defined as species for which we had on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals, but issuance of proposed rules was precluded by other listing activities of higher priority. On February 28, 1996, we published an NOR in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that discontinued the designation of category 2 species as candidates. In response to the decision to discontinue the category 2 designation, H. hendersonii and other former category 2 candidates were not retained as candidates. In addition, L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis was dropped from the candidate list based on our interpretation of data supplied by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (Rolle 1993).

        The petitions contained substantial amounts of information relating to the distribution of and threats to Horkelia hendersonii and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis. Both species occur within about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the summit on the western slope of Mt. Ashland, Oregon, on the Rogue River and Klamath National Forests. In addition, H. hendersonii is found in both National Forests, along the Siskiyou Crest in the Dutchman Peak-Jackson Gap area, at Observation Peak, and on and near McDonald Peak in Oregon, and at Dry Lake Lookout in the Klamath National Forest in California. L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis occurs as a single population on the top and western ridge of Mount Ashland. Time-series monitoring studies were started by the Forest Service in 1995, but the results are not available to us at this time (Kagan 1995). Horkelia hendersonii has been found in 16 habitat patches, but population trends are not known.

        The petitions provided information regarding effects of habitat alteration and development activities on Horkelia hendersonii and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis. According to the petitions, the Mount Ashland populations of both species are threatened by the expansion of the ski facilities, the communication facilities, and parking lot, road widening, and maintenance; development of a cross-country ski corridor; and erosion, compaction, and invasion of roadside weeds caused by off-road vehicle activities. The Mount Ashland Bowl patch of H. hendersonii, with 15 plants, is located on a proposed ski area expansion site (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991). A proposed cross-country ski corridor would cut through a large portion of the eastern edge of the Mount Ashland habitat patch and could affect up to 5,000 individual H. hendersonii and up to 4,500 individual L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis (Kagan and Zika 1987a,b). In addition to the proposed ski area expansion, 8 individual H. hendersonii and 13 individual L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis are growing in areas of potential disturbance for the expansion of the U.S. Weather Bureau Radar Station (SRI International 1994, 1995). An existing four-wheel drive track, leading west from the summit access road at the first switchback, provides an avenue for the introduction of roadside weeds into the meadow and flat area that supports a sizeable population (4,900 plants) of H. hendersonii and a small population (350 plants) of L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis (Kagan and Zika 1987a,b; Zika 1987; Kagan 1995).

        Although both species occur in open gravelly soils, including the gravelly margins of the access road, neither will colonize the compacted soils of existing roads (even if vehicle use was reduced or eliminated). Neither H. hendersonii nor L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis was found on the gravelly fill around the ski area lift towers or building, and both are apparently restricted to natural undisturbed substrates (Kagan and Zika 1987a,b; Zika 1987).

        In the Dutchman Peak-Jackson Gap area, road maintenance and construction and widening of firebreaks threaten three of the habitat patches that support Horkelia hendersonii. Construction of firebreaks could also involve disturbance of the loose, granitic gravels on the ridges where H. hendersonii grows.
        Livestock grazing has been observed in Horkelia hendersonii habitat at Observation Peak, south of McDonald Peak, and at Dry Lake. Cattle cause damage by trampling, and, although we have no direct evidence that cattle find H. hendersonii particularly palatable, some damage from foraging has been seen (Kagan and Zika 1987a). On the most northern habitat patch on McDonald Peak, 100 H. hendersonii plants were found in 1985, but only 22 in 1987 (Kagan and Zika 1987a). No cause was presented for the reduction in numbers.

        In 1963, the passage of the Oregon Wildflower Law (ORS 564.010-564.040) established protection for Oregon's natural botanical resources. The law was designed to protect showy plants, such as lilies, shooting stars, orchids, and rhododendrons, from collection by horticulturists interested in these species' domestication. The law prohibits the collection of wildflowers from within 61 meters (200 feet) of a State highway. Although protective in spirit, the Oregon Wildflower Law carries minimal penalties and is rarely enforced. In addition, since there are no Horkelia hendersonii or Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis populations close to State highways, this law provided very little protection for these species.

        In 1987, Oregon Senate Bill 533 (ORS 564.100) was passed to augment the legislative actions available for the protection of the State's threatened and endangered species, both plant and animal. That bill, known as the Oregon Endangered Species Act (OESA), mandated responsibility for threatened and endangered plant species in Oregon to the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). The OESA directs the ODA to maintain a strong program to conserve and protect native plant species threatened or endangered with extinction. Although the ODA is able to regulate the import, export, or trafficking of State-listed plant species (under ORS 564.120), their ability to protect plant populations is limited to State-owned or State-leased lands. Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis is State-listed as endangered, receiving protection under OESA on State-managed lands. Horkelia hendersonii is a candidate for listing under OESA, but currently receives no protection on State-owned or State-leased lands. Currently, both species are considered sensitive species by the USFS, and may be afforded some protection during USFS project planning processes and implementation.
        It is possible that Horkelia hendersonii and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis could be negatively affected by the expansion of brushfields and the establishment of trees onto open alpine on Mount Ashland due to fire suppression. The two species are not seen in dense herbaceous vegetation, brush, or the full shade of conifers (Zika 1987). The boundary of both populations on the southwest side of Mount Ashland corresponds closely to the brushfield boundary (Rolle 1993). Continued fragmentation of the populations by construction and widening of roads and other development can reduce genetic exchange between patches, reducing the viability of the populations.

        Currently, we are working with the USFS to develop a conservation agreement for both species on Mount Ashland. The process was initiated in 1995 through a cooperative agreement with the Oregon Natural Heritage Program to develop conservation agreements for selected high-priority candidate species. On July 26, 1999, we provided a draft conservation agreement to the Klamath National Forest and Rogue River National Forest. The Rogue River National Forest is currently revising the draft conservation agreement to cover only Mount Ashland populations, but we have not received that draft for evaluation. If that draft conservation agreement is signed by all parties and implemented, it may remove some or all of the threats faced by H. hendersonii and L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis on Mount Ashland, but may not reduce threats faced by smaller, more isolated populations of H. hendersonii on McDonald Peak, an unnamed peak south of McDonald Peak, Dutchman's Peak, Observation Peak, and at Dry Lake Lookout.

        We have reviewed the petitions, as well as other available information, including published and unpublished studies and reports, and agency files. Based on that information, we find that substantial information exists to indicate that listing of Horkelia hendersonii and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis as threatened or endangered throughout all of their ranges may be warranted. The petitions also requested designation of critical habitat for both species. However, designation of critical habitat is not petitionable under the Act. If the 12-month finding determines that listing H. hendersonii and L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis is warranted, then the designation of critical habitat would be addressed in the subsequent proposed rule.
        Information Solicited

        When we make a positive 90-day finding, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on Horkelia hendersonii and Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis concerning the following: (1) Historic and current distribution; (2) conditions in each habitat patch; (3) basic biology including age-frequency distribution of the population(s) in each habitat patch; (4) ongoing efforts to protect H. hendersonii and L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis and their habitat; and (5) threats to either species and their respective habitats in each occupied habitat patch. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that we make a finding within 1 year from the date the petitions were received as to whether listing H. hendersonii and L. aridus ssp. ashlandensis as threatened or endangered is warranted (12-month finding).
        References Cited
        Kagan, J. 1995. Monitoring of Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis—general monitoring protocol and 1995 data. Unpublished report. 24 pp.

        Kagan, J. and P. Zika. 1987a. Species management guide for Horkelia hendersonii. Unpublished report, Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base. 18 pp.

        Kagan, J. and P. Zika. 1987b. Species management guide for Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis. Unpublished report. Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base. 13 pp.

        Rolle, W. 1993. Documentation, results, and population estimates for Lupinus aridus ssp. ashlandensis, based on a partial census in August and September 1991. Unpublished report. 6 pp.
        SRI International. 1994. Mt. Ashland weather radar rare plant reassessment. Unpublished report. 5 pp.
        SRI International. 1995. NEXRAD in-depth site survey report for the Medford, Oregon, area (existing site). Unpublished report. 5 pp.
        United States Department of Agriculture. 1991. Final environmental impact statement, Mount Ashland Ski Area. Ashland Ranger District, Rogue River National Forest. 15 pp.
        Zika, P. F. 1987. Lupinus aridus ashlandensis and Horkelia hendersonii field survey. Unpublished report. 13 pp. + maps.

        Author: The primary author of this document is Dr. Andrew F. Robinson, Jr. (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: May 31, 2000.
          Jamie Rappaport Clark,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-14497 Filed 6-12-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 020325069-2069-01; I.D. 071299C]
        RIN 0648-AM91
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishing Vessel Permits; Charter Boat Operations

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

          ACTION:
          ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Under the framework provisions of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), NMFS proposes to amend the consolidated regulations governing the Atlantic HMS fisheries to: define operations and regulations for HMS Charter/Headboats (CHBs), require an Atlantic HMS recreational permit, adjust the time frame for permit category changes for Atlantic HMS and Atlantic tunas permits, clarify the regulations regarding the retention of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) in the Gulf of Mexico by recreational and HMS CHB vessels, and allow NMFS to set differential BFT retention limits by vessel type (e.g., charter boats, headboats).  Additionally, NMFS is requesting comments on, but not proposing at this time, an extension of the existing condition on commercial HMS permits to require that permit holders abide by more restrictive Federal regulations regardless of whether fishing occurs within or beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

          Public hearings on this proposed rule will be held in May 2002 and will be announced in a separate Federal Register document.  Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents can be submitted by mail, by fax, or electronically through the NMFS e-Comments pilot project web site.  In addition to comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents, comments are also invited on the e-Comments pilot project.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must reach NMFS on or before May 28, 2002.  Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB on or before May 28, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Please submit your comments on the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the e-Comments pilot project by only one of the following means; comments submitted via e-mail will not be accepted:
          (1) By mail to Christopher Rogers, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282.
          (2) By fax to Christopher Rogers at NMFS at 301-713-1917.
          (3) Electronically through the NMFS e-Comments pilot project web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov
          Comments on the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection of information that are part of this rulemaking can be submitted to NMFS but must also be mailed to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).
          Copies of the supporting documents (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are available by sending your request to the address and fax number listed under (1) and (2), respectively, or by calling (301) 713-2347.  The supporting documents will also be posted on the e-comments website listed under (3).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For questions on this proposed rule, or on submitting public comments, call Brad McHale at (978) 281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On May 28, 1999, NMFS published the final rule (64 FR 29090) that implemented the HMS FMP and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish FMP, and that consolidated regulations for Atlantic HMS into one CFR part.  After issuance of the final HMS FMP and publication of the final consolidated rule, NMFS received comment that several provisions of the regulations were inconsistent with the HMS FMP.  Additionally, several commenters indicated that activities previously authorized under the HMS regulations when issued under separate CFR parts were now prohibited under the consolidated format of the regulations.  NMFS subsequently published a technical amendment to the final consolidated regulations (64 FR 37700, July 13, 1999) to correct certain drafting errors and omissions that were not consistent with the final HMS FMP.  However, addressing other more substantive issues raised about omissions from, or corrections to, the consolidated regulations requires a regulatory amendment under the framework provisions of the HMS FMP and the amended Billfish FMP.  NMFS issues this proposed rule to solicit public comment on the merits and potential impacts of changes to the regulations intended to address comments received on the consolidated regulations, and to further the objectives of the HMS and Billfish FMPs.
        Charter/Headboat Operations
        NMFS first required Charter/Headboat permits for Atlantic tunas vessels in 1994.  Given quota reductions and allocation issues in the recreational BFT fisheries, it became necessary to improve inseason monitoring of catch, particularly for school BFT.  In response, NMFS began issuing permits in order to develop a telephone dialing frame for a fishing effort survey.  Recognizing that charter vessels and headboats tend to have higher effort rates than private recreational vessels and, on average, higher catch rates, NMFS established a separate permit category for the purposes of stratifying the two populations for the telephone survey.  Issuing separate permits for private and for-hire vessels also facilitated the issuance of regulations tailored to the unique aspects of each category (e.g., catch limits, sale of fish).
        In developing the HMS FMP, the HMS Advisory Panel (AP) noted the significance of the for-hire fleet in the recreational fisheries for tunas, billfishes and sharks.  The HMS AP recommended that NMFS expand the CHB permit program from Atlantic tunas to include vessels targeting any HMS so that catch and effort monitoring could be improved, and NMFS adopted this permit requirement in the HMS FMP.  With all HMS vessels included in the permit system, NMFS can now select a more representative sample of CHB vessels for the logbook program and telephone survey.

        The HMS Charter/Headboat permit is required in lieu of any other commercial or recreational category tunas permit, and is considered a commercial tunas permit because Atlantic tunas caught by persons aboard vessels with this permit may be sold.  Given this more restrictive statement of the permit requirement (i.e., the HMS Charter/Headboat permit is the only permit authorized to embark fee-paying anglers), and the dual nature of the permit (carrying fee-paying recreational anglers, and also allowed to sell tunas), further clarifications to the regulations pertaining to charter/headboat operations are needed relative to sale of fish, applicability of retention limits and the requirements for licensed captains.
        As the retention limits applicable to the recreational fisheries for HMS do not generally apply to persons aboard permitted commercial fishing vessels, it is necessary to specify the circumstances under which persons aboard a CHB vessel are subject to the recreational retention limits for any HMS.  These retention limits are directly linked to how a for-hire trip on a CHB is defined.  Such designation is practical for BFT because the quota categories are related to size classes of fish, thus the size of the fish itself determines authorized catch limits and disposition (i.e., sold or retained for personal consumption).  However, in certain situations, the consolidated regulations are not clear with respect to catch limits, size limits and authorized disposition applicable to sharks and yellowfin tuna (YFT) taken aboard vessels issued HMS Charter/Headboat permits.
        In a technical amendment to the consolidated regulations, NMFS clarified that the recreational retention limit of three YFT per person per day applies at all times to persons fishing aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas Charter/Headboat category, now the Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit.  While the Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit is classified as a commercial tuna permit, and YFT landed by persons aboard such vessels may be sold to permitted dealers, the number of YFT landed cannot exceed three times the number of persons aboard, including captain and crew.
        Since the technical amendment was issued, NMFS has received comment that applying the YFT retention limit at all times precludes legitimate commercial activity when the vessels are not carrying fee-paying anglers.  These commenters have indicated that a few dozen charter vessels in the Mid-Atlantic region have historically conducted commercial fishing trips for YFT when not operating as a for-hire vessel.  Further, these commenters noted that the HMS FMP did not specifically address commercial fishing by the for-hire fleet and its supporting analyses did not consider the impacts of prohibiting such commercial fishing on a part-time basis.
        NMFS recognizes that certain vessels operating as charter vessels and headboats by taking anglers fishing for HMS on a fee basis may, on occasion, sell tunas taken by those anglers.  Additionally, some of these vessels may, when not operating as a CHB, directly engage in commercial tuna fishing operations.  Therefore, consistent with other regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act), NMFS proposes to define a for-hire trip as a trip carrying a passenger who pays a fee and/or having a specified number of persons aboard: More than three persons for a vessel licensed to carry six or fewer; more than the required number of crew for an inspected vessel.  Therefore, these trips would be considered for-hire recreational trips and recreational retention limits would apply.  Trips where a vessel carries three or fewer passengers, or fewer that the required number of crew for an inspected vessel, would be considered commercial and commercial retention limits would apply.  Under this proposal the recreational YFT retention limit would apply to vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit only when such vessels are engaged in a for-hire trip.
        NMFS also proposes to authorize retention of sharks under the recreational catch limits by persons aboard vessels issued limited access permits for sharks after a closure of any shark management group if the vessel has also been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and is engaged in a for-hire fishing trip.  In such case, it would be required that the recreational landing and size limits be observed, that the sharks be landed in whole form, and that the sharks not be sold.  If the fisheries for all shark species groups are open, vessels that possess a limited access permit for sharks and an HMS Charter/Headboat permit would be subject to the recreational retention limits for sharks when engaged in a for-hire fishing trip, but the shark(s) may be sold.
        On December 26, 2001, NMFS published proposed regulations to establish a recreational retention limit for North Atlantic swordfish (66 FR 66390).  If a recreational retention for North Atlantic swordfish were adopted, the application of the retention limit to vessels with both swordfish Handgear and HMS CHB permits would be similar to those vessel with shark limited access and HMS Charter/Headboat permits.  Such vessels would be subject to the recreational retention limits when engaged in a for-hire fishing trip, and the North Atlantic swordfish could be sold if the directed fishery quota were open, but could not be sold if the directed fishery quota were closed.  Directed and Incidental swordfish limited access permits are only valid if the vessel also possesses a valid Atlantic tunas Longline category permit, which means that the vessel could not possess an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit and could not be engaged in for-hire fishing.
        Atlantic HMS Angling Vessel Permits
        Current HMS regulations require that vessels fishing recreationally for Atlantic tunas obtain an Atlantic Tunas Angling Category permit.  This proposed rule would extend the permit requirement to all recreational vessels fishing for any HMS regulated under the HMS and Billfish FMPs.
        This proposed action would provide NMFS with a complete list of recreational vessels participating in the fisheries for Atlantic HMS.  Knowing the universe of vessels participating in the recreational fisheries for HMS would enable NMFS to monitor recreational landings and catch and release statistics more accurately, thereby enhancing HMS management and research efforts.  The total universe of recreational fishermen in the HMS fisheries, and their effort, catch and bycatch (including discards) is presently unknown.  Estimates of some of these parameters are currently made using surveys, such as the Large Pelagic Survey and the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, as well as reporting from registered HMS tournaments.  An HMS recreational permit system would greatly improve information available to NMFS regarding the recreational HMS fisheries by providing an accurate measure of participation, effort, catch and bycatch (including discards) from one of its most significant components.
        A measure requiring permits for recreational HMS vessels would increase the regulatory burden on recreational fishermen  by requiring that they participate in an annual permit process.  However, the regulatory burden for both anglers and NMFS should be significantly reduced by incorporating the existing HMS recreational permitting requirement (Angling category permit for Atlantic tunas) into the expanded permit requirement.  Many saltwater fishermen target more than one HMS during a single trip or throughout the fishing season; for example, some who target billfish also catch large pelagic species like tuna and sharks.

        The universe of affected anglers could include the following: The nearly 13,000 vessels currently permitted in the Atlantic tunas Angling (recreational) category, approximately 10,000 billfish anglers (minimum estimate based on the number of billfish tournament anglers from Fisher and Ditton, 1992), and vessels engaged solely in recreational shark or swordfish fishing.  The number of vessels associated with the 10,000 billfish anglers, as well as the extent of the overlap between billfish vessels, recreational shark and swordfish vessels, and (already permitted) tuna vessels is unknown, but the overlap is likely significant.  Thus, the universe of affected vessel owners is likely to be smaller than the sum of the above estimates, as only one permit would be required for participation in any HMS recreational fishery.  Annual permit issuance/renewal would not have a significant impact on HMS anglers.  The renewal process would be the same automated system currently in effect for Atlantic tunas permits, reducing paperwork and mailing time for forms.
        Jurisdictional Issues Related to HMS Permits
        Through prior rulemaking, NMFS has implemented a condition on shark and swordfish permits that requires persons aboard permitted vessels to adhere to Federal regulations without regard to whether fishing activity occurs within or outside the EEZ (see 50 CFR 635.4(a)(1)).  Such a condition is deemed necessary to ensure that the management objectives of the HMS FMP are met in recognition of  the inherent mobility of the fish species and the fishing vessels.  The permit condition was initially applied only to commercial fishing vessels because recreational vessels were not required to be permitted in the swordfish and shark fisheries.  Additionally, although recreational tuna permits have been required for some time, tuna regulations were previously determined to be applicable outside the EEZ (i.e., the high seas and waters under State jurisdiction) under the authority of ATCA, thus not requiring a specific permit condition.  Given that NMFS has since implemented an Atlantic HMS vessel permit for the Charter/Headboat category, and proposes in this rulemaking document that a permit be required for private recreational vessels fishing for tunas, swordfish, sharks or billfish, NMFS is considering the merits of applying a permit condition to all Atlantic HMS vessel permits, in both commercial and recreational categories.  Such a condition would not supersede more restrictive regulations in waters under the jurisdiction of any State, but would help ensure that the activity of all vessels issued Federal permits would conform to the requirements of the HMS and Billfish FMPs throughout the range of the species in the respective management units.  NMFS requests comments from the public on the merits and potential impacts of extending the permit condition across all HMS fisheries.
        BFT Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico
        In 1982, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommended a ban on directed fishing for bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico to protect the spawning stock.  This action primarily impacted Japanese longline fishermen in the area, as U.S. longline gear had already been prohibited from targeting bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico since 1981.  NMFS issued additional regulations in 1983 to subdivide the Incidental BFT quota for longline fishermen, and to allow the retention of one giant BFT per year by vessels using rod and reel gear (48 FR 27745, June 17, 1983).  No other handgear-caught BFT could be retained in the Gulf of Mexico, and the one giant “incidental” rod and reel-caught BFT could not be sold.  The annual limit of one giant (large-medium or giant since 1992) BFT per vessel for handgear vessels in the Gulf of Mexico is still in place, and is now part of the BFT Angling category “trophy” quota.
        The 1999 consolidation of the HMS regulations into one CFR part resulted in the BFT Angling category retention limit regulations for the Gulf of Mexico being unclear.  NMFS has received comment that the current regulations under § 635.23(b) and (c) could be interpreted to mean that in the Gulf of Mexico, Angling category vessels may retain school, large-school, and small medium BFT subject to the retention limits in place at the time, while CHBs may not.  This rule would modify the regulations to clarify that the only BFT that could be retained by Angling category and CHB vessels in the Gulf of Mexico is one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per year, caught incidentally while fishing for other species.
        Change of Tuna Permit Category
        Current regulations allow Atlantic tunas permit holders to change their vessel permit category only once per year, and that change must occur before May 15.  These regulations are meant to prevent vessels from landing BFT in more than one quota category in a single fishing year.  Atlantic tunas and Atlantic HMS CHB permits can now be obtained within minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, via the Internet.  Because of the instant availability, NMFS proposes to allow the one permit category change to occur until the first day of the fishing year, June 1.  In addition, NMFS proposes to allow the one permit category change to occur after June 1, so long as it occurs with the renewal or initial application for the current fishing year.  For example, under current regulations, if a person purchased a vessel that had permitted in the General category in previous years, the vessel would have to remain in the General category if the new owner applied for a permit after May 15.  Under the proposed regulations, the new owner could choose the appropriate permit or permit category at the time of application, regardless of the time of year and in which category the vessel was permitted the previous fishing year.
        Adjustments to BFT Retention Limits by Vessel Type
        Under the current HMS regulations, NMFS has the authority to adjust the BFT retention limits during the fishing season to maximize utilization of the quota for BFT.  When vessels permitted in the HMS CHB category are fishing under the Angling category BFT quota, the same retention limits apply whether the vessel is operating as a charter boat with one passenger, or a headboat carrying 30 passengers.  With the BFT retention limits generally defined in terms of the number of BFT that can be retained per vessel, the current situation can be inequitable for Coast Guard inspected vessels authorized to carry a larger number of passengers, as their limit is set at the same amount of BFT as a vessel with a charter of two to six anglers.  Prior to the 1999 consolidation of the HMS regulations into one CFR part, the Atlantic tunas regulations included explicit provisions for NMFS to set differential retention limits by vessel type (e.g., charter boat vs. headboat), but this explicit authority was (unintentionally) not maintained in the consolidated regulations.  This proposed rule would modify the HMS regulation to clarify that NMFS has the authority to set differential BFT retention limits by vessel type, so that NMFS could adjust the retention limits to provide equitable fishing opportunities for all fishing vessels, throughout the fishery.
        E-Comments Pilot Project

        NMFS encourages the public to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting comments.  To this end, NMFS is accepting comments by submitted mail, fax, and the Internet as part of its e-Comments pilot project (see ADDRESSES).  The e-Comments pilot project is designed to introduce electronic rulemaking to NMFS an its constituents.  The public is encouraged to use the new web site to compose and submit comments on this proposed rule and the associated supporting documents to help NMFS fully evaluate this new technology.  In submitting comments, please include your name and address, indicate if you are commenting on the proposed rule or other rulemaking documents, and give the reason for each comment.  If you are commenting on the proposed rule, indicate to which specific section each comment applies.  Comments on the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection of information that are part of this rulemaking can be submitted to NMFS but must also be mailed to OMB (see ADDRESSES).  NMFS also invites public comments on the e-Comments program that allows you to submit your comments on line.  Copies of the supporting documents including the HMS FMP, the final regulations to implement the HMS FMP (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999), the technical amendment to the final regulations (64 FR 37700, July 13, 1999), and the latest Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report are available by request (see ADDRESSES) or on-line at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.  NMFS will consider all comments received during the comment period, regardless of how they were submitted, and NMFS may make changes in the final rule in consideration of them.  Please submit your comments by only one means.  Comments received from the public will become part of the public record and will be posted on the e-Comments web site after the comment period closes.
        Classification

        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. The Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, NOAA, has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this proposed rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and are necessary for management of the Atlantic HMS fisheries.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed regulations, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The proposed action would amend the HMS regulations to clarify regulations regarding the sale of fish and applicability of daily catch limits on board vessels permitted in the HMS charter/Headboat (CHB) permit category.  This proposed rule would also implement an Atlantic HMS recreational vessel permit, adjust the time frame for permit category changes for Atlantic HMS and Atlantic tunas permits, clarify the regulations regarding the retention of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) in the Gulf of Mexico by recreational and HMS CHB vessels and allow NMFS to adjust BFT retention limits by vessel type.  NMFS conducted a preliminary economic evaluation of the proposed measures, and, because the proposed measures would allow increased landings of YFT, revenues for the commercial handgear yellowfin tuna (YFT) fishery would increase slightly (3.6 percent).  The proposed measures would not negatively affect the revenues of any small entities in the fishery, and the measures would not alter current fishing practices.  Additionally, NMFS is requesting comments on, but not proposing at this time, an extension of the existing condition on commercial swordfish and shark permits to include other Atlantic HMS permits.  The condition requires that permit holders abide by more restrictive Federal regulations regardless of whether fishing occurs within or beyond the EEZ.  NMFS requests comment primarily to gauge the potential impacts on fishing activity in waters under State jurisdiction where regulated Atlantic HMS occasionally do occur.  As NMFS is only requesting comment at this time, there is no direct impact on fishery participants.  Comments will assist NMFS in assessing impacts under the Regulatory Flexibility Act when and if such a permit condition is proposed.

        Because of this certification, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.

        NMFS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for this proposed rule, and the AA has preliminarily concluded that there would be no significant impact on the human environment.  The EA presents analyses of the anticipated impacts of these proposed regulations and the other alternatives considered.  A copy of the EA and other analytical documents prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        On September 7, 2000, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.  A Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued June 14, 2001, concluded that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction.  NMFS is currently implementing the reasonable and prudent alternative required by the BiOp.  None of the actions in this proposed rule would have any additional impact on sea turtles as these actions would not likely increase or decrease pelagic longline effort, nor are they expected to shift effort into other fishing areas.  No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are expected from this proposed action that would have the effect of foreclosing the implementation of the requirements of the BiOp.
        This proposed rule contains two new collection-of-information requirements and restates several existing reporting requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).  The new requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval.
        The new requirement that has been submitted to OMB for approval is an extension of the Atlantic tunas recreational Angling category permit requirement to include fishermen who fish for all Atlantic HMS, including swordfish, sharks, and billfish,  with an estimated public reporting burden of 30 minutes per response for initial permit applications, and 5 minutes per response for renewing the permit.  Persons acquiring this permit who were not previously subject to a permit requirement may also be subject to existing gear-marking requirements.  The extension of this requirement, estimated to take 15 minutes per float marked, has also been submitted to OMB for approval.  Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless  that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.  This proposed rule also restates a number of collection-of-information requirements that have been approved by OMB.  These requirements and their OMB control numbers and estimated response times are: vessel permits for Atlantic tunas and Atlantic HMS Charter/headboats, initial (30 minutes; 0648-0327) and renewal (6 minutes; 0648-327); vessel permits for Atlantic shark and swordfish (20 minutes; 0648-0205); dealer permits for Atlantic sharks and swordfish (5 minutes; 0648-0205); call in recreational landing reports for Atlantic bluefin tuna (5 minutes; 0648-0328); dealer permits for Atlantic tunas (5 minutes; 0648-0202); gear marking (15 minutes; 0648-0373); and vessel marking (45 minutes; 0648-0373).

        All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Public comment is sought regarding: (1) the need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including the practical utility of the information; (2) the accuracy of the burden estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

        Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics, Treaties.

          Dated:  April 23, 2002.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635, is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

          1.  The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2.  In § 635.2, the definition for “For-hire trip” is added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

            § 635.2
            Definitions.

              For-hire trip means a recreational fishing trip taken by a vessel with an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit during which paying passenger(s) are aboard; or, for uninspected vessels, during which there are more than three persons on board, including operator and crew; or, for vessels that have been issued a Certificate of Inspection by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry passengers for hire, during which there are more persons aboard than the number of crew specified on the vessel's Certificate of Inspection.

          3.  In § 635.4, paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(5), (b), (d) heading, (d)(1) through (d)(3), (h)(1) heading, and (m)(1) are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.4
            Permits and fees.

            (a) * * *
            (2) Vessel permit inspection. The owner or operator of a vessel of the United States must have the appropriate valid permit on board the vessel to fish for, take, retain, or possess Atlantic HMS when engaged in recreational fishing, and to fish for, take, retain or possess Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or sharks when engaged in commercial fishing. The vessel operator must make such permit available for inspection upon request by NMFS or a person authorized by NMFS.  The owner of the vessel is responsible for satisfying all of the requirements associated with obtaining, maintaining, and making available for inspection, all valid vessel permits.

            (5) Display upon offloading. Upon transfer of Atlantic HMS, the owner or operator of the harvesting vessel must present for inspection the vessel's Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit, or Atlantic tunas, shark, or swordfish permit to the receiving dealer. The permit must be presented prior to completing any applicable landing report specified at § 635.5(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b)(2)(i).

            (b) HMS Angling Category and Charter/Headboat Permits—(1) HMS Angling Category permits.  The owner of each vessel used to fish recreationally for Atlantic HMS or on which Atlantic HMS are retained or possessed, must obtain, in addition to any other required permits, an HMS Angling permit.  Atlantic HMS caught, retained, possessed, or landed by persons on board vessels with an Atlantic HMS Angling permit may not be sold or transferred to any person for a commercial purpose.  A vessel issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit, during such permit's period of validity, shall not be issued an Atlantic tunas permit in any other category.
            (2) HMS Charter/Headboat Category permits.  (i) The owner of a charter boat or headboat used to fish for, take, retain, or possess any Atlantic HMS must obtain an HMS Charter/Headboat permit. A vessel issued an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit, during such permit's period of validity, shall not be issued an Atlantic tunas permit in any category.
            (ii) While persons aboard a vessel that has been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit are fishing for or are in possession of Atlantic HMS, the operator of the vessel must have a valid Merchant Marine License or Uninspected Passenger Vessel License, as applicable, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to regulations at 46 CFR part 10. Such Coast Guard license must be carried on board the vessel.

            (d)Atlantic tunas, Atlantic HMS Angling, and Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat vessel permits.  (1) The owner of each vessel used to fish for or take Atlantic tunas or on which Atlantic tunas are retained or possessed must obtain, in addition to any other required permits, an HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Headboat permit issued under paragraph (b) of this section, or an Atlantic tunas permit in one, and only one, of the following categories: General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse Seine, or Trap.
            (2) Persons aboard a vessel with a valid Atlantic tunas, HMS Angling, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit may fish for, take, retain, or possess Atlantic tunas, but only in compliance with the quotas, catch limits, size classes, and gear applicable to the permit category of the vessel from which he or she is fishing.  Persons may sell Atlantic tunas only if the harvesting vessel has a valid permit in the General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse Seine, or Trap category of the Atlantic tunas permit or a valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit.  Persons may not sell Atlantic tunas caught on board a vessel issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit.
            (3) Except for vessels with an Atlantic tunas purse seine category permit, a vessel owner may change the category of the vessel's Atlantic tunas permit, change between an Atlantic HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Headboat permit, or change between an Atlantic tunas permit and an Atlantic HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Headboat permit no more than once each year and only from April 1 to May 31.  At all other times, the vessel's permit or permit category may not be changed, regardless of a change in the vessel's ownership.  A vessel's permit or permit category change will be allowed outside of April 1 to May 31 if it occurs in conjunction with the permit renewal.

            (h) * * *
            (1)Atlantic tunas, Atlantic HMS Angling, and Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat vessel permits. * * *

            (m) Renewal—(l) General.  Persons must apply annually for a dealer permit for Atlantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish, and for an Atlantic HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, tunas, shark, or swordfish vessel permit.  A renewal application must be submitted to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, at least 30 days before a permit's expiration to avoid a lapse of permitted status.  NMFS will renew a permit provided that the specific requirements for the requested permit are met, including those described in § 635.4 (l)(2), all reports required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA have been submitted, including those described in § 635.5, and the applicant is not subject to a permit sanction or denial under paragraph (a)(6) of this section.

          4.  In § 635.5, the first sentence of paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.5
            Recordkeeping and reporting.

            (c) Anglers.  The owner of a vessel permitted in the Atlantic HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat category must report all BFT landed under the Angling category quota to NMFS through the automated catch reporting system by calling 1-888-USA—TUNA within 24 hours of the landing. * * *

          5.  In § 635.6, paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.6
            Vessel and gear identification.

            (b) Vessel identification.  (1) An owner or operator of a vessel for which a permit has been issued under § 635.4, other than an Atlantic HMS Angling permit, must display the vessel number  —

            (c) Gear identification. (1) The owner or operator of a vessel for which a permit has been issued under § 635.4 and that uses a handline, harpoon, longline, or gillnet, must display the vessel's name, registration number or Atlantic tunas, HMS Angling, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit number on each float attached to a handline or harpoon and on the terminal floats and high-flyers (if applicable) on a longline or gillnet used by the vessel.

          6.  In § 635.22, paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.22
            Recreational retention limits.
            (a) General.  Atlantic HMS caught, possessed, retained, or landed under these recreational retention limits may not sold or transferred to any person for a commercial purpose.  Recreational retention limits apply to a longbill spearfish taken or possessed shoreward of the outer boundary of the Atlantic EEZ, to a shark taken from or possessed in the Atlantic EEZ, and to a yellowfin tuna taken from or possessed in the Atlantic Ocean.  The operator of a vessel for which a retention limit applies is responsible for the vessel retention limit and the cumulative retention limit based on the number of persons aboard.  Federal recreational retention limits may not be combined with any recreational retention limit applicable in state waters.

            (c) Sharks.  One shark from either the large coastal, small coastal or pelagic group may be retained per vessel per trip, subject to the size limits described in § 635.20(e), and, in addition, one Atlantic sharpnose shark may be retained per person per trip.  Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than one Atlantic sharpnose shark per person may be possessed on board a vessel.  No prohibited sharks listed in Table 1(d) of Appendix A to this part may be retained.  The recreational retention limit for sharks applies to a person who fishes in any manner, except to a person aboard a vessel who has been issued an Atlantic shark permit under § 635.4.  If an Atlantic shark quota is closed, the recreational retention limit for sharks also applies to persons aboard a vessel issued an Atlantic shark permit under § 635.4, if that vessel also possesses an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit issued under § 635.4 and is engaged in a for-hire trip.
            (d) Yellowfin tuna. Three yellowfin tunas per person per day may be retained.  Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than three yellowfin tuna per person may be possessed on board a vessel.  The recreational retention limit for yellowfin tuna applies to a person who fishes in any manner, except to a person aboard a vessel that has been issued an Atlantic tunas vessel permit under § 635.4.  The recreational retention limit for yellowfin tuna applies to persons aboard a vessel that has been issued an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit only when the vessel is engaged in a for-hire trip.

          7.  In § 635.23, paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(2), (b)(3), (c) introductory text, and (c)(3) are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.23
            Retention limits for BFT.

            (b) Angling category.  BFT may be retained and landed under the daily limits and quotas applicable to the Angling category by persons aboard vessels with Atlantic HMS Angling permits as follows:

            (2) School, large school, or small medium BFT.  (i) No school, large school, or small medium BFT may be retained, possessed, landed, or sold in the Gulf of Mexico.
            (ii) One school, large school, or small medium BFT per vessel per day may be retained, possessed, or landed outside the Gulf of Mexico.  Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than a single day's allowable catch of school, large school, or small medium BFT may be possessed or retained.
            (3) Changes to retention limits.  To provide for maximum utilization of the quota for BFT spread over the longest period of time, NMFS may increase or decrease the retention limit for any size class BFT or change a vessel trip limit to an angler limit and vice versa.  Such increase or decrease will be based on a review of daily landing trends, availability of the species on the fishing grounds, and any other relevant factors.  NMFS may also set a separate retention limit for persons aboard a specific vessel type, such as headboats or charter boats, fishing under the Angling category quota.  NMFS will adjust the daily retention limit specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section by filing with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of the adjustment.  Such adjustment will not be effective until at least 3 calendar days after notification is filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
            (c) HMS Charter/Headboat.  Persons aboard a vessels with an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit may retain and land BFT under the daily limits and quotas applicable to the Angling category or the General category as follows:

            (3) When fishing other than in the Gulf of Mexico and when the fishery under the General category has not been closed under § 635.28, a person aboard a vessel that has an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit may fish under either the retention limits applicable to the General category specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section or the retention limits applicable to the Angling category specified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section. The size category of the first BFT retained will determine the fishing category applicable to the vessel that day.

          8.  In § 635.27, the first three sentences of paragraph (a) introductory text, the first two sentences of paragraph (a)(1)(i), and the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2) are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.27
            Quotas.
            (a) BFT.  Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, NMFS will subtract any allowance for dead discards from the fishing year's total U.S. quota for BFT that can be caught and allocate the remainder to be retained, possessed, or landed by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  The total landing quota will be divided among the General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Longline, and Trap categories.  Consistent with these allocations and other applicable restrictions of this part, BFT may be taken by persons aboard vessels issued Atlantic tunas permits, HMS Angling permits, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Catches from vessels for which General category Atlantic tunas permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are counted against the General category landings quota.  See § 635.23 (c)(3) regarding landings by vessels with an HMS Charter/Headboat permit that are counted against the General category landings quota. * * *
            (2)Angling category landings quota.  The total amount of BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, and landed by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 19.7 percent of the overall annual U.S. BFT landings quota. * * *

          9.  In § 635.28, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.28
            Closures.

            (b) * * *
            (3) When the fishery for a shark species group is closed, a fishing vessel issued a shark LAP pursuant to § 635.4 may not possess or sell a shark of that species group, except under the conditions in § 635.22 (a) and (c), and a permitted shark dealer may not purchase or receive a shark of that species group from a vessel issued a shark LAP, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess sharks that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage.

          10.  In § 635.31, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.31
            Restrictions on sale and purchase.
            (a) Atlantic tunas.  (1) Persons that own or operate a vessel from which an Atlantic tuna is landed may sell such Atlantic tuna only if that vessel has a valid Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit, or a General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse Seine, or Trap category permit for Atlantic tunas issued under this part.  Persons may not sell a BFT smaller than the large medium size class.  However, a large medium or giant BFT taken by a person on a vessel with an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit fishing in the Gulf of Mexico at any time, or fishing outside the Gulf of Mexico when the fishery under the General category has been closed, may not be sold (see § 635.23(c)).  Persons may sell Atlantic tunas only to a dealer that has a valid permit for purchasing Atlantic tunas issued under this part.

          11.  In § 635.71, paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(14), and (b)(15), are revised to read as follows:

            § 635.71
            Prohibitions.

            (b) * * *
            (1) Engage in fishing with a vessel that has a permit to fish for Atlantic tunas under § 635.4, unless the vessel travels to and from the area where it will be fishing under its own power and the person operating that vessel brings any BFT under control (secured to the catching vessel, and, if the case, brought on board) with no assistance from another vessel, except as shown by the operator that the safety of the vessel or its crew was jeopardized or other circumstances existed that were beyond the control of the operator.

            (3) Fish for, catch, retain, or possess a BFT less than the large medium size class by a vessel other than one that has on board an Atlantic HMS Angling permit, an HMS Charter/Headboat permit, or an Atlantic tunas Purse Seine category permit as authorized under § 635.23 (b), (c), and (e)(2).

            (14) As a vessel with an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit, fail to immediately cease fishing and immediately return to port after catching a large medium or giant BFT or fail to report such catch, as specified in § 635.23(b)(1)(iii) and (c)(1) through (c)(3).
            (15) As a vessel with an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit, sell, offer for sale, or attempt to sell a large medium or giant BFT after fishing under the circumstances specified in § 635.23(b)(1)(iii) and (c)(1) through (3).

      [FR Doc. 02-10341 Filed 4-23-02; 4:12 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S