        LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
        45 CFR Part 1607
        Governing Bodies

          AGENCY:
          Legal Services Corporation.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          This proposed rule revises the Legal Services Corporation (LSC or Corporation) regulation regarding recipient governing bodies. LSC is proposing two revisions to give recipient governing bodies flexibility in how they recruit, appoint, and retain client eligible members while remaining faithful to the LSC Act's requirement to appoint client-eligible board members who may also represent associations or organizations of eligible clients. First, LSC proposes to revise the definition of the term eligible client to remove the requirement that a client-eligible board member must be financially eligible “at the time of appointment to each term of office” (emphasis added). Second, LSC proposes to eliminate the requirement that client-eligible members be appointed by outside groups.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by October 5, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email:
            lscrulemaking@lsc.gov. Include “Comments on Revisions to Part 1607” in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (202) 337-6519.
          • Mail: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Part 1607 Rulemaking.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Part 1607 Rulemaking.

            Instructions: Electronic submissions are preferred via email with attachments in Acrobat PDF format. LSC will not consider written comments sent to any other address or received after the end of the comment period.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax), or sdavis@lsc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        In December 1977, Congress amended § 1007(c) of the LSC Act. Public Law 95-222,  11, 91 Stat. 1619. Through the amendment, Congress directed LSC to fund only those organizations whose governing bodies consisted of “one-third . . . persons who are, when selected, eligible clients who may also be representatives of associations or organizations of eligible clients.” Id. at 1622. LSC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the new requirement in May 1978. In that NPRM, LSC proposed to define “eligible client” as an “individual eligible to receive legal assistance under the LSC Act.” 43 FR 21902, May 22, 1978. The proposed definition was narrower than the LSC Act's definition of the term “[e]ligible client,” which the Act defines as “any person financially unable to afford legal assistance.” Sec. 1002(3), Public Law 88-452, title X; 42 U.S.C. 2996a(3). LSC also proposed to adopt a requirement that eligible client members “be selected from, or designated by, a variety of appropriate groups including, but not limited to, client and neighborhood associations and organizations.” Id. This language reflected LSC's “attempt to insure that programs will be accountable to the communities that they serve.” On July 28, 1978, LSC adopted the proposed rule without change. 43 FR 32772, July 28, 1978.
        The provisions governing the appointment of client-eligible members to recipient governing bodies remained unchanged for 16 years. In 1994, LSC proposed to revise Part 1607 in two relevant ways. First, LSC proposed to amend the regulation to reflect its interpretation of the statutory language requiring one-third of a recipient governing body's members to be “persons who are, when selected, eligible clients”:

          [T]he language has been revised to make it clear that client board members must be eligible at the time of their appointment to each term of office. Thus, a client member who is financially eligible for services when first appointed to a recipient's board may not be reappointed to a second or subsequent term if, at the time of reappointment, the client board member is no longer financially eligible for LSC-funded services.

        59 FR 30885, 30886, June 16, 1994. The second proposed revision “would codify the current LSC interpretation of the language to require that client board members be selected by client groups that have been designated by the recipient.” Id. at 30886-87.

        In a final rule published on December 19, 1994, LSC adopted both proposed changes. LSC revised the proposed definition of “eligible client” to make clear that the member had to be financially eligible “to receive legal assistance under the Act and part 1611” of LSC's regulations. 59 FR 65249-50, Dec. 19, 1994. In so doing, LSC rejected comments recommending that LSC expand the definition to include individuals whose income exceeds LSC's financial eligibility limit, but who are eligible to receive non-LSC-funded legal assistance from a recipient. LSC limited the definition to individuals who were financially eligible for LSC-funded legal assistance because it “wished to insure that the focus of the legal services program remains on the indigent population.” Id. at 65250. As it did in 1978, LSC adopted a narrower definition of the term “eligible client” than the one provided in § 1002 of the LSC Act.

        With respect to LSC's proposal to require that client-eligible members be appointed by organizations or associations, LSC received comments both in support of and opposing the requirement. In the preamble to the final rule, LSC explained that favorable comments “supported the clarification and the policy choice that it represented.” Id. at 65251. LSC provided more detailed explanations of the comments in opposition. One basis for opposition was that it would be difficult or impossible for some recipients to comply with the requirement because “often there are no organized client groups within the service area and, even when there are, it is not necessarily true that client groups speak for the client community.” Id. at 65251. The other was that “recipients often come into contact with program clients or other financially eligible individuals who would make good client board members but who, for one reason or another, are not involved with any client group.” Id. LSC adopted the language from the NPRM without change.
        In 2015, LSC Board Member Julie Reiskin provided Management with a memorandum detailing concerns clients had expressed to her. The primary concerns expressed in the memorandum were that some client governing body members were not truly representative of the population eligible for LSC-funded legal services and that the rule was more prescriptive than § 1007(c) of the LSC Act, which states that client-eligible members (1) must be eligible when selected; and (2) may be representatives of associations or organizations of eligible clients. 42 U.S.C. 2996f(c). Following up on this memorandum, in 2017, the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) participated in Board Member Reiskin's and President Sandman's client-listening session at the National Legal Aid and Defender Association's annual conference. Recipients and their clients communicated that two provisions in Part 1607 present obstacles to recruiting and retaining qualified client-eligible members: the definition of “eligible client” and the requirement that outside organizations appoint client-eligible members.
        LSC takes seriously the client community's concerns and believes regulatory action is justified for two reasons. First, LSC believes that the current rule interprets § 1007(c) too restrictively. Second, LSC believes that recipients should have discretion to establish board member appointment procedures that maximize their ability to recruit qualified client-eligible board members.

        On April 23, 2017, the Committee approved Management's proposed 2017-2018 rulemaking, which included revising part 1607 as a Tier 2 rulemaking item. On April 8, 2018, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board authorize rulemaking on part 1607. On April 10, 2018, the Board authorized LSC to begin rulemaking. On July 25, 2018, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board authorize publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register for notice and comment. On July 26, 2018, the Board accepted the Committee's recommendation and voted to approve publication of this NPRM.
        II. Proposed Changes
        § 1607.1 Purpose
        LSC proposes to make no changes to this section.
        § 1607.2 Definitions

        LSC proposes to remove the requirement that a board member be financially eligible “at the time of appointment to each term of office to the recipient's governing body” to allow client-eligible members who improve their financial position to serve consecutive terms on a recipient's governing body (emphasis added). Under this interpretation, the member's eligibility status would be evaluated upon first appointment and at any subsequent appointment following a gap in service on the recipient's governing body, but not upon reappointment to consecutive terms of service. This is not intended to require the recipient to reappoint the client-eligible member to another term; it merely permits the recipient to do so. Thus, for example, if a client-eligible board member's income increases negligibly, but nonetheless sufficiently to exceed the applicable financial eligibility income ceiling, the recipient would have the discretion and flexibility to reappoint that client-eligible board member to a successive term. This is consistent with the statutory language of Section 1007(c) of the LSC Act that “at least one-third of [the recipient's governing body] consists of persons who are, when selected, eligible clients . . .” (emphasis added).

        § 1607.3 Composition
        LSC proposes to eliminate the § 1607.3(c) requirement that client-eligible members be appointed by groups. Unlike the requirement that the majority of attorney members of recipient governing bodies be appointed by state, county, or local bar associations, LSC's governing statutes do not require client-eligible members to be appointed by groups. LSC believes that each recipient governing body should have the authority and flexibility to implement an appointment procedure that takes into account its unique client population, including associations and organizations of client-eligible people. Under LSC's proposal, recipients may choose to continue using the procedure required by existing § 1607.3(c), but will no longer be required to have outside organizations appoint client-eligible members to the recipients' governing bodies.

        § 1607.4 Functions of a Governing Body
        LSC proposes to make no changes to this section.
        § 1607.5 Compensation
        LSC proposes to make no changes to this section.
        § 1607.6 Waiver
        LSC proposes to make no changes to this section.

          List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1607
          Grant programs—law, Legal services.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation proposes to amend 45 CFR part 1607 as follows:

          PART 1607—GOVERNING BODIES

         1. Revise the authority citation for part 1607 to read as follows:

           Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).

        2. Revise paragraph (c) of § 1607.2 to read as follows:

          § 1607.2
           Definitions.

          (c) Eligible client member means a board member who is financially eligible to receive legal assistance under the Act and part 1611 of this chapter, without regard to whether the person actually has received or is receiving legal assistance at that time. Eligibility of client members must be determined by the recipient or, if the recipient so chooses, by the nominating organization(s) or group(s) in accordance with written policies adopted by the recipient.

        3. Revise paragraph (c) of § 1607.3 to read as follows:

          § 1607.3
           Composition.

          (c) At least one-third of the members of a recipient's governing body must be eligible client members when initially appointed by the recipient. The recipient must solicit recommendations for eligible client members from a variety of appropriate groups designated by the recipient that may include, but are not limited to, client and neighborhood associations and community-based organizations that advocate for or deliver services or resources to the client community served by the recipient. Recipients should solicit recommendations from groups in a manner that reflects, to the extent possible, the variety of interests

          within the client community, and eligible client members should be selected so that they reasonably reflect the diversity of the eligible client population served by the recipient, including race, gender, ethnicity and other similar factors.

          Dated: August 1, 2018.
          Stefanie Davis,
          Assistant General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2018-16765 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7050-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 600, 635, and 648
        [Docket No.  010612153-1153-01; I.D.  041901A]
        RIN 0648-AP21
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a rule that would implement the provisions of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Act) that prohibit any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in shark finning in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), possessing shark fins harvested in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ on board a fishing vessel without corresponding shark carcasses, or landing shark fins harvested in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ without corresponding carcasses.  The Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations to implement it and the intent of this action is to propose such regulations.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific daylight time on July 30, 2001.  Comments may also be submitted at a public hearing to be held on the proposed rule on July 11, 2001, NOAA Auditorium, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 5 p.m. EDT.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Dr. Rebecca Lent, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA  90802.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile at 562-980-4047.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted by email or Internet.  For copies of the draft environmental Assessment (EA) or regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RIR/IRFA), contact Svein Fougner at 562-980-4040.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Svein Fougner, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Southwest Region, NMFS, at 562-980-4040; or Charles Karnella, Administrator, Pacific Island Area Office, NMFS, at 808-973-2935; or Karyl Brewster-Geisz, NMFS headquarters, at 301-713-2347.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Due to concerns about the status of shark populations and the effects of heavy fishing on such populations, the Congress passed, and the President signed, on December 21, 2000, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.  This Act amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The Act prohibits any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from: (1) Engaging in shark finning (finning is the practice of removing the fin or fins from a shark and discarding the remainder of the shark) at sea; (2) possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and (3) landing shark fins without a corresponding carcass.
        By becoming a signatory nation to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s International Plan of Action on Sharks, the United States has agreed that shark conservation is a concern, both domestically and internationally.  The United States has also agreed that all nations and international fishery organizations should take action to ensure that shark populations are monitored, and fishery conservation measures are implemented, to protect sharks from over-exploitation.  The strong international market for shark fins has increased the potential for fishing shark stocks at unsustainable levels.  Uncontrolled shark finning may lead to unsustainable shark harvests, as well as the waste of usable (but often relatively lower value) shark meat.  In addition, the species of shark often cannot be determined from the fins alone.  Thus, when finning is practiced, the effects of fisheries on specific shark species is difficult to discern because appropriate mortality data are not available for stock assessments.  The intent of the Act is to eliminate the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning.  The intent of this proposed rule is to achieve the intent of the Act.
        The practice of shark finning has been prohibited in the Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea since 1993 for 39 species of sharks contained in the management unit of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean.  In 1999, the FMP for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean was replaced, and the prohibition on shark finning expanded to an additional 33 species of sharks, by the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP).  The only species of shark for which finning was not expressly prohibited by the HMS FMP was spiny dogfish; however, the Spiny Dogfish FMP prohibited the finning of spiny dogfish in Federal waters in January 2000.  This proposed rule would not affect any of the regulations implementing the HMS and Spiny Dogfish FMPs, including those prohibiting finning or imposing reporting requirements.

        To implement the Act, the proposed rule would prohibit:  (1) Any person on a U.S. fishing vessel from engaging in shark finning in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ; however, a U.S. fisher would not be prohibited from removing and retaining fins from a shark on a vessel, providing the corresponding carcass is retained on board the vessel; (2) any person on a U.S. fishing vessel from possessing shark fins harvested in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ on board the vessel without the corresponding shark carcass; (3) any person on a U.S. fishing vessel from landing shark fins harvested in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ without the corresponding carcass; and (4) any person on a foreign fishing vessel from engaging in finning in the U.S. EEZ and from landing shark fins in or inside the U.S. EEZ without the corresponding carcass.  In addition, the rule would require that all shark fins and carcasses be landed and weighed at the same time, once landing of shark fins and/or shark carcasses has begun.  This proposed rule would not affect any reporting requirements currently in place for fisheries that take sharks.
        In accordance with the requirements of the Act, it would be a rebuttable presumption that any shark fin or fins found on board a U.S. fishing vessel, or landed from any fishing vessel, were taken, held, or landed in violation of these regulations if the total weight of shark fins landed or found on board exceeds 5 percent of the total dressed weight of shark carcasses landed or found on board the vessel.  It would be the responsibility of the person involved to rebut the presumption by providing evidence that there is good reason for the weight of the fins to exceed the 5-percent threshold.  NMFS has used wet weight to apply the 5-percent limit for shark fins landed in the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean, where the fins are generally wet when landed.  In the western Pacific, foreign vessels generally have landed dry fins, and it is believed that about half the weight of the fin is lost in the drying process.  Domestic vessels, on the other hand,  generally land fins that are relatively wet as the fishing trips are normally 20 days or less and complete drying can not be achieved in that time.  Inasmuch as there is not expected to be any landing of fins by foreign vessels that have taken long trips and land only dry fins, and domestic landings (if any) will likely only be of fins with relatively fresh shark carcasses, it appears logical to use the wet weight (or equivalent) as the standard for application of the 5-percent limit.  NMFS specifically seeks comments regarding how “wet” should be defined for purposes of this regulation.
        The prohibition of landing shark fins without carcasses would extend to any vessel (including a cargo or shipping vessel) that obtained those fins from another vessel at sea.  Any such transfer of shark fins effectively would make the receiving vessel a “fishing vessel”, as the receiving vessel is acting “in support of fishing.”  Thus, the receiving vessel would be prohibited from landing shark fins without corresponding carcasses under the proposed rule.
        Applicability
        This proposed rule would not apply to sharks harvested from state waters.  The Act does not contain an express preemption of state authority over state waters.  However, the Act’s prohibition on removing any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark uses the terms “discard the carcass of the shark at sea” suggesting that this prohibition applies to state waters as well as waters beyond the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ.  NMFS specifically requests public comment on whether the Act is applicable to sharks harvested from state waters and whether NMFS should issue shark finning regulations applicable to state waters.
        It is noted that some states have more restrictive provisions dealing with shark fishing and finning than the prohibitions and requirements that would be imposed by this rule with respect to sharks and their fins harvested from waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ.  This proposed rule would not have any affect on state regulations applicable to sharks and their fins harvested from state waters or to state regulations more restrictive with respect to the landing of sharks and their fins harvested from waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ.
        Effects of Proposed Action
        The proposed rule would directly affect: (1) Owners, operators, and crew of U.S. fishing vessels in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ that engage in finning, and the landing and sale of those fins; (2) owners and employees of U.S. firms that buy and sell shark fins harvested in waters seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ (which could include U.S. fishing vessels and foreign vessels that obtain fins without carcasses from foreign vessels at sea); and (3) owners, operators, and crew of foreign fishing vessels that would otherwise land shark fins without carcasses in or inside the U.S. EEZ.  Shark finning has been prohibited in the Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea since 1993, and finning of spiny dogfish in this region was prohibited in 2000.  Further, finning is effectively prohibited under state regulations on the West Coast and in the North Pacific, as well as in a number of Atlantic states and Hawaii.  In Hawaii, while it is reported that about 60,000 sharks were finned by the Hawaii-based longline fleet in 1999, finning has since been prohibited by state law, and thus this rule will not have large impacts in Hawaii.  Therefore, there will be minimal impacts in these areas.
        Most, if not all, the impacts would likely affect businesses in the Western Pacific.  It is estimated that shark finning accounts for between $1.8 million and $2.5 million of economic activity in the western Pacific (not including the values formerly attributable to finning by domestic vessels in Hawaii until 2000, when finning was prohibited).
        The proposed action is expected to have moderate impacts on fishers and businesses in Guam and American Samoa, where shark fin landings have been made and substantial sales and trade in shark fins have been conducted for many years.  In Guam and American Samoa, domestic landings of shark fins have been very low; however, foreign longline vessels have landed shark fins there in the past.  Under the proposed rule, sales of those fins would be prohibited unless the corresponding carcasses were also landed.  This prohibition would also affect the earnings of crew on foreign fishing vessels because the revenue from fin sales often accrues directly to crew members.  If that income is reduced, there could be less spending by crew members in port calls in American Samoa and Guam.
        The proposed rule could indirectly affect U.S. retailers and consumers of shark fins, but the extent of impact cannot be determined with available data.  It is possible that shark fins, which would no longer be available from domestic landings, would be available through air, ocean, or surface freight shipments.  It is also possible that the price of shark fins would rise due to lower supply.  The proposed rule would not directly affect the owners and employees of businesses that are engaged in domestic and international shipments of, and trade in, shark fins in containers or other such shipments, or the owners and employees of businesses that provide supplies and services to foreign fishing vessels that may (but do not necessarily) engage in shark finning and associated sales.

        No  reporting  or  recordkeeping  requirements  are  proposed  in  this  rule.   Reporting  requirements  currently  in  place  are  sufficient  for  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  these  regulations.   However,  these  regulations  may  be  amended  if  information  or  conditions  demonstrate  that  additional  reporting  or  recordkeeping  requirements  are  necessary  to  achieve  the  purposes  of  the  Act.   This  could  include  changes  in  the  information  required  in  logbook  forms,  a  requirement  that  records  be  kept  and  submitted  of  the  weight  of  shark  fins  and  carcasses  landed,  or  other  information  requirements.   NMFS  will  work  with  the  regional  fishery  management  councils  (councils)  and  interstate  marine  fisheries  commissions  to  determine  if  changes  are  needed  to  ensure  adequate  records  for  monitoring  the  fisheries  and  enforcing  the  prohibitions.   If  any  changes  are  needed  in  reporting  and  recordkeeping  requirements,  they  may  be  made  nationally  or  in  separate  regions.
        Alternative  Construction of the  Statute
        NMFS  considered  applying  a  broader  interpretation  of  the  Act,  and  this  would  be  expected  to  have  much  greater  impacts  on  foreign  fishermen.   One  alternative  would  be  to  prohibit  foreign  fishing  vessels  from  possessing  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  without  carcasses  while  in  U.S.  ports.   This  could  result  in  a  substantial  reduction  in  the  use  of  those  ports  by  foreign  longline  vessels  that  have  shark  fins  on  board  without  corresponding  carcasses.   It  is  estimated  that  this  activity  generates  between  $40  to  $60  million  per  year  in  sales  by  Hawaiian  businesses.   Another  alternative  would  be  to  prohibit  landings  of  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  without  carcasses  by  non-fishing  vessels,  such  as  cargo  vessels  shipping  fins  to  a  U.S.  port.   Under  this  alternative,  there  would  be  greater  impacts  on  shippers,  retailers,  and  consumers.   U.S.  Customs  Service  data  indicate  that  documented  imports  and  exports  of  shark  fins  into  and  out  of  the  U.S.  were  valued  at  $3  million  and  $5  million,  respectively,  in  1999.   Under  this  alternative,  these  shipments  would  likely  be  eliminated  and  shark  fins  could  only  enter  the  U.S.  via  air  or  land  freight.
        Another  alternative  would  be  to  extend  the  prohibition  of  possession  of  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  aboard  any  vessel  under  U.S.  jurisdiction  to  all  foreign  fishing  vessels  whenever  they  are  in  the  EEZ,  even  if  not  engaged  in  fishing.   This  could  force  some  vessels  fishing  throughout  the  Pacific  to  adjust  their  navigation  routes  at  high  expense.   It  also  would  constitute  an  infringement  on  the  right  of  freedom  of  navigation.   This  construction  appears  to  go  beyond  the  intent  of  the  Act.
        NMFS  also  considered  not  promulgating  these  regulations  and  using  fishery  management  plans  prepared  by  councils  (and  by  the  Secretary  with  respect  to  Atlantic  Ocean,  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  Caribbean  shark  fishery  management)  under  the  Magnuson-Stevens  Act  to  implement  the  Act.   However,  this  would  not  meet  the  statutory  requirements  of  the  Act.
        Finally,  NMFS  notes  that  it  has  received  a  petition  from  the  Western  Pacific  Fisheries  Coalition  of  Kailua,  HI,  to  ban  shark  finning.   The  proposed  rule  would  address  the  Coalition’s  concern  about  the  need  for  action  to  restrict  or  prohibit  shark  finning  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ.   In  light  of  this  action,  NMFS  has  concluded  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  any  action  in  response  to  that  petition.
        Public  Hearing
        NMFS  will  hold  a  public  hearing  on  this  proposed  rule  in  Silver  Spring,  MD,  on  July 11,  2001.
        Classification
        This  proposed  rule  has  been  determined  to  be  not  significant  for  purposes  of  Executive  Order  12866.

        NMFS  prepared  an  IRFA  that  describes  the  impact  this  proposed  rule  would  have  on  small  entities,  if  adopted.   A  copy  of  this  analysis  is  available  from  NMFS  (see ADDRESSES).   A  summary  of  the  analysis  follows.
        The  principal  effect  of  this  action  would  be  to  terminate  finning  and  landings  of  fins  by  U.S.  and  foreign  vessels  in  the  Western  Pacific,  where  persons  and  businesses  will  be  more  seriously  affected  by  the  elimination  of  their  principal  source  of  shark  fins.   The  principal  affected  entities  are:  (a)  U.S.  longline  and  purse  seine  fishing  vessel  operators  and  crew,  active  in  the  western  Pacific,  and  the  businesses  that  buy  and  resell  shark  fins  (without  corresponding  carcasses)  from  these  vessels;  (b)  businesses  that  buy  and  export  shark  fins  from  crew  of  foreign  longline  vessels  delivering  those  fins  in  western  Pacific  ports;  and  (c)  businesses  that  sell  goods  and  services  to  foreign  vessel  crew  members  who  receive  the  revenue  from  the  sale  of  shark  fins  in  U.S.  ports.   The  western  Pacific  is  the  only  region  where  shark  finning  by  U.S.  interests  has  not  previously  been  regulated  under  Federal  or  state  law,  and  where  delivery  of  fins  by  foreign  vessels  has  been  legal  to  date.   It  is  not  known  how  dominant  a  role  shark  fin  trade  plays  in  the  economic  activity  of  the  affected  firms;  if  trade  in  shark  fins  is  all  that  they  engage  in,  then  these  firms  may  be  forced  to  cease  activity  and/or  find  alternate  lines  of  trade.   They  may  also  seek  ways  to  find  more  valuable  uses  of  sharks  (e.g.,  shark  meat,  cartilage,  skins)  such  that  more  carcasses  would  be  retained  with  the  fins  and  greater  values  could  be  derived  from  the  shark  catches  in  the  longline  fishery.   However,  any  such  transition  is  likely  to  take  some  time  and  the  firms  would  suffer  losses  until  that  time.   It  is  estimated  that  the  loss  could  be  between  $2-$3  million  per  year.   It  is  acknowledged  that  there  could  be  reductions  in  the  availability  of  shark  fins  for  soup  and  other  products  in  the  U.S.  under  the  proposed  rule.   However,  to  the  extent  that  shark  fins  could  be  shipped  into  the  U.S.  by  alternate  routes  to  substitute  from  direct  landings,  the  supply  impacts  will  be  moderated.
        As  this  proposed  rule  applies  only  to  sharks  harvested  from  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ,  it  does  not  conflict  with  any  state  laws  governing  fishing  activities  in  state  waters.   Any  state  laws  and  regulations  with  respect  to  shark  fins  harvested  from  state  waters  would  be  unaffected  by  this  rule  as  well  as  would  be  any  state  law  or  regulation  which  are  more  restrictive  with  respect  to  the  landing  of  shark  fins  harvested  from  waters  beyond  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ.   NMFS  intends  to  work  with  those  states  that  do  not  already  prohibit  the  landing  of  shark  fins  without  the  corresponding  shark  carcasses  to  enact  appropriate  laws  and/or  to  issue  appropriate  regulations  so  that  the  objectives  of  the  Act  are  fully  achieved.
        NMFS  initiated  an  informal  consultation  on  May  31,  2001,  with  regard  to  the  effects  of  this  proposed  rule  on  endangered  and  threatened  species  under  NMFS’  jurisdiction.   This  consultation  is  continuing.
        NMFS  provided  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  (FWS)  with  the  draft  EA  and  associated  background  information  on  the  proposed  rule  and  requested  that  FWS  concur  with  NMFS’  determination  that  the  proposed  rule  would  not  likely  adversely  affect  any  threatened  or  endangered  species  under  FWS’  jurisdiction.

          List  of  Subjects

        50 CFR Part 600
        Fisheries,  Fishing.
        50  CFR  Part  635
        Fisheries,  Fishing,  Fishing  Vessels,  Foreign  Relations,  Intergovernmental  relations,  Penalties,  Reporting  and  recordkeeping  requirements,  Statistics,  Treaties.
        50  CFR  Part  648
        Fisheries,  Fishing,  Reporting  and  recordkeeping  requirements.

          Dated: June 22, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Marine Fisheries Service.

          For  the  reasons  set  out  in  the  preamble,  50  CFR  parts  600,  635,  and  648  are  proposed  to  be  amended  as  follows:

            PART  600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS  ACT  PROVISIONS

          1.   The  authority  citation  for  part  600  continues  to  read  as  follows:

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

          2.  Subpart  M  is  added  to  read  as  follows:

            Subpart  M—Shark  Finning

            Sec.
            600.1019
            Purpose  and scope.
            600.1020
            Relation  to  other  laws.
            600.1021
            Definitions.
            600.1022
            Prohibitions.
            600.1023
            Shark  finning;  possession  at  sea  and  landing  of  shark  fins.

            § 600.1019
            Purpose  and  scope.

          The  regulations  in  this  subpart  govern  the  removal  of  shark  fins  and  discarding  the  carcass  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ   (i.e.,  shark  finning),  and  the  possession  and  landing  into  U.S.  ports  of  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ.

            § 600.1020
            Relation  to  other  laws.

          (a)   The  relation  of  this  subpart  to  other  laws  is  set  forth  in  §§  600.514  and  600.705  and  in  paragraphs  (b)  and  (c)  of  this  section.
          (b)   Regulations  pertaining  to  shark  conservation  and  management  for  certain  fisheries  are  also  set  forth  in this subpart and in parts 635  (for  Federal  Atlantic  Ocean,  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  Caribbean  shark  fisheries),  648  (for  spiny  dogfish  fisheries),  and  660  (for  fisheries  off  West  Coast  states  and  in  the  western  Pacific)  of  this  chapter  governing  those  fisheries.
          (c)   Nothing  in  this  regulation  supercedes  more  restrictive  state  regulations  regarding  shark  finning.
          (d)   A  person  who  owns  or  operates  a  vessel  that  has  been  issued  an  Atlantic  Federal  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  or  a  spiny  dogfish  permit  is  subject  to  the  reporting  and  recordkeeping  requirements  found  at  parts  635  and  648  of  this chapter,  respectively.

            § 600.1021
            Definitions.

          (a)  In  addition  to  the  definitions  in  the  Magnuson-Stevens  Act  and  § 600.10,  the  terms  used  in  this  subpart  have  the  following  meanings:

            Land  or  landing means  offloading  fish  from  a  fishing  vessel,  arriving  in  port  to  begin  offloading  fish,  or  causing  fish  to  be  offloaded  from  a  fishing  vessel,  either  to  another  vessel  or  to  a  shoreside  facility.

            Shark  finning means  taking  a  shark,  removing  a  fin  or  fins  (whether  or  not  including  the  tail),  and  returning  the  remainder  of  the  shark  to  the  sea.
          (b)  If  there  is  any  difference  between  the  definitions in this section and  in  § 600.10,  the  definitions in this section are the  operative  definitions  for  the  purposes  of  the  regulations in this subpart.

            § 600.1022
            Prohibitions.

          (a)   In  addition  to  the  prohibitions  in  §§ 600.505  and  600.725,  it  is  unlawful  for  any  person  or  vessel  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  to:
          (1)   Engage  in  shark  finning,  as  provided  in  § 600.1023(a).
          (2)   Possess  shark  fins  without  the  corresponding  carcasses  while  on  board  a  U.S.  fishing  vessel,  as  provided  in  § 600.1023 (b).
          (3)   Land  shark  fins  without  the  corresponding  carcasses,  as  provided  in  § 600.1023 (c).
          (4)   Fail  to  have  all  shark  fins  and  carcasses  from  a  U.S.  or  foreign  fishing  vessel  landed  at  one  time  and  weighed  at  the  time  of  the  landing,  as  provided  in  § 600.1023 (d).
          (5)   Possess,  purchase,  offer  to  sell,  or  sell  shark  fins  taken,  landed,  or  possessed  in  violation  of  this  section,  as  provided  in  § 600.1023 (e).
          (6)   When  requested,  fail  to  allow  an  authorized  officer  or  any  employee  of  NMFS  designated  by  a  Regional  Administrator  access  to  and/or  inspection  or  copying  of  any  records  pertaining  to  the  landing,  sale,  purchase,  or  other  disposition  of  shark  fins  and/or  shark  carcasses,  as  provided  in  § 600.1023 (f).
          (7)   Fail  to  have  shark  fins  and  carcasses  recorded  as  specified  in  § 635.30 (c)(3)  of  this  chapter.
          (8)   Fail  to  have  all  shark  carcasses  and  fins  landed  and  weighed  at  the  same  time  if  landed  in  an  Atlantic  coastal  port,  and  to  have  all  weights  being  recorded  on  the  weighout  slips  specified  in  § 635.5 (a)(2)  of  this  chapter.
          (b)   For  purposes  of  this section,  it  is  a  rebuttable  presumption  that  shark  fins  found  on  board,  or  landed  by,  a  fishing  vessel  were  taken,  held,  or  landed  in  violation  of  this  section  if  the  total  weight  of  the  shark  fins  on  board,  or  landed,  exceeds  5  percent  of  the  total  dressed  weight  of  shark  carcasses  on  board  or  offloaded  from  the  fishing  vessel.

            § 600.1023
            Shark  finning;  possession  at  sea  and  landing  of  shark  fins.

          (a)   No  person  or  vessel  subject  to  U.S.  jurisdiction  shall  engage  in  shark  finning  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ.
          (b)   No  person  on  a  U.S.  fishing  vessel  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  shall  possess  on  board  shark  fins  without  the  corresponding  carcass(es),  except  that  sharks  may  be  dressed  at  sea.
          (c)   No  person  on  board  a  U.S.  or  foreign  fishing  vessel  shall  land  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  without  corresponding  shark  carcasses.
          (d)   Except  as  provided  in paragraphs (g)  and  (h) of this section,  a  person  who  operates  a  U.S.  or  foreign  fishing  vessel  and  who  lands  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  shall  land  all  fins  and  corresponding  carcasses  from  the  vessel  at  the  same  point  of  landing  and  shall  have  all  fins  and  carcasses  weighed  at  that  time.
          (e)   A  person  may  not  possess,  purchase,  offer  to  sell,  or  sell  shark  fins  taken,  landed,  or  possessed  in  violation  of  this  section.
          (f)   Upon  request,  a  person  shall  allow  an  authorized  officer  or  any  employee  of  NMFS  designated  by  a  Regional  Administrator  access  to,  and/or  inspection  or  copying  of,  any  records  pertaining  to  the  landing,  sale,  purchase,  or  other  disposition  of  shark  fins  and/or  shark  carcasses.
          (g)   A  person  who  owns  or  operates  a  vessel  that  has  been  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  and  who  lands  shark  in  an  Atlantic  coastal  port  must  have  all  fins  weighed  in  conjunction  with  the  weighing  of  the  carcasses  at  the  vessel’s  first  point  of  landing.   Such  weights  must  be  recorded  on  the  weighout  slips  specified  in  § 635.5 (a)(2)  of  this  chapter.
          (h)   A  person  who  owns  or  operates  a  vessel  that  has  not  been  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  and  who  lands  shark  in  or  from  the  EEZ  in  an  Atlantic  coastal  port  must  comply  with  regulations  found  at  § 635.30 (c)(4)  of  this  chapter.
          (i)   A  person  who  owns  or  operates  a  vessel  that  has  been  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  and  who  lands  shark  in  an  Atlantic  coastal  port  may  not  sell  fins  whose  wet  weight  exceeds  5  percent  of  the  dressed  weight  of  the  carcasses.

          (j)   A  dealer  may  not  purchase  fins  from  an  owner  or  operator  of  a  fishing  vessel  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  who  lands  shark  in  an  Atlantic  coastal  port  whose  wet  weight  exceeds  5  percent  of  the  dressed  weight  of  the  carcasses.

            PART  635—ATLANTIC  HIGHLY  MIGRATORY  SPECIES

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

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

          4.   In  § 635.30,  paragraphs  (c)(1)  through  (c)(3)  are  revised  to  read  as  follows:

            § 635.30
            Possession  at  sea  and  landing.

          (c) Shark.   (1)   No  person  shall  possess  or  offload  wet  shark  fins  harvested  in  waters  seaward  of  the  inner  boundary  of  the  U.S.  EEZ  in  a  quantity  that  exceeds  5  percent  of  the  dressed  weight  of  the  shark  carcasses.   While  shark  fins  are  on  board  and  when  shark  fins  are  being  offloaded,  persons  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  are  subject  to  the  regulations  at  part  600 (subpart  M)  of  this  chapter.
          (2)   A  person  who  owns  or  operates  a  vessel  that  has  been  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  may  not  fillet  a  shark  at  sea.   A  person  may  eviscerate  and  remove  the  head  and  fins,  but  must  retain  the  fins  with  the  dressed  carcasses.   While  on  board  and  when  offloaded,  wet  shark  fins  may  not  exceed  5  percent  of  the  dressed  weight  of  the  carcasses,  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  at  part  600 (subpart  M)  of  this  chapter.
          (3)   A  person  who  owns  or  operates  a  vessel  that  has  been  issued  a  Federal  Atlantic  commercial  shark  limited  access  permit  and  who  lands  shark  in  an  Atlantic  coastal  port  must  have  all  fins  and  carcasses  weighed  and  recorded  on  the  weighout  slips  specified  in  § 635.5 (a)(2)  and  in  accordance  with  regulations  at part 600 (subpart  M)  of  this  chapter.   The  wet  fins  may  not  exceed  5  percent  of  the  dressed  weight  of  the  carcasses.

          5.   In  § 635.31,  paragraphs  (c)(3)  and  (c)(5)  are  revised  to  read  as  follows:

            § 635.31
            Restrictions  on  sale  and  purchase.
            (c)   *  *  *

          (3)   Regulations  governing  the  harvest,  possession,  landing,  purchase,  and  sale  of  shark  fins  are  found  at  part  600 (subpart  M)  of  this  chapter  and  § 635.30 (c).

          (5)   A  dealer  may  not  purchase  from  an  owner  or  operator  of  a  fishing  vessel  shark  fins  that  were  not  harvested  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  found  at  part  600 (subpart  M)  of  this  chapter  and  § 635.30 (c).

          6.   In  § 635.71,  paragraphs  (d)(6)  and  (d)(7)  are  revised  to  read  as  follows:

            § 635.71
            Prohibitions.

          (d)   *  *  *
          (6)   Fail  to  maintain  a  shark  in  its  proper  form,  as  specified  in  § 635.30 (c)(4).
          (7)   Sell  or  purchase  shark  fins  that  are  disproportionate  to  the  weight  of  shark  carcasses,  as  specified  in  § 635.30 (c)(2)  and  (c)(3)  and  § 600.1015 (b)  of  this  chapter.

            PART  648—FISHERIES  OF  THE  NORTHEASTERN  UNITED  STATES

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

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

            § 648.14
            [Amended]

          8.  In  § 648.14,  paragraphs  (aa) (4)  through  (6)  are  removed  and  reserved.

      [FR Doc. 01-16191 Filed 6-25-01; 4:24 pm]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-BK68
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 21 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 21 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, incorporating the Environmental Assessment and the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and is requesting comments from the public. This action would allow for more controlled access to the scallop resource by the limited access and limited access general category fleets and increase monitoring to support a growing directed scallop fishery in Federal waters, including the Northern Gulf of Maine Management Area. These proposed management measures are intended to promote conservation of the scallop resource in the Northern Gulf of Maine Management Area and to manage total removals from the area by all fishery components. Amendment 21 would also expand flexibility in the limited access general category individual fishing quota fishery to reduce impacts of potential decreases in ex-vessel price and increases in operating costs.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 8, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          The Council has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures in Amendment 21 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and other considered alternatives and analyzes the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. The Council submitted a draft of the amendment to NMFS that includes the draft EA, a description of the Council's preferred alternatives, the Council's rationale for selecting each alternative, and a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). Copies of supporting documents used by the Council, including the EA and RIR, are available from: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 and accessible via the internet in documents available at: https://www.nefmc.org/library/amendment-21.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0065, by:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0065 in the Search box. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method 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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9233.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council submitted its final version of Amendment 21 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP to NMFS for review on August 13, 2021. NMFS has declared a transmittal date of August 30, 2021. The Council has reviewed the Amendment 21 proposed rule regulations as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Atlantic sea scallop fishery is prosecuted along the East Coast from Maine to Virginia, although most fishing activity takes place between Massachusetts and New Jersey. Management measures were first adopted in 1982, but there have been several major revisions to the management program over the following decades.
        Development of the Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Fishery

        The Council established the general category component as an open access permit category in 1994 while developing a limited access program for qualifying vessels (now the limited access component). Through Amendment 11 to the Scallop FMP (73 FR 20090; April 14, 2008), the Council transitioned the general category component from open access to limited access to limit fishing mortality and control fleet capacity. The Council's vision for the LAGC component was a fleet made up of relatively small vessels, with possession limits to maintain the historical character of this fleet and provide opportunities to various participants, including vessels from smaller coastal communities. Amendment 11 established three LAGC permit categories, which allowed for continued participation in the general category fishery at varying levels. Vessels that met a qualifying criteria were issued an LAGC individual fishing quota (IFQ) permit and allocated quota based on the `contribution factor' (i.e., if you fished longer and landed more during the qualification period, you received a higher allocation). General category permit holders that did not meet the qualifying criteria for an LAGC IFQ permit were eligible to receive either an LAGC Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) permit or LAGC incidental permit. Limited access vessels that fished under general category rules and qualified under the same IFQ qualification criteria were issued LAGC IFQ permits and allocated a portion of (0.5 percent) of the total scallop allocation. Unlike vessels with only LAGC IFQ permits, limited access vessels that also qualified for an LAGC IFQ permit were not allowed to transfer quota to or from other vessels.
        NGOM Management Area
        The Council also established the NGOM Management Area and permit category through Amendment 11. The area was developed to enable continued fishing and address concerns related to conservation, administrative burden, and enforceability of scallop fishing within the Gulf of Maine. Amendment 11 authorized vessels with either an LAGC NGOM permit or LAGC IFQ permit to fish within the NGOM Management Area at a 200 lb per day (91 kg per day) trip limit until the annual total allowable catch (TAC) for the area is caught. The Council did not recommend restrictions on limited access vessels fishing in the NGOM because the improved management and abundance of scallops in the major resource areas on Georges Bank and in the Mid-Atlantic region made access to Gulf of Maine scallops less important for the limited access boats and general category boats from other regions. From 2008 through 2017, limited access vessels were able to operate in the NGOM management area under days-at-sea (DAS) management as long as the LAGC TAC had not been caught. The initial measures were intended to allow directed scallop fishing in the NGOM, and the Council envisioned that management of this area would be reconsidered if the scallop population and fishery in the NGOM grew in the future.
        From 2009-2015 the NGOM TAC of 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) was not caught, and the fishery remained open for the entire year. In fishing years 2016 and 2017, there was a notable increase in effort in the NGOM management area by both LAGC and limited access vessels fishing the large year class of scallops on Stellwagen Bank, located mostly within the NGOM. Monitoring removals by the limited access component in the NGOM was challenging because vessels could fish both inside and outside NGOM management area while fishing DAS on the same trip.
        In response to the increase in effort and landings in the NGOM area in 2016 and 2017, the Council developed the following problem statement for the Federal scallop fishery in the NGOM management area: Recent high landings and unknown biomass in the NGOM Scallop Management Area underscore the critical need to initiate surveys and develop additional tools to better manage the area and fully understand total removals.
        Recent actions have developed measures that allow managers to track fishing effort and landings by all components from the NGOM management area. The NGOM TAC is now based on recent survey information, with separate TACs for the limited access and LAGC components. These measures were intended to be a short-term solution to allow controlled fishing in the NGOM management area until a future action (this action) could be developed to address NGOM issues more holistically.
        LAGC IFQ Possession Limits

        The initial general category possession limit was set at 400 lb (181 kg) per trip through Amendment 4 (59 FR 2757; January 19, 1994). In 2007, Amendment 11 maintained the general category possession limit of 400 lb (181 kg) for qualifying IFQ vessels. Amendment 15 (76 FR 43746; July 21, 2011) increased the LAGC IFQ possession limit to 600 lb (272 kg) following concerns from industry members that the 400-lb (181-kg) possession limit was not economically feasible due to increased operating costs. The 200-lb (91-kg) trip limit increase was not expected to change the nature of the “day boat” fishery and would keep the LAGC IFQ component consistent with the vision statement laid out by the Council in Amendment 11. The Council recently completed a program review of the LAGC IFQ fishery and analyzed the impacts of changes to IFQ trip limits. This review found that increasing the possession limit for IFQ trips would increase flexibility in fishing decisions, which could improve safety. Further, a higher possession limit would provide increased fishing revenue and vessel profit. The results of the program review are summarized in the Amendment 21 scoping document, which can be found at this website: https://www.nefmc.org/library/amendment-21.

        Quota Transfers by Limited Access/LAGC IFQ Vessels

        Amendment 15 allowed LAGC IFQ permit holders to permanently transfer some or all of their quota allocation to another LAGC IFQ permit holder while retaining the permit itself. During development of Amendment 15, the Council considered an option that would have included limited access permit holders that also have LAGC IFQ permits (combo vessels) in this allowance; however, the Council opted against this option because it would change the overall 5-percent and 0.5-percent allocations specified in Amendment 11. For example, the 5-percent allocation would be expected to increase if a combo vessel permanently transferred quota to an LAGC IFQ-only vessel and, therefore, would have implications on quota accumulation caps that apply to LAGC IFQ-only permit holders (i.e., 5-percent maximum for owners, 2.5-percent maximum for individual vessels).
        The Council initiated Amendment 21 to consider adjusting the management of the NGOM to allow for more controlled access by the limited access and LAGC components, to increase monitoring to support a growing directed scallop fishery in Federal waters, and to consider adjusting the LAGC IFQ program to support overall economic performance while allowing for continued participation in the general category fishery at varying levels. To address these issues the Council approved Amendment 21 at its September 2020 meeting. Amendment 21 would:
        • Change the Annual Catch Limit flow chart to account for biomass in the NGOM as part of the Overfishing Limit and the Acceptable Biological Catch to be consistent with other portions of scallop resource management;
        • Develop landing limits for all permit categories in the NGOM and establish an 800,000-lb (362,874 kg) NGOM Set-Aside trigger for the NGOM directed fishery, with a sharing agreement for access by all permit categories for allocation above the trigger. Allocation above the trigger would be split 5 percent for the NGOM fleet and 95 percent for limited access and LAGC IFQ fleets;
        • Expand the scallop observer program to monitor directed scallop fishing in the NGOM by using a portion of the NGOM allocation to off-set monitoring costs;
        • Allocate 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) of the NGOM allocation to increase the overall Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) and support Scallop RSA compensation fishing;
        • Increase the LAGC IFQ possession limit to 800 lb (363 kg) per trip only for access area trips;
        • Prorate the daily observer compensation rate in 12-hour increments for observed LAGC IFQ trips longer than 1 day; and
        • Allow for temporary transfers of IFQ from limited access vessels with IFQ to LAGC IFQ-only vessels.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures recommended by the Council in an amendment based on whether the measures are consistent with the FMPs, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. The Council develops policy for its fisheries and we defer to the Council on policy decisions unless those policies are inconsistent with the Magnuson-Steven Act or other applicable law. As such, we are seeking comment on whether measures in Amendment 21 are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Through this notice, NMFS seeks comments on Amendment 21 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in the DATES section of this notice of availability (NOA). Following the publication of this NOA a rule proposing the implementation of measures in this amendment is anticipated to be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Public comments must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this NOA of Amendment 21 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA, whether specifically directed to the NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision of Amendment 21.

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

          Dated: September 2, 2021.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-19367 Filed 9-2-21; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 387
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0211]
        RIN 2126-AB74
        Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Freight Forwarders, and Brokers

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA withdraws its November 28, 2014 advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning financial responsibility for motor carriers, freight forwarders, and brokers. FMCSA is authorized to establish minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers at or above the minimum levels set by Congress. In the ANPRM, FMCSA sought public comment on whether to exercise its discretion to increase the minimum levels of financial responsibility, and, if so, to what levels. After reviewing all public comments to the ANPRM, FMCSA has determined that it has insufficient data or information to support moving forward with a rulemaking proposal, at this time.

          DATES:
          As of June 5, 2017 the proposed published on November 28, 2014 at 79 FR 70839 is withdrawn.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jeff Secrist, Chief, Registration, Licensing & Insurance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-385-2367 or by email at jeff.secrist@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, please contact Docket Services at (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        ANPRM
        On November 28, 2014, FMCSA published an ANPRM regarding Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders (79 FR 70839). In the ANPRM, the Agency announced that it was considering a rulemaking that would increase minimum levels of motor carrier financial responsibility for bodily injury or property damage 1
           and sought information in connection with that potential rulemaking. In addition, the Agency asked several questions related to broker/freight forwarder financial responsibility as it continues to implement Section 32918 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141) (MAP-21)(79 FR at 70842).2
           Finally, the Agency asked a series of questions in the ANPRM pertaining to (1) trip insurance for Mexican carriers, (2) the discretionary imposition of financial responsibility requirements for motor passenger carrier brokers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13904(f), and (3) its self-insurance program for motor carriers.

            1 FMCSA's regulations (49 CFR part 387 Subparts A and B) require certain property and passenger motor carriers to maintain financial responsibility at the statutory minimums set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31138 and 31139.

            2 While FMCSA is withdrawing this ANPRM, the Agency continues its implementation of MAP-21 Section 32918 in a separate docket (FMCSA-2016-0102). On May 20, 2016, the Agency held a full-day informal roundtable discussion pertaining to broker/freight forwarder financial responsibility (81 FR 24935). The Agency received approximately 30 public comments in the meeting docket and is continuing to examine options for addressing the issues covered in that discussion.

        Regarding the core ANPRM issue of motor carrier financial responsibility limits, FMCSA sought public comment on whether to exercise its discretion to increase the minimum levels, and, if so, to what levels. Specifically, in the effort to gather relevant data, FMCSA posed a series of questions addressing the following matters:
        • Premium Rates.
        • Current Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility.
        • Impacts of Increasing the Minimum Level of Financial Responsibility.
        • Compensation.
        • Sources of Information.
        • Timelines for implementation.
        Discussion of Comments
        The Agency received 2,181 public comments in response to the ANPRM. Various stakeholders commented, including representatives of motor carriers, insurance companies, broker/freight forwarders, safety advocates, attorneys, drivers, and many others. Approximately 120 submissions, including one submission reflecting a petition signed by 11,366 individuals, expressed general support for increasing the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers without providing a substantive rationale for their opinion. Approximately 145 submissions expressed general opposition to increasing the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers without providing a substantive rationale for their opinions. The Agency appreciates the level of interest shown in the ANPRM and the efforts that stakeholders made to provide responsive information.
        FMCSA Decision
        After considering whether to move forward with this rulemaking, the Agency has decided to withdraw the November 28, 2014 ANPRM because the Agency does not have sufficient data or information to support further rulemaking.
        Despite receiving a significant number of comments in response to the ANPRM, commenters did not provide responsive information necessary to allow the Agency to proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.3
           In particular, commenters did not provide sufficient cost or benefit data and the Agency was unable to otherwise obtain sufficient data on industry practice with respect to the level of liability limits in excess of the Agency's minimum financial responsibility requirements, the cost of such premiums and the frequency of, and the amount by which bodily injury and property damage claims exceed policy liability limits. The anecdotal and hypothetical data provided by commenters are not sufficient to allow the Agency to perform a systematic cost-benefit analysis that would be required to raise motor carrier minimum financial responsibility through a rulemaking. That is, based on the information provided, FMCSA is not able to determine (1) potential increases in insurance premiums associated with increased financial responsibility limits, or (2) or the impact of an increase in minimum financial responsibility requirements on insurance company capital requirements set by insurance regulators to ensure there are sufficient reserves to minimize the risk of insolvency and  protect consumers. Moreover, FMCSA is not able to calculate economic benefits from having more financial resources available to assist crash victims associated with increased minimum financial responsibility limits.

            3 In a November 5, 2014 letter to the Acting Administrator of FMCSA, the Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) provided recommendations to the Agency related to financial responsibility requirements. While MCSAC provided useful information, its task was not to develop cost and benefit information for use in a rulemaking proceeding.

          Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: May 25, 2017.
          Daphne Y. Jefferson,
          Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2017-11544 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 0907301205-91207-01]
        RIN 0648-AY14
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2010-2012 specifications for the Atlantic herring (herring) fishery. These proposed specifications and management measures promote the utilization and conservation of the herring resource and provide for a sustainable fishery. This proposed rule would also make minor corrections to existing regulations.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on May 20, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AY14, by any one of the following methods:

          -Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov;
          -Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
          -Mail to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2010-2012 Herring Specifications.”

          Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9272, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Regulations implementing the FMP for herring appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. The regulations at § 648.200 specify that herring specifications, including optimum yield (OY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total foreign processing (JVPt), joint venture processing (JVP), internal water processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), border transfer (BT), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), reserve, and the amount for research set-aside (RSA) (up to 3 percent of the total allowable catch (TAC) from any management area) for up to 3 years be recommended by the Council, and reviewed and proposed in the Federal Register by NMFS. Specifications also establish the TACs and other management measures for the herring management areas.
        The proposed 2010-2012 herring specifications are based on the provisions currently in the Herring FMP, and also provide the necessary elements for a transition to the new ACL and AM requirements of the MSA. The ACL and AM process is being developed by the Council in Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP. Amendment 4 will be submitted to NMFS by the Council in Spring 2010, and implemented for the 2011 fishing year, if approved by NMFS.

        The Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank herring stock complex is a transboundary stock and is found in both U.S and Canadian waters. As such, the stock complex is assessed jointly by the U.S. and Canada. The 2009 Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) update assessment estimated the 2008 herring biomass at 651,700 mt (biomass supporting maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) = 670,600 mt) and 2008 fishing mortality rate (F) at 0.14 (FMSY (0.27)). Because the herring stock complex is above 1/2 BMSY and fishing mortality is below FMSY, the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The TRAC noted concern with the assessment's retrospective pattern, which results in an overestimation of biomass.
        The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) considered recommendations for the 2010-2012 specifications twice. At its September 16, 2009, meeting, the SSC endorsed the 2009 TRAC herring assessment as a basis for setting MSY fishing level and acceptable biological catch (ABC), but recommended that ABC be reduced to address the scientific uncertainty associated with the assessment. At that meeting, the SSC recommended an MSY fishing level of 145,000 mt in 2010, 134,000 mt in 2011, and 127,000 mt in 2012, and made an initial ABC recommendation of 90,000 mt for all 3 years.
        The SSC also considered an ABC control rule for herring. Given the magnitude of uncertainty in the assessment, the SSC determined that a herring ABC control rule cannot be derived at this time. Additionally, the SSC recommended that a new herring benchmark stock assessment is needed to address issues related to the 2009 assessment's retrospective pattern and the ABC control rule.

        The current herring overfishing definition is contingent on the relationship of current biomass to BMSY and requires a rebuilding program when biomass falls below BMSY. This definition must be revised in the future because, currently, the herring stock could not rebuild to BMSY using long-term projections at FMSY. A new benchmark stock assessment is needed to address the inconsistency between long-term projections and reference points. Because the TRAC's estimate of 2008 herring biomass is substantially greater than the biomass expected from long-term projections at FMSY, the SSC was able to use the overfishing definition (fishing mortality is FMSY when stock size is greater than BMSY and allows for rebuilding in 5 years when biomass is less than BMSY) to recommend maximum catch levels (i.e., 145,000 - 127,000 mt) based on projections at FMSY.

        At its September 2009 meeting, the SSC recommended an ABC of 90,000 mt for two reasons: 1) The average retrospective inconsistency in the estimate of exploitable biomass looking back 7 years (2001-2007) is approximately 40 percent, so the ABC recommendation reflected a buffer between the MSY fishing level and ABC of 40 percent; and 2) The stock assessment suggests that recent catches have maintained a relatively abundant stock size (estimates of stock biomass from 1998-2008 have been greater than BMSY) and low fishing mortality (estimates of fishing mortality from1998-2008 have been less than FMSY). Total catch by the U.S. and Canada in 2008 was 90,000 mt.
        The Council was uneasy with the SSC's inital catch recommendations. For the 2007-2009 herring specifications, the ABC (comparable to SSC-recommended MSY fishing level) was 194,000 mt and the OY (comparable to SSC-recommended ABC) was 145,000 mt. At its September 22-24, 2009, meeting, the Council requested the SSC to consider whether application of recent years' (2005-2007) retrospective inconsistency (about 17 percent) is a sufficient buffer between MSY fishing level and ABC to account for scientific uncertainty. The SSC considered the Council's request during a conference call on November 12, 2009, and concluded that there is no scientific basis for a 17 percent buffer between MSY and ABC, and that a 17 percent buffer is insufficient to account for scientific uncertainty. After further discussion, however, the SSC also concluded that, while the herring stock is not overfished and not subject to overfishing, it would not be appropriate to allow catches to increase above recent levels because of the scientific uncertainty associated with the assessment's estimates of biomass. Accordingly, the SSC revised its original advice, and recommended that ABC not exceed recent catch. Total catches in the U.S. and Canada averaged 106,000 mt during 2006-2008 and 108,000 mt during 2004-2008.
        At its November 17-19, 2009, meeting, the Council recommended 2010-2012 specifications for the herring fishery. During 2010-2012, the Council will annually review these specifications and recommend adjustments if necessary. For 2010-2012, NMFS proposes to implement the herring specifications recommended by the Council, as detailed in the following table.

        Proposed Specifications

          Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications (mt) for 2010-2012

            MSY Fishing Level
            2010-145,0002011-134,000
              2012-127,000

            Allowable Biological Catch
            106,000

            Optimum Yield
            91,200

            Domestic Annual Harvest
            91,200

            Border Transfer
            4,000

            Domestic Annual Processing
            87,200

            Joint Venture Processing Total
            0

            Joint Venture Processing
            0

            Internal Waters Processing
            0

            U.S. At-Sea Processing
            0

            Total Allowable Foreign Fishing
            0

            Reserve
            0

            Area 1A Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
            26,546*

            Area 1B TAC
            4,362

            Area 2 TAC
            22,146

            Area 3 TAC
            38,146

            Fixed Gear Set-Aside
            295

            Research Set-Aside
            0

            * If New Brunswick weir fishery landings through October 15 are less than 9,000 mt, then 3,000 mt will be added to the Area 1A TAC in November.

        Consistent with the SSC's advice, the Council recommended decreasing the MSY fishing level from 194,000 mt in 2009 to 145,000 mt in 2010, 134,000 mt in 2011, and 127,000 mt in 2012 and decreasing the herring ABC from 145,000 mt in 2009 to 106,000 mt (based on average U.S. and Canadian catch from 2006-2008) for all 3 years. The Council believes that the buffer between MSY and ABC is reflective of scientific uncertainty; therefore, reductions for additional sources of scientific uncertainty (e.g., biomass projections, recruitment, forage/natural mortality) were not recommended. Herring regulations (§ 648.200(b)(1)) specify that OY is less than or equal to ABC minus expected catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery. The Council recommended that the deduction for New Brunswick weir catch be 14,800 mt (based on average catch 1999-2008, minus the highest and lowest values). Because state-only catch and herring discards are included in the OY, the Council did not recommend any additional sources of management uncertainty in the buffer between ABC and OY. NMFS concurs with the Council's recommendations and proposes the following specifications: MSY level fishing at 145,000 mt for 2010, 134,000 mt for 2011, and 127,000 mt for 2012; and 2010-2012 ABC and OY at 106,000 mt and 91,200 mt, respectively.
        BT is a processing allocation available to foreign transport vessels and dealers. The MSA provides for the issuance of permits to Canadian vessels transporting herring harvested in the U.S. to Canada for sardine processing. The Council recommended the specification for BT be 4,000 mt. The amount specified for BT has equaled 4,000 mt since 2000. As there continues to be Canadian interest in transporting herring for sardine processing, the specification for BT remains unchanged. For these reasons, NMFS proposes BT be maintained at 4,000 mt for 2010-2012.
        Historically, JVPt (including JVP and IWP) was allocated to encourage foreign processing operations with U.S. vessels and TALFF was allocated to ensure fish were available to foreign processing vessels when U.S. vessels could not supply it. The U.S. herring fishery has experienced growth in both harvesting and processing capacity, and since 2005 the Council has allocated neither JVPt or TALFF because of the U.S. fishery's potential to fully utilize DAH and DAP. Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP established a limited access program in 2008 because the Council found that sufficient harvesting capacity exists in the U.S. fishery to harvest more than the available yield. In the absence of any JVPt activity, TALFF allocations to support those operations are no longer necessary. Because the U.S. herring industry is capable of harvesting and processing the entire 2010-2012 proposed OY, and to maximize U.S. economic benefits, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that JVPt, JVP, IWP, and TALFF be maintained at zero for 2010-2012.
        The Herring FMP specifies that DAH will be set less than or equal to OY and be comprised of DAP, JVPt, and BT. Consistent with the proposed specifications for OY, the Council recommended that DAH be 91,200 mt for 20010-2012. DAH should reflect the actual and potential harvesting capacity of the U.S. herring fleet. During 1995-2008, the U.S. herring fishery harvested an average of 103,580 mt herring per year and recently (2004-2008) harvested an average of 91,801 mt of herring per year. While the U.S. herring fishery has not fully utilized the DAH in previous years, the proposed specifications for 2010-2010 set DAH at or below historical catch levels. DAP is the amount of U.S. harvest that is processed domestically, as well as herring that is sold fresh (i.e., bait). DAP is calculated by subtracting BT from DAH. Using this formula, the Council recommended that DAP be 87,200 mt. NMFS concurs that the U.S. herring fishery has the capacity to harvest and process the DAH and DAP recommended by the Council, so it proposes that DAH be set at 91,200 mt and DAP be set at 87,200 mt for 2010-2012.
        A portion of DAP may be specified for the at-sea processing of herring in Federal waters. When determining the USAP specification, the Council considers availability of shore-side processing, status of the resource, and opportunities for vessels to participate in the herring fishery. A USAP specification of 20,000 mt for herring management Areas 2 and 3 was in place during 2007-2009. This specification was a cap for USAP activities and not a specific allocation for at-sea processing. During 2007-2009, the catch in management Areas 2 and 3 was lower than the area TACs. The USAP specification was intended to provide additional opportunities for U.S. harvesters better suited to offloading catch at sea than bringing it back to port. Because no at-sea processing vessel participated in the herring fishery during 2007-2009, none of the 20,000 mt USAP specification was utilized. There is currently no known industry interest in operating an at-sea processing vessel in the herring fishery, so the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that USAP be set at zero for 2010-2012.

        The Council recommended a reserve specification of zero for 2010-2012. Historically, the reserve was used to buffer against such things as uncertainty in stock size estimates, uncertainty in Canadian catch, excess U.S. capacity entering the herring fishery, and fluctuations in import/export demand. With the implementation of limited access, and the use of buffers between MSY fishing level, ABC, and OY to account for sources of scientific and management uncertainty, the Council concluded that specifying a reserve is not necessary. NMFS concurs with the Council, and proposes that the reserve be set at zero for 2010-2012.

        The herring stock complex is assessed as a unit stock, but is comprised of inshore (Gulf of Maine) and offshore (Georges Bank) stock components. These stock components segregate during spawning and mix during feeding and migration. A previous TRAC assessment (2006) estimated that approximately 18 percent of the unit stock's biomass is the inshore stock component and the remaining 82 percent is the offshore stock component. Herring management areas were developed in recognition of these different stock components and provide a method to manage the fishing mortality of each stock component somewhat independently. Because the inshore stock component has substantially less biomass than the offshore stock component, it is likely more vulnerable to overfishing. The inshore stock component is found in 3 of the 4 management areas (i.e., Area 1A, 1B, and 2). These same management areas are of particular economic importance to the industry because of herring availability and proximity of the fishing grounds to shore.
        The Council's Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) analyzed the risk of overfishing the stock components by estimating exploitation rates associated with a range of management area TACs. The exploitation rate that corresponds to FMSY for the herring stock is approximately 0.24. Area TAC alternatives with exploitation rates on the inshore stock component similar to the FMSY exploitation rate for the stock had drastic TAC reductions (up to 90 percent) in the inshore areas. PDT analysis indicates that over the past decade (1999-2008) exploitation rates on the inshore stock component have been consistently higher than 0.24. As differences in productivity between the stock components are not know, PDT analysis suggests that the exploitation rate of 0.24 for the stock components should be used as a target, rather than a threshold.
        When recommending management area TACs, the Council made TAC recommendations that weighed controlling the exploitation rate on the inshore stock component against providing harvest opportunities in inshore areas. NMFS accepts the Council's recommendations, and is proposing that for 2010-2012 the Area 1A TAC be reduced from 45,000 mt to 26,546 mt, the Area 1B be reduced from 10,000 mt to 4,362 mt, that the Area 2 TAC be reduced from 30,000 mt to 22,146 mt, and the Area 3 TAC be reduced from 60,000 mt to 38,146 mt. The exploitation rates on the inshore stock component associated with the proposed TACs are estimated to be 0.42, 0.46, and 0.50 for 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.

        Because Canadian catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery is highly variable, the Council recommended a management measure reallocating a portion of the buffer between ABC and OY (the buffer to account for Canadian catch) to Area 1A, provided New Brunswick weir landings are lower that anticipated (14,800 mt). Specifically, the Council recommended that if New Brunswick weir fishery landings are less than 9,000 mt through October 15, then 3,000 mt will be added to the Area 1A TAC in November. NMFS's Northeast Fishery Statistic Office will review New Brunswick weir data biweekly. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, this action proposes that if NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 9,000 mt through October 15, NMFS will allocate an additional 3,000 mt to the Area 1A TAC in November (for a total Area 1A TAC of 29,546 mt). If the reallocation is warranted, NMFS will notify the Council and the adjustment will be published in the Federal Register. This measure has the potential to mitigate some of the economic effects associated with the proposed 41 percent reduction in Area 1A TAC.
        The Herring FMP provides for up to 3 percent of management area TACs to be set-aside to fund research. Due to the magnitude of the proposed reductions in management area TACs from those in 2009, the Council did not recommend RSA for any management area. NMFS concurs with the Council's recommendation and is proposing that RSA be set at zero for 2010-2012.
        Herring regulations (§ 648.201(g)) specify that up to 500 mt of the Area 1A TAC shall be allocated for the fixed gear fisheries in Area 1A (weirs and stop seines) that occur west of 44° 36.2 N. Lat. and 67°16.8 W. Long. This set-aside shall be available for harvest by the fixed gear within the specified area until November 1 of each year; any unused portion of the allocation will be restored to the Area 1A TAC after November 1. During 2007-2009, the fixed gear set-aside was specified at 500 mt. Because the proposed Area 1A TAC for 2010-2012 is substantially reduced from the Area 1A TAC in 2009, the Council recommended that the fixed gear set-aside be similarly reduced. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that the fixed gear set-aside be set at 295 mt for 2010-2012.
        Corrections
        This proposed rule also contains minor corrections to existing regulations. These corrections would not revise the substance of any regulations; they would only clarify the intent of existing regulations by correcting minor errors. In § 648.14(r)(1)(vi)(A), the reference to the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Exemption Area would be removed and the reference to limited access herring vessels would be modified. In § 648.14(r)(1)(vii)(B), the reference to a limited access herring vessel would also be revised.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866).
        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows.
        Statement of Objective and Need
        This action proposes 2010-2012 specifications for the herring fishery. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
        Based on 2009 permit data, the number of potential fishing vessels in each permit category in the herring fishery are as follows: 41 for Category A (limited access, All Areas), 4 for Category B (limited access, Areas 2 and 3), 54 for Category C (limited access, incidental), and 2,272 for Category D (open access). There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        Proposed Actions
        Because the proposed action will not reduce the OY below 2008 landings levels in any of the years covered by this action, the proposed action may not negatively impact the ability of the fleet to land the same amount of herring as it has in recent years. For the proposed action, with an effective OY of 86,640 mt (fishery closure threshold is 95 percent of 91,200 mt), no loss of revenue is expected since this level is greater than 2008 landings (80,800 mt). However, historical catch data indicate there may be impacts associated with proposed area TAC allocations.
        The proposed action reduces the Area 1A TAC by 41 percent from status quo (45,000 mt in 2009). Area 1A has historically been the most important area to the fishery and the TAC has been fully utilized for the past 4 fishing years. The proposed action includes TACs for Areas 2 and 3 that are higher than historical landings in those areas, which could provide additional revenue for the herring fishery if the Area 1A TAC is fully harvested. However, conditions associated with harvesting herring from Areas 2 and 3 may not be ideal. If the Area 1A TAC is attained during the summer, fish may only be available in Areas 1B and 3, since Area 2 is primarily a winter fishing ground. Area 3 is a large offshore area, and it is never certain that fish will aggregate in such a way that they are available to fishing operations. Smaller vessels may not be able to fish safely offshore. For larger vessels that can safely fish in Area 3, increasing the amount of offshore fishing will increase operating costs. Since search time is likely to increase and the length of the trip will increase as fishing grounds are further from shore, fuel costs and other trip expenses will increase. The degree to which fishing costs will change is difficult to predict, so an overall estimate of increased cost can not be made. However, observer data show that each additional day at sea for midwater trawl vessels increases trips costs an average of $2,800.
        Though the proposed action reduces TACs in all management areas, resulting in short-term reductions in revenue, the proposed action also reduces the relative exploitation rate on the inshore stock component in comparison to status quo. By reducing fishing mortality in Areas 1A, 1B and 2, the proposed action reduces the risk of overfishing the inshore stock component. In the long-term, maintaining the inshore stock component will provide for sustained participation in the herring fishery.
        The proposed action also includes a measure to allocate an additional 3,000 mt of herring to Area 1A in November, if the catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery is lower than anticipated. As described in the preamble, the Council recommended deducting 14,800 mt from the ABC to account for catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery. If, by considering landings through October 15 of each year, NMFS determines that less than 9,000 mt has been taken in the New Brunswick weir fishery, NMFS will allocate an additional 3,000 mt to Area 1A in November. This measure provides additional opportunities for fishing in Area 1A if catch in the weir fishery is substantially less than anticipated (14,800 mt), while still minimizing the likelihood of exceeding ABC.
        Alternatives to the Proposed Action
        Alternatives to the proposed action include options for setting the ABC, OY, and management area TACs. However, the specification of management area TACs has the greatest potential to economically impact fishery participants, especially the specification of the TAC in Area 1A, therefore this section focuses on the Area 1A TAC alternatives.
        Only two alternatives contain Area 1A TACs that are higher than status quo (i.e., 45,000 mt). Alternative 1/option 1 has an Area 1A TAC that is 31,000 mt higher than status quo and alternative 1/option 2A has an Area 1A TAC that is 400 mt higher than status quo. At a $260 per mt (average price in 2008), these alternatives would result in fleet-wide revenue increases of approximately $8 million (alternative 1/option 1) or $104,000 (alternative 1/option 2). Because these alternatives would not have reduced the relative exploitation rate on the inshore stock component in comparison to status quo, they were not selected as the proposed action. All other alternatives have Area 1A TACs that are lower than status quo (10-90 percent less). The economic impacts of reducing the Area 1A TAC and displacing effort into other management areas are discussed in the previous section.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: April 14, 2010.
          Eric C. Schwaab,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

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

            2. In § 648.14, paragraphs (r)(1)(vi)(A) and (r)(1)(viii)(B) are revised to read as follows:

            § 648.14
            Prohibitions.
            (r) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (vi) * * *
            (A) For the purposes of observer deployment, fail to notify NMFS at least 72 hr prior to departing on a trip aboard a vessel with an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing with either midwater trawl or purse seine gear on a declared herring trip.
            (viii) * * *
            (B) Fail to notify the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement of the time and date of landing via VMS, if a vessel with an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing with either midwater trawl or purse seine gear, at least 6 hr prior to landing herring at the end of a declared herring trip.
            3. In § 648.201, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

            § 648.201
            Closures and TAC controls.

            (h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 9,000 mt through October 15, NMFS will allocate an additional 3,000 mt to the Area 1A TAC in November. NMFS will notify the Council of this adjustment and publish the adjustment in the Federal Register.

      [FR Doc. 2010-9061 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S