        DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI47
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Nine Bexar County, TX, Invertebrate Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft economic analysis; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for nine endangered karst-dwelling invertebrate species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2002 (67 FR 55064) and the current comment period is open until November 25, 2002. We are extending the comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for these species to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. The draft economic analysis shows a range of likely costs from the designation of the proposed critical habitat, including those costs attributable coextensively to listing, of between $17.8 to $22.1 million over a 10-year period. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this extended comment period, and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments on both the draft economic analysis and the proposed critical habitat designation until December 23, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit written comments and materials concerning the proposal and draft economic analysis at the hearing or send them directly to Renne Lohoefener, Texas State Administrator, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. Written comments may also be sent by facsimile to 512/490-0974. You may also hand-deliver written comments to our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Austin Ecological Services Field Office at the address given above.

          You may view comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by appointment, during normal business hours in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Austin Ecological Services Field Office at the above address. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis from the above address, by calling 512/490-0057, or from our Web site at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Library/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bill Seawell, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address (telephone: 512/490-0057; facsimile: 512/490-0974).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The following nine Bexar County, Texas, invertebrate species were listed as endangered on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419): Rhadine exilis (ground beetle, no common name); Rhadine infernalis (ground beetle, no common name); Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle); Texella cokendolpheri (Cokendolpher cave harvestman); Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron Cave meshweaver); Cicurina madla (Madla Cave meshweaver); Cicurina venii (Braken Bat Cave meshweaver); Cicurina vespera (Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver); and Neoleptoneta microps (Government Canyon Bat Cave spider). All of these species are karst dwelling species of local distribution in north and northwest Bexar County. They spend their entire lives underground.
        The proposed critical habitat consists of 25 units (a total of approximately 9,516 acres) in Bexar County, Texas, each encompassing one or more caves or other karst features known to contain one or more of the listed species. “Karst” is a type of terrain that is formed by the slow dissolution of calcium carbonate from limestone bedrock by mildly acidic groundwater. This process creates numerous cave openings, cracks, fissures, fractures, and sinkholes and the bedrock resembles a honeycomb (USFWS 1994). Critical habitat identifies areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection.
        The proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2002 (67 FR 55064) and the current comment period is open until November 25, 2002. We are extending the comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for these species to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. We have prepared a draft economic analysis on the effects of the proposed critical habitat designation, and are now announcing its availability for review. The draft analysis estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the critical habitat designation on government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The draft economic analysis shows a range of likely costs from the designation of the proposed critical habitat of between $17.8 to $18 million over a 10-year period. Extending the comment period will provide the public an opportunity to evaluate and comment on both the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis. Comments already submitted on the proposed designation of critical habitat do not need to be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determinations.
        Public Comment Solicited
        The final economic analysis concerning the designation of critical habitat for these species will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period.
        We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposal or the draft economic analysis. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) Plans or potential for development within the area proposed to be designated;
        (2) Plans or potential for agricultural land-uses within the area proposed to be designated, which might require a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other types of Federal permits; and
        (3) The likelihood of “stigma effects” and costs associated with the designation; and

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our office listed in the ADDRESSES section.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: November 7, 2002.
          Paul Hoffman,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-29620 Filed 11-19-02; 10:15 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 92
        RIN 1018-AJ27
        Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska; Subsistence Harvest Regulations for Migratory Birds in Alaska During the Spring/Summer 2004 Subsistence Season

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is proposing spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2004 subsistence season. This proposed rule would establish regulations that prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates when harvesting of birds may occur, species that can be taken, and methods and means excluded from use. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. These regulations are intended to provide a framework to enable the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska. The rulemaking is necessary because the regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to annual review. This rulemaking proposes regulations that start on April 2, 2004, and expire on August 31, 2004, for the spring/summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska.

          DATES:
          You must submit comments on the proposed spring/summer harvest regulations for migratory birds in Alaska by February 11, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send your comments on this proposed rule to the Regional Director, Alaska Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503, or fax to (907) 786-3306.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Fred Armstrong, (907) 786-3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        What Events Led to This Action?
        In 1916, the United States and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) signed the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States (Canada Treaty). The treaty prohibited all commercial bird hunting and specified a closed season on the taking of migratory game birds between March 10 and September 1 of each year. In 1936, the United States and Mexico signed the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (Mexico Treaty). The Mexico treaty prohibited the taking of wild ducks between March 10 and September 1. Neither treaty allowed adequately for the traditional harvest of migratory birds by northern peoples during the spring and summer months. This harvest, which has occurred for centuries, was and is necessary to the subsistence way of life in the north and thus continued despite the closed season.
        The Canada treaty and the Mexico treaty, as well as migratory bird treaties with Japan (1972) and Russia (1976), have been implemented in the United States through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The courts have ruled that the MBTA prohibits the Federal Government from permitting any harvest of migratory birds that is inconsistent with the terms of any of the migratory bird treaties. The more restrictive terms of the Canada and Mexico treaties thus prevented the Federal Government from permitting the traditional subsistence harvest of migratory birds during spring and summer in Alaska. To remedy this situation, the United States negotiated Protocols amending both the Canada and Mexico treaties to allow for spring/summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds by indigenous inhabitants of identified subsistence harvest areas in Alaska. The U.S. Senate approved the amendments to both treaties in 1997.
        What Will the Amended Treaty Accomplish?
        The major goals of the amended treaty with Canada are to allow traditional subsistence harvest and improve conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. The amended treaty with Canada allows permanent residents of villages within subsistence harvest areas, regardless of race, to continue harvesting migratory birds between March 10 and September 1 as they have done for thousands of years. The Letter of Submittal of May 20, 1996, from the Department of State to the White House that officially accompanied the treaty protocol explains that lands north and west of the Alaska Range and within the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, and the Aleutian Islands generally qualify as subsistence harvest areas.
        What Has the Service Accomplished Since Ratification of the Amended Treaty?

        In 1998, we began a public involvement process to determine how to structure management bodies to provide the most effective and efficient involvement for subsistence users. This process was concluded on March 28, 2000, when we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 16405) the Notice of Decision: “Establishment of Management Bodies in Alaska to Develop Recommendations Related to the Spring/Summer Subsistence Harvest of Migratory Birds.” This notice described the establishment and organization of 12 regional management bodies plus the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (Co-management Council).

        Establishment of a spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest began on August 16, 2002, when we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 53511) a final rule at 50 CFR part 92 that set procedures for incorporating subsistence management into the continental migratory bird management program. These regulations established an annual procedure to develop harvest guidelines to implement a spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest.

        The next step established the first spring/summer subsistence migratory bird harvest system. This was finalized on July 21, 2003, when we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 43010) a final rule at 50 CFR parts 20, 21, and 92 that created the first annual harvest regulations for the 2003 spring/summer subsistence migratory bird season in Alaska. These annual frameworks were not intended to be a complete, all-inclusive set of regulations, but were intended to regulate continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska during the spring and summer. See the August 16, 2002, and July 21, 2003, final rules for additional background information on the subsistence harvest program for migratory birds in Alaska.

        This current rulemaking is necessary because the migratory bird harvest season is closed unless opened and the regulations governing subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to public review and annual approval. The Co-management Council held meetings in April, May, and July of 2003, to develop recommendations for changes effective for the 2004 harvest season. These recommendations were presented to the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) on July 30 and 31, 2003, for action.
        This rule proposes regulations for the taking of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during the spring/summer of 2004. This rule proposes to list migratory bird species that are open or closed to harvest, as well as season openings and closures by region. It also proposes minor changes in the methods and means of taking migratory birds for subsistence purposes. We propose to amend 50 CFR 92.5 by adding 13 new communities to the list of included areas, and to add corresponding harvest areas and season dates to 50 CFR 92.33. We also propose to amend 50 CFR 92.6 to allow for permits to be issued for possession of bird parts or eggs for scientific research or educational purposes.
        How Will the Service Continue To Ensure That the Subsistence Harvest Will Not Raise Overall Migratory Bird Harvest?
        The Service has an emergency closure provision (§ 92.21), so that if any significant increases in harvest are documented for one or more species in a region, an emergency closure can be requested and implemented. Eligibility to harvest under the regulations established in 2003 was limited to permanent residents, regardless of race, in villages located within the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands, and in areas north and west of the Alaska Range (§ 92.5). These geographical restrictions open the initial spring/summer subsistence migratory bird harvest to only about 13 percent of Alaska residents. High-population areas such as Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star boroughs, the Kenai Peninsula roaded area, the Gulf of Alaska roaded area, and Southeast Alaska were excluded from the eligible subsistence harvest areas.
        Based on petitions requesting inclusion in the harvest, the Co-Management Council at its April and May 2003 meetings recommended that 13 additional communities be included starting in 2004 based on the five criteria set forth in § 92.5(c). The Upper Copper River region would include the communities of Gulkana, Gakona, Tazlina, Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Chitina, and Chistochina, totaling 1,172 people. The Gulf of Alaska region would include the Chugach communities of Tatitlek, Chenega, Port Graham, and Nanwalek, totaling 541 people. The Cook Inlet region proposed to add only the community of Tyonek, population 193, and the Southeast Alaska region proposed to add only the community of Hoonah, population 860. In addition, subsistence users of Hoonah are requesting only to continue their tradition of harvesting gull eggs. These new regions would increase the percentage of the State population included in the spring/summer subsistence bird harvest only to 13.5 percent.
        Upon publication of the 2003 proposed harvest regulations (68 FR 6697), five Kodiak area organizations expressed a need to close the Kodiak road system starting in the 2003 season. Their primary concern was the likelihood of overharvesting, primarily by user groups that have not demonstrated customary and traditional uses of migratory birds and will have easy access to this resource. On the basis of public testimony and written comments, the Service left closed to harvesting a buffer zone around the Kodiak Island road system under § 92.33(e). The conservation concern is the nontraditional access posed by the road system in a region where the migratory bird hunting is traditionally done by boat in marine waters. In April 2003, the Co-Management Council recommended extending this closure to include an additional buffer strip of 500 feet extending beyond the water's edge, to be effective during the 2004 season. Closing the road system and water's edge to the spring and summer subsistence migratory bird harvest will help ensure local increases in harvest do not occur under the 2004 regulations.

        Subsistence harvest has been monitored for the past 15 years through the use of annual household surveys in the most heavily used subsistence harvest areas, e.g., Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Continuation of this monitoring would enable tracking of any major changes or trends in levels of harvest and user participation after legalization of the harvest. In the March 3, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 10024), we published a notice of intent to submit the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey Information Collection Forms to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, with a subsequent 60-day public comment period. In the July 31, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 44961), we published a notice that the Alaska Subsistence Harvest Survey Information Collection Forms were submitted to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, with a 30-day public comment period. OMB approved the information collection on October 2, 2003, and assigned OMB control number 1018-0124, which expires on October 31, 2006.
        How Did the Service Develop the Methods and Means Prohibitions, and What Is Proposed To Change for 2004?
        In development of the initial regulations (68 FR 6697), the Co-Management Council encouraged the Service to adopt the existing methods and means prohibitions that occur in the Federal (50 CFR part 20.21) and Alaska (5AAC92.100) migratory bird hunting regulations. Some exceptions to the Federal regulations were made in the initial regulations and also in this proposed rule to allow the continuation of customary and traditional spring harvest methods, but not the creation of new proposed traditions. In this proposed rule, we have incorporated the Bristol Bay region's request to be added to the list of areas where use of air boats is prohibited for hunting or transporting hunters.
        What Is New With Establishing Bird Harvest Limits?
        The Co-management Council recommended the current set of proposed regulations to the Service without setting harvest limits, with the recognition that setting limits by area or species may become necessary. These initial years' harvest regulations provide general frameworks to enable the customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska. Within these frameworks, the first step in limiting the overall subsistence harvest was to establish a closed species list that included regional restrictions. Establishing a 30-day closed period during the breeding season also limited the harvest impacts. The eventual need to further adjust levels of harvest, either regionally or overall, is recognized and will be addressed by the Co-management Council on the basis of recommendations by the Council's Technical Committee on a species-by-species basis. These decisions will likely be based on bird population status and past subsistence harvest data. Concepts such as community harvest limits and/or designated hunters may be considered to accommodate customary and traditional subsistence harvest methods.
        How Did the Service Decide the List of Birds Open to Harvest?

        The Service believed that it was necessary to develop a list of bird species that would be open to subsistence harvest during the spring/summer season. The original list was compiled from subsistence harvest data, with several species added based on their presence in Alaska without written records of subsistence take. The original intent was for the list to be reviewed by the regional management bodies as a check list. The list was adopted by the Co-management Council as part of the guidelines for the 2003 season. Most of the regions adopted the list as written; however, two regions created their own lists. One regional representative explained that it would take much more time than was available for his region to reduce the list and that, once a bird was removed, returning it to the list would be more difficult later. Going with the original list was viewed as protecting hunters from prosecution for the take of an unlisted bird. To understand this rationale, one must be aware that subsistence hunting is generally opportunistic and does not usually target individual species. Native language names for birds often group closely related species, with no separate names for species within these groups. Also, preferences for individual species differ greatly between villages and individual hunters. As a result, regions are hesitant to remove birds from the list open to harvest until they are certain the species are not taken for subsistence use. The list therefore contains some species that are taken infrequently and opportunistically, but this is still part of the subsistence tradition. The Co-Management Council initially decided to call this list “potentially harvested birds” versus “traditionally harvested birds” because a detailed written documentation of the customary and traditional use patterns for the species listed had not yet been conducted. However, this terminology was leading to some confusion, so the Service renamed the list “subsistence birds” to cover the birds open to harvest.
        The “customary and traditional use” of a wildlife species has been defined in Federal regulations (50 CFR part 100.4) as a long-established, consistent pattern of use, incorporating beliefs and customs that have been transmitted from generation to generation. Much of the customary and traditional use information has not been documented in written form, but exists in the form of oral histories from elders, traditional stories, harvest methods taught to children, and traditional knowledge of the birds' natural history shared within a village or region. The only available empirical evidence of customary and traditional use of the harvested bird species comes from Alaska subsistence migratory bird harvest surveys conducted by Service personnel and contractors and transferred to a computerized database. Because of difficulties in bird species identification, shorebird harvest information has been lumped into “large shorebird” and “small shorebird” categories. In reality, Alaska subsistence harvests are also conducted in this manner, generally with no targeting or even recognition of individual shorebird species in most cases. In addition, red-faced cormorants, trumpeter swans, Aleutian terns, whiskered auklets, short-eared owls, and others have not been targeted in subsistence harvest questionnaires, so little or no numerical harvest data exists.
        How Does the Service Address the Birds of Conservation Concern Relative to the Subsistence Harvest?

          Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 2002 is the latest document in a continuing effort by the Service to assess and prioritize bird species for conservation purposes. It was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2003 (68 FR 6179). The BCC list identifies bird species at risk because of inherently small populations, restricted ranges, severe population declines, or imminent threats. The species listed need increased conservation attention to maintain or stabilize populations. The legal authority for this effort is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) of 1980, as amended. Section 13(a)(3) of the FWCA, 16 U.S.C. 2912(a)(3), requires the Secretary of the Interior through the Service, to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).”
        The Co-management Council will continually review the list of subsistence birds. As appropriate, the Council will elevate hunter awareness of species that may have small or declining populations in an effort to directly involve subsistence hunters in conserving these vulnerable species.

        At a July 2003 meeting, the SRC decided three of the BCC species (bar-tailed godwits [Limosa lapponica], dunlin [Calidris alpina], and red-legged kittiwakes [Rissa brevirostris]) would remain on the list of birds open to harvest in 2004. The Service, however, has conservation concerns about allowing harvest of the remaining 12 species (11 BCC birds plus wandering tattler) and is soliciting additional public comments as well as Co-management Council documentation of past and present use and dependence on these birds. Based on this information, the Service will make a final decision prior to publication of the final rule for the 2004 regulations as to whether or not to leave these 12 species open for harvest. The 12 species of conservation concern include:

        Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata)—Western Alaska BCC list
        Red-faced Cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)—Aleutians/Bering Sea Islands and Western Alaska BCC list
        Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)—National and Alaska-wide BCC list
        Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria)—National BCC list
        Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus)—not on BCC lists, but conservation issues were raised by the State of Alaska
        Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)—National BCC list
        Black Turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala)—National and Alaska-wide BCC list
        Red Knot (Calidris canutus)—Northern Pacific Forest and National BCC list
        Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)—Alaska-wide BCC list
        Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica)—National and Alaska-wide BCC list
        Whiskered Auklet (Aethia pygmaea)—National and Alaska-wide BCC list
        Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)—National BCC list

        The Co-management Council has begun a systematic review of the customary and traditional use of these species and will recommend subsequent action based on its findings. The Co-management Council remains committed to including all stakeholders to determine the list of birds that will ultimately be open for subsistence harvest in 2004. Public comments are welcome on whether these 12 species should remain on the list of birds open to harvest in 2004. Any additional information would assist subsequent decisions made by the Service.
        Public Comments Solicited

        The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. You may mail, fax, or hand-deliver comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we will also withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. You may inspect comments received on the proposed regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in Anchorage, Alaska.
        Because we conducted an extensive public involvement process prior to formulating this proposed rule, we are soliciting comments on it for only 30 days. We need to finalize this proposed rule as soon as possible to open the subsistence harvest season in April 2004. In developing the final rule, we will consider each comment received during the public comment period. In the final rule, we possibly may not respond in detail to each comment received during the comment period, but we will summarize all comments received and respond to them.
        Statutory Authority

        We derive our authority to issue these regulations from the four migratory bird treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia and from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), that implements these treaties. Specifically, these regulations are issued pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 712(1), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with these four treaties, to “issue such regulations as may be necessary to assure that the taking of migratory birds and the collection of their eggs, by the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska, shall be permitted for their own nutritional and other essential needs, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, during seasons established so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.”
        Executive Order 12866
        Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
        (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
        (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.,) aid or reduce its clarity?
        (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
        (5) Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule?
        (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this document is not a significant rule subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
        a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The rule does not provide for new or additional hunting opportunities and therefore will have minimal economic or environmental impact. This rule benefits those participants who engage in the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska in two identifiable ways: first, participants receive the consumptive value of the birds harvested, and second, participants get the cultural benefit associated with the maintenance of a subsistence economy and way of life. The Service can estimate the consumptive value for birds harvested under this rule but does not have a dollar value for the cultural benefit of maintaining a subsistence economy and way of life.
        The economic value derived from the consumption of the harvested migratory birds has been estimated using the results of a paper by Robert J. Wolfe titled “Subsistence Food Harvests in Rural Alaska, and Food Safety Issues” (August 13, 1996). Using data from Wolfe's paper and applying it to the areas that will be included in this process, we determined a maximum economic value of $6 million. This is the estimated economic benefit of the consumptive part of this rule for participants in subsistence hunting. The cultural benefits of maintaining a subsistence economy and way of life can be of considerable value to the participants, and these benefits are not included in this figure.
        b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. We are the Federal agency responsible for the management of migratory birds, coordinating with the State of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game on management programs within Alaska. The State of Alaska is a member of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council.
        c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule does not affect entitlement programs.
        d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The subsistence harvest regulations will go through the same National regulatory process as the existing migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. The rule legalizes a pre-existing subsistence activity, and the resources harvested will be consumed by the harvesters or persons within their local community.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, as discussed in the Executive Order 12866 section above.
        a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will legalize and regulate a traditional subsistence activity. It will not result in a substantial increase in subsistence harvest or a significant change in harvesting patterns. The commodities being regulated under this rule are migratory birds. This rule deals with legalizing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and, as such, does not involve commodities traded in the marketplace. A small economic benefit from this rule derives from the sale of equipment and ammunition to carry out subsistence hunting. Most, if not all, businesses that sell hunting equipment in rural Alaska would qualify as small businesses. We have no reason to believe that this rule will lead to a disproportionate distribution of benefits.

        b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule does not deal with traded commodities and, therefore, does not have an impact on prices for consumers.
        c. This rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule deals with the harvesting of wildlife for personal consumption. It does not regulate the marketplace in any way to generate effects on the economy or the ability of businesses to compete.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        We have determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, State, or tribal governments or private entities. A statement containing the information required by this Act is therefore not necessary. Participation on regional management bodies and the Co-management Council will require travel expenses for some Alaska Native organizations and local governments. In addition, they will assume some expenses related to coordinating involvement of village councils in the regulatory process. Total coordination and travel expenses for all Alaska Native organizations are estimated to be less than $300,000 per year. In the Notice of Decision (65 FR 16405, March 28, 2000) we identified 12 partner organizations to be responsible for administering the regional programs. When possible, we will make annual grant agreements available to the partner organizations to help offset their expenses. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will incur expenses for travel to Co-management Council and regional management body's meetings. In addition, the State of Alaska will be required to provide technical staff support to each of the regional management bodies and to the Co-management Council. Expenses for the State's involvement may exceed $100,000 per year, but should not exceed $150,000 per year.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and has been found to contain no information collection requirements. We have, however, received OMB approval of associated voluntary annual household surveys used to determine levels of subsistence take. The OMB control number for the information collection is 1018-0124, which expires on October 31, 2006. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        Federalism Effects
        As discussed in the Executive Order 12866 and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132. We worked with the State of Alaska on development of these regulations.
        Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988
        In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of Section 3 of the Order.
        Takings Implication Assessment
        This rule is not specific to particular land ownership, but applies to the harvesting of migratory bird resources throughout Alaska. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications.
        Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), concerning consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, we have consulted with Alaska tribes and evaluated the rule for possible effects on tribes or trust resources, and have determined that there are no significant effects. The rule will legalize the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and their eggs for tribal members, as well as for other indigenous inhabitants.
        Endangered Species Act Consideration

        Prior to issuance of annual spring and summer subsistence regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to ensure that harvesting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened, or modify or destroy its critical habitats and that it is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of this Act conducted in connection with the environmental assessment for the annual subsistence take regulations may cause us to change these regulations. Our biological opinion resulting from the Section 7 consultation is a public document available for public inspection at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

        National Environmental Policy Act Consideration

        The annual regulations and options were considered in the Environmental Assessment, “Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska: Hunting Regulations for the First Legal Spring/Summer Harvest in 2004,” issued September 8, 2003. Copies are available from the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule only allows for traditional subsistence harvest and improves conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest, it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Consequently it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 92
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Subsistence, Treaties, Wildlife.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter G, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 92—MIGRATORY BIRD SUBSISTENCE HARVEST IN ALASKA
          1.The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 703-712.

            Subpart A—General Provisions

          2. In subpart A, amend § 92.4 by adding the definitions “Game Management Unit,” “Seabirds,” “Shorebirds,” and “Waterfowl,” to read as follows:

            § 92.4
            Definitions

              Game Management Unit, also referred to simply as Unit, means 1 of the 26 geographical areas listed in the codified State of Alaska hunting and trapping regulations and on maps of the Alaska State Game Management Units.

              Seabirds refers to all bird species listed in § 92.32 within the families Alcidae, Laridae, Procellariidae, and Phalacrocoracidae.

              Shorebirds refers to all bird species listed in § 92.32 within the families Charadriidae, Haematopodidae, and Scolopacidae.

              Waterfowl refers to all bird species listed in § 92.32 within the family Anatidae.
            3. In subpart A, amend § 92.5 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

            § 92.5
            Who is eligible to participate?

            (a) Included areas. Village areas located within the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands, or in areas north and west of the Alaska Range are subsistence harvest areas, except that villages within these areas not meeting the criteria for a subsistence harvest area as identified in paragraph (c) of this section will be excluded from the spring and summer subsistence harvest.
            (1) Any person may request the Co-management Council to recommend that an otherwise included area be excluded by submitting a petition stating how the area does not meet the criteria identified in paragraph (c) of this section. The Co-management Council will forward petitions to the appropriate regional management body for review and recommendation. The Co-management Council will then consider each petition and will submit to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service any recommendations to exclude areas from the spring and summer subsistence harvest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will publish any approved recommendations to exclude areas in subpart D of this part.
            (2) Based on petitions for inclusion recommended by the Co-Management Council in 2003, the Service is proposing to add the following communities to the included areas under this part starting in the 2004 harvest season:
            (i) Upper Copper River Region—Gulkana, Gakona, Tazlina, Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Chitina, Chistochina.
            (ii) Gulf of Alaska Region—Chugach Community of Tatitlek, Chugach Community of Chenega, Chugach Community of Port Graham, Chugach Community of Nanwalek.
            (iii) Cook Inlet Region—Tyonek.
            (iv) Southeast Alaska Region—Hoonah.

            4. In subpart A, revise § 92.6 to read as follows:

            § 92.6
            Use and possession of migratory birds.
            You may not sell, offer for sale, purchase, or offer to purchase migratory birds, their parts, or their eggs taken under this part.
            (a) Eligible persons. Under this part, you may take birds for human consumption only. Harvest and possession of migratory birds must be done using nonwasteful taking. Nonedible byproducts of migratory birds taken for food may be used for other purposes.
            (b) Noneligible persons. You may receive portions of birds or their eggs not kept for human consumption from eligible persons only if you have a valid permit issued under § 21.27 for scientific research or education, and consistent with the terms and conditions of that permit.

            Subpart C—General Regulations Governing Subsistence Harvest

          5. In subpart C, amend § 92.20 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

            § 92.20
            Methods and means

            (i) Using an air boat (Interior and Bristol Bay Regions only) or jet ski (Interior Region only) for hunting or transporting hunters.

            Subpart D—Annual Regulations Governing Subsistence Harvest

          6. In Subpart D, add §§ 92.31 through 92.33 to read as follows:

            § 92.31
            Migratory bird species not authorized for subsistence harvest.
            (a) You may not harvest birds or gather eggs from the following species:
            (1) Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri).
            (2) Steller's Eider (Polysticta stelleri).
            (3) Emperor Goose (Chen canagica).
            (1)Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia)—Semidi Islands only.
            (b) In addition, you may not gather eggs from the following species:
            (1) Cackling Canada Goose (Branta canadensis minima).
            (2) Black Brant (Branta bernicla nigricans)—in the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta and North Slope regions only.

            § 92.32
            Subsistence migratory bird species.
            You may harvest birds or gather eggs from the following species, listed in taxonomic order, within all included regions. When birds are listed only to the species level, all subspecies existing in Alaska are open to harvest.
            (a) Family Gaviidae.

            (1) Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata).
            (2) Arctic Loon (Gavia arctica).
            (3) Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica).
            (4) Common Loon (Gavia immer).
            (b) Family Podicipedidae.

            (1) Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus).
            (2) Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena).
            (c) Family Procellariidae.

            (1) Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis).
            (2) [Reserved].
            (d) Family Phalacrocoracidae.

            (1) Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus).
            (2) Red-faced Cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile).
            (3) Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus).
            (e) Family Anatidae.

            (1) Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons).
            (2) Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens).
            (3) Lesser Canada Goose (Branta canadensis parvipes).
            (4) Taverner's Canada Goose (Branta canadensis taverneri).
            (5) Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia)—except in the Semidi Islands.
            (6) Cackling Canada Goose (Branta canadensis minima)—except no egg gathering is permitted.
            (7) Black Brant (Branta bernicla nigricans)—except no egg gathering is permitted in the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta and the North Slope regions.
            (8) Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus).
            (9) Gadwall (Anas strepera).
            (10) Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope).
            (11) American Wigeon (Anas americana).
            (12) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).
            (13) Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors).
            (14) Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata).
            (15) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta).
            (16) Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca).
            (17) Canvasback (Aythya valisineria).
            (18) Redhead (Aythya americana).
            (19) Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris).
            (20) Greater Scaup (Aythya marila).
            (21) Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis).
            (22) King Eider (Somateria spectabilis).
            (23) Common Eider (Somateria mollissima).
            (24) Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus).
            (25) Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata).

            (26) White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca).
            (27) Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra).
            (28) Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis).
            (29) Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola).
            (30) Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula).
            (31) Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica).
            (32) Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus).
            (33) Common Merganser (Mergus merganser).
            (34) Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator).
            (f) Family Gruidae.

            (1) Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis).
            (2) [Reserved].
            (g) Family Charadriidae.

            (1) Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola).
            (2) Common Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula).
            (h) Family Haematopodidae.

            (1) Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani).
            (2) [Reserved].
            (i) Family Scolopacidae.

            (1) Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca).
            (2) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes).
            (3) Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria).
            (4) Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus).
            (5) Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia).
            (6) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda).
            (7) Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica).
            (8) Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres).
            (9) Black Turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala).
            (10) Red Knot (Calidris canutus).
            (11) Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla).
            (12) Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri).
            (13) Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla).
            (14) Baird's Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii).
            (15) Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminata).
            (16) Dunlin (Calidris alpina).
            (17) Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus).
            (18) Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago).
            (19) Red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus).
            (20) Red phalarope (Phalaropus fulicaria).
            (j) Family Laridae.

            (1) Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus).
            (2) Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus).
            (3) Long-tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus).
            (4) Bonaparte's Gull (Larus philadelphia).
            (5) Mew Gull (Larus canus).
            (6) Herring Gull (Larus argentatus).
            (7) Slaty-backed Gull (Larus schistisagus).
            (8) Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens).
            (9) Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus).
            (10) Sabine's Gull (Xema sabini).
            (11) Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla).
            (12) Red-legged Kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris).
            (13) Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea).
            (14) Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea).
            (15) Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica).
            (k) Family Alcidae.

            (1) Common Murre (Uria aalge).
            (2) Thick-billed Murre (Uria lomvia).
            (3) Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle).
            (4) Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba).
            (5) Cassin's Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus).
            (6) Parakeet Auklet (Aethia psittacula).
            (7) Least Auklet (Aethia pusilla).
            (8) Whiskered Auklet (Aethia pygmaea).
            (9) Crested Auklet (Aethia cristatella).
            (10) Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata).
            (11) Horned Puffin (Fratercula corniculata).
            (12) Tufted Puffin (Fratercula cirrhata).
            (I) Family Strigidae.

            (1) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus).
            (2) Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca).
            (3) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus).

            § 92.33
            Region-specific regulations.
            The 2004 season dates for the eligible subsistence regions are as follows:
            (a) Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Region.

            (1) Northern Unit (Pribilof Islands):

            (i) Season: April 2-June 30.
            (ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
            (2) Central Unit (Aleut Region's eastern boundary on the Alaska Peninsula westward to and including Unalaska Island):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 15 and July 16-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 16-July 15.
            (3) Western Unit (Umnak Island west to and including Attu Island):
            (i) Season: April 2-July 15 and August 16-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: July 16-August 15.
            (b) Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-August 31.
            (2) Closure: 30-day closure dates to be announced by the Alaska Regional Director or his designee, after consultation with local subsistence users and the region's Waterfowl Conservation Committee. This 30-day period will occur between June 1 and August 15 of each year. A press release announcing the actual closure dates will be forwarded to regional newspapers and radio and television stations and posted in village post offices and stores.
            (c) Bristol Bay Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31 (general season); April 2-July 15 for seabird egg gathering only.
            (2) Closure: June 15-July 15 (general season); July 16-August 31 (seabird egg gathering).
            (d) Bering Strait/Norton Sound Region.

            (1) Stebbins/St. Michael Area (Point Romanof to Canal Point):
            (i) Season: April 15-June 14 and July 16-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 15-July 15.
            (2) Remainder of the region:
            (i) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31 for waterfowl; April 2-July 19 and August 21-August 31 for all other birds.
            (ii) Closure: June 15-July 15 for waterfowl; July 20-August 20 for all other birds.
            (e) Kodiak Archipelago Region, except the Kodiak Island roaded area is closed to the harvesting of migratory birds and their eggs. The closed area is depicted on a map and consists of all lands and water east of a line extending from Crag Point in the north to the west end of Saltery Cove in the south and all lands and water south of a line extending from Termination Point along the north side of Cascade Lake extending to Anton Larson Bay. Waters adjacent to the closed area are closed to harvest within 500 feet from the water's edge. The offshore islands are open to harvest.
            (1) Season: April 2-June 20 and July 22-August 31, egg gathering: May 1-June 20.
            (2) Closure: June 21-July 21.
            (f) Northwest Arctic Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-August 31 (in general); waterfowl egg gathering May 20-June 9; seabird egg gathering July 3-July 12; molting/non-nesting waterfowl July 1-July 31.
            (2) Closure: June 10-August 14, except for the taking of seabird eggs and molting/non-nesting waterfowl as provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
            (g) North Slope Region.

            (1) Southern Unit (Southwestern North Slope regional boundary east to Peard Bay, everything west of the longitude line 158°30′S and south of the latitude line 70°45′E to west bank of the Ikpikpuk River, and everything south of the latitude line 69°45′E between the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River to the east bank of Sagavinirktok River):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 29 and July 30-August 31 for seabirds; April 2-June 19 and July 20-August 31 for all other birds.
            (ii) Closure: June 30-July 29 for seabirds; June 20-July 19 for all other birds.
            (2) Northern Unit (At Peard Bay, everything east of the longitude line 158°30′S and north of the latitude line 70°45′E to west bank of the Ikpikpuk River, and everything north of the latitude line 69°45′E between the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River to the east bank of Sagavinirktok River):
            (i) Season: April 6-June 6 and July 7-August 31 for king and common eiders and
            April 2-June 15 and July 16-August 31 for all other birds.
            (ii) Closure: June 7-July 6 for king and common eiders and June 16-July 15 for all other birds.
            (3) Eastern Unit (East of eastern bank of the Sagavanirktok River):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 19 and July 20-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 20-July 19.
            (h) Interior Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31; egg gathering May 1-June 14.
            (2) Closure: June 15-July 15.
            (i) Upper Copper River (Harvest Area: State of Alaska Game Management Units 11 and 13) (Eligible communities: Gulkana, Chitina, Tazlina, Copper Center, Gakona, Mentasta Lake, Chistochina and Cantwell).
            (1) Season: April 15-May 26 and June 27-August 31.
            (2) Closure: May 27-June 26.
            (3) Note: The Copper River Basin communities listed above also documented traditional use harvesting birds in Unit 12, making them eligible to hunt in this unit using the seasons specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
            (j) Gulf of Alaska Region.

            (1) Prince William Sound Area (Harvest area: Unit 6 [D]), (Eligible Chugach communities: Chenega Bay, Tatitlek).
            (i) Season: April 2-May 31 and July 1-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 1-30.
            (2) Kachemak Bay Area (Harvest area: Unit 15[C] South of a line connecting the tip of Homer Spit to the mouth of Fox River) (Eligible Chugach Communities: Port Graham, Nanwalek).
            (i) Season: April 2-May 31 and July 1-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 1-30.
            (k) Cook Inlet (Harvest area: portions of Unit 16[B] as specified below) (Eligible communities: Tyonek only)
            (1) Season: April 2-May 31—That portion of Unit 16(B) south of the Skwentna River and west of the Yentna River and August 1-31—that portion of Unit 16(B) south of the Beluga River, Beluga Lake, and the Triumvirate Glacier.
            (2) Closure: June 1-July 31.
            (l) Southeast Alaska (Harvest area: National Forest lands in Icy Strait and Cross Sound including Middle Pass Rock near the Inian Islands, Table Rock in Cross Sound, and other traditional locations on the coast of Yakobi Island) (Eligible communities: Hoonah only).
            (1) Season: glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only: May 15-June 30.
            (2) Closure: July 1-August 31.

            Dated: November 28, 2003.
            Craig Manson,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-535 Filed 1-9-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 090600B]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination to issue EFPs to conduct experimental fishing operations otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  The Northeast Region has received a request to allow several purse seine vessels to fish in Closed Area I.  Therefore, this document invites comments on the issuance of EFPs to conduct experimental fishing with a maximum of 5 commercial fishing vessels.  The EFPs would allow tuna purse seine vessels to fish for giant bluefin tuna in Northeast Multispecies Closed Area I, where purse seine  gear is normally prohibited.  This exempted fishery would allow NMFS and the New England Fishery Management Council to evaluate the feasibility of allowing this type of gear in the closed area as an exempted gear on a permanent basis.

          DATES:
          Comments on this document must be received by September 12, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed EFP Proposal.”   Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul H. Jones or Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy Analysts, (978) 281-9273 and (978) 281-9288.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Georges Bank and Southern New England Southern New England (SNE) multispecies closed areas were established under the Northeast Multispecies FMP to provide protection to concentrations of multispecies, particularly for cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder.  Consequently, all fishing in these closed areas was prohibited, with few exceptions.  The exceptions were limited to fisheries that are known to have a very low occurrence of multispecies bycatch.  For example, pelagic midwater trawl was determined to have a negligible catch of multispecies because the gear fishes well off the ocean floor; therefore, it is an allowed gear in the Georges Bank and SNE closed areas.  Purse seine gear is a pelagic gear that is typically used to target species such as herring, mackerel, and tuna concentrated at or near the surface of the ocean.  It is not designed to fish for species at or near the ocean floor and is typically considered to have very little interaction with bottom  dwelling species.  However, observer data from the tuna purse seine fishery from 1996, the last year this fishery carried observers, do document a small catch of groundfish and bottom-dwelling organisms.
        Proposed EFP
        The proposed EFP would exempt purse seine vessels fishing for giant bluefin tuna under 50 CFR part 635 from the gear restrictions of Closed Area I, as described at 50 CFR 648.81(a).  There would be no more than 5 vessels fishing individual quotas, which may be taken through the end of the fishing year, but are usually taken by the middle of October.  Because these fish are migrating, it is expected that the fishery would take place within the closed area for only a few weeks.  If selected, vessels would be required to carry observers, if requested by NMFS, who would document catch of all species, interactions of the net with the bottom, and any incidental take of marine mammals and endangered species.  After any sampling requested by an observer, all multispecies would be required to be discarded.
        EFPs would be issued to the participating vessels in accordance with the conditions stated therein, and will exemptvessels from the restrictions of Closed Area I of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.

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

          Dated: September 6, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-23285 Filed 9-6-00; 4:46 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BC58
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 9

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 9 (Amendment 9) to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 9 would revise the criteria and procedures by which South Atlantic states may request a concurrent closure of the penaeid shrimp (brown, pink, and white shrimp) commercial sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in order to protect overwintering white shrimp. Amendment 9 would also update the current overfished and overfishing status determination criteria for pink shrimp.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before May 3, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0227” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: 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 (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0227” in the search field and click on “search”. After you located the notice of availability, click on “Submit a Comment” link in that row. This will display the comment Web form. You can enter your submitter information (unless you prefer to remain anonymous), and type your comment on the Web form. You can also attach additional files (up to 10 MB) in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          For further assistance with submitting a comment, see the “Commenting” section at http://www.regulations.gov/#!faqs or the Help section at http://www.regulations.gov.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 9 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 9 includes a Regulatory Impact Review and a Fishery Impact Statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: Kate.Michie@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.

        The penaeid shrimp fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        Currently, a South Atlantic state may close its state waters to trawling by the penaeid shrimp commercial sector following severe winter weather to protect the spawning stock of white shrimp that has been depleted by cold weather conditions. The existing process to concurrently close the adjacent EEZ can be lengthy because it requires a review of a state's request and accompanying shrimp abundance data by both the Council and the Council's Shrimp Review Panel before the NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) can make a determination as to whether or not a concurrent closure of Federal waters is warranted.
        Amendment 9 would revise the criteria and procedures by which a South Atlantic state may request a concurrent closure of the penaeid shrimp commercial sector in the EEZ in order to protect overwintering white shrimp. Amendment 9 would also update the current overfished status determination criteria for pink shrimp.
        Criteria Used To Trigger a State's Ability To Request a Concurrent Closure of the EEZ to Penaeid Shrimp Commercial Harvest
        Amendment 9 would revise the criteria that must be met for a state to request NMFS to close the commercial penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ, following severe winter weather and a closure of state waters. Amendment 9 would require that a state must demonstrate either at least an 80-percent reduction in the population of overwintering white shrimp or that water temperatures were 9 °C (48 °F) or less, for at least one week (7 days). Additional details regarding the sampling methods a state may use for these determinations may be found in Amendment 9 and the FMP.
        Process for a State To Request a Concurrent Closure of the EEZ to Penaeid Shrimp Commercial Harvest

        Amendment 9 would also revise and streamline the procedures for a state to request a closure of the penaeid shrimp commercial sector in the EEZ concurrent with a closure in state waters. Under the current procedures, a state may request a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ once a state has determined that specific conditions have been met. Following that determination, the state sends a request to the Council, then the Council convenes its Shrimp Review Panel to review the state's request. If the review panel's recommendation is affirmative, the panel forwards its recommendation to the Council. If the Council approves the state's request, they send a letter to NMFS to request a concurrent closure of penaeid shrimp harvest in the EEZ waters adjacent to the requesting state. Once NMFS has determined the recommended closure is in accordance with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS implements the closure through a notification (temporary rule) in the Federal Register.
        The revised procedures would allow a state to send its request with its supporting documentation for a concurrent closure of the EEZ to penaeid shrimp commercial harvest directly to NMFS. The RA would review the available information and confirm that the criteria and procedures are in accordance with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act before implementing a concurrent closure.
        Overfished and Overfishing Status Determination Criteria for Pink Shrimp

        Amendment 9 would update the overfished and overfishing status determination criteria (biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY)) proxy for pink shrimp based on recent catch per unit effort (CPUE) data for the stock. Specifically, Amendment 9 would revise the BMSY proxy for pink shrimp using the lowest CPUE value from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program during the period 1990-2011 (0.089 individuals per hectare).

        The Council has submitted Amendment 9 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 9 will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability. After consideration of these factors, and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, NMFS will publish a notice of agency action in the Federal Register announcing the Agency's decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 9, and the associated rationale.
        Proposed Rule for Amendment 9

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 9 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        Comments received by May 3, 2013, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision.
        All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: February 27, 2013.
          Kara Meckley,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-04918 Filed 3-1-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        RIN 0648-AV30
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Precious Corals Fisheries; Black Coral Quota and Gold Coral Moratorium

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

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

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council proposes to amend the Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Amendment 7). If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 7 would designate the Au'au Channel, Hawaii, black coral bed as an “Established Bed” with a harvest quota of 5,000 kg every two years that applies to Federal and State of Hawaii waters, and establish a 5-year moratorium on the harvest of gold coral throughout the U.S. western Pacific. The proposed amendment is intended to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield of precious coral resources.

          DATES:
           Comments on Amendment 7, which includes an environmental assessment, must be received by July 22, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
           Comments on the amendment, identified by 0648-AV30, may be sent to either of the following addresses:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of Amendment 7, including an environmental assessment, are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or web site www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Brett Wiedoff, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2272.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Federal Register document is also accessible at the Office of the Federal Register at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
        Precious coral fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP), which was developed by the Council, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and implemented by NMFS. The Council has submitted Amendment 7 to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This document announces that the amendment is available for public review and comment for 60 days. NMFS will consider public comments received during the comment period with respect to the approval, partial approval, or disapproval of Amendment 7.

        Research has shown that the biomass of the Au'au Channel black coral population has decreased by at least 25 percent in the last 30 years. Data collected during submersible dives showed a decline in both recruitment and relative abundance of legal-sized black coral colonies. The decline in recruitment may be related to competition with alien coral species and fishing pressure. The highly-invasive soft coral, Carijoa riisei, has been found overgrowing large areas of black coral habitat, particularly in deep water between 80-110 m. Additionally, fishery harvests of shallower black coral populations have been increasing, stressing these populations further.
        In Amendment 7, the Council recommends that Au'au Channel black corals be designated as an “Established Bed” with a harvest quota of 5,000 kg every two years. This quota would apply in both Federal and State of Hawaii waters, and all existing Federal gear and size restrictions would continue to apply.
        Current estimates of the linear growth rate for gold coral is about 6.6 cm/yr, suggesting that large colonies are relatively young. These estimates are based on the assumption that growth rings are laid down annually, as in other precious corals (e.g., black and pink corals). Recent research on the growth of gold corals, however, has found that gold corals may grow much slower, possibly 0.004 to 0.0014 cm/yr. Such growth rates indicate that some gold coral colonies are thousands of years old and, thus, susceptible to over-harvesting.
        Unlike the active black coral fishery in Hawaii, the gold coral fishery in the U.S. western Pacific is currently dormant. With recent research results that challenge current assumptions about gold coral growth rates, the Council is also recommending in Amendment 7 a 5-year moratorium on the harvest of gold corals, during which time research will be conducted on gold coral age structures, growth rates, and correlations between length and age. The research results would be considered by the Council and NMFS prior to the expiration of the five-year moratorium on harvesting.
        The actions recommended by the Council are intended to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield of black corals, and to prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals.
        Public comments on the proposed amendment must be received by July 22, 2008 to be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendment. A proposed rule to implement the amendment has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed rule in the near future.

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

          Dated: May 16 2008.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-11536 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 000809230-0230-01; I.D. 062000D]
        RIN 0648-AM46
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Recreational Measures for the 2000 Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes recreational measures for the 2000 summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the upcoming fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to prevent overfishing of the summer flounder and black sea bass resources.

          EFFECTIVE DATE:

          Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m., local time, on September 15, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of supporting documents used by the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees and of the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review are available from Dan Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790.
          Written comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark on the outside of the envelope, “Comments—2000 Summer Flounder and Black Sea Bass Recreational Measures.” Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail myles.a.raizin@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries (FMP) outlines the process for specifying annual recreational measures. The FMP has established Monitoring Committees (Committees) for each of the three fisheries composed of representatives from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, and NMFS. The Committees are required to review annually scientific and other relevant information and to recommend measures necessary to achieve the recreational harvest limits for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. These measures are limited to minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons. The Council's Demersal Species Committee and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board (Board) then consider the Committees' recommendations and any public comment in making their recommendations to the Council. The Council reviews the Demersal Committee recommendations, makes its own decision, in turn, and submits its recommendation to NMFS.
        Final specifications for the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries were published on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33486), and included a coastwide recreational harvest limit of 7.41 million lb (3.361 million kg) for summer flounder, 1.24 million lb (0.562 million kg) for scup, and 3.14 million lb (1.42 million kg) for black sea bass. Recreational measures were not established as part of those specifications, since final recreational catch data were not available when the Council made its recommendation to NMFS.
        Scup
        On January 12, 2000, the Council submitted the annual recreational measures for the FMP. The submission proposed measures for scup that included a minimum size of 7 inches (17.78 cm) total length (TL) with a 50-fish possession limit and no closed season. After careful review of the Council's submission of recommendations for recreational measures for the scup fishery, NMFS returned the scup submission to the Council on March 10, 2000, because the Council submission indicated the proposed measures would result in landings in excess of the 1.24 million lb (0.562 million kg) recreational harvest. The 2000 harvest limit recommended by the Council was unchanged from the 1999 level. However, based on the estimated 1999 recreational harvest of scup of 1.82 million lb (0.899 million kg), a 32-percent reduction in harvest would be required to prevent landings from exceeding the harvest limit.
        The Council analysis compared its recommendation of a minimum size of 7 inches (17.78 cm) TL with a 50-fish possession limit and no closed season yields to the 1999 measures, which imposed the 7-inch (17.78-cm) minimum size only. The analysis indicates the Council's proposal would achieve only a 1-percent reduction from the estimated 1999 level. The documents accompanying the Council recommendation did not provide justification for this divergence based on biological factors. Because there was insufficient information in the submission for NMFS to develop an acceptable alternative, the submission was returned to the Council. Pending a resubmission of scup measures by the Council, a minimum size limit of 7 inches (17.78 cm) remains in effect for scup in Federal waters, with the individual states regulating recreational scup fishing in their waters.
        Summer Flounder

        NMFS specified 2000 quotas for the summer flounder fishery which include a TAL of 18.52 million lb (8.40 million kg), a commercial quota of 11.11 million lb (5.039 million kg), and a recreational harvest limit of 7.41 million lb (3.361 million kg).

        Current summer flounder recreational measures require a 15-inch (3,810-cm) TL minimum size, an 8-fish possession limit, and an open season from May 29 to September 11. When it made its recommendation, the Council used available Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS) data through October to project total 1999 landings of 8.5 million lb (3.855 million kg) or 15 percent more than the 7.41-million lb (3.361-million kg) recreational harvest limit for 1999. Final MRFSS landings figures of 8.4 million lb (3.81 million kg) now available uphold the projection. The fact that the management measures in 1999 resulted in landings in excess of a 7.41-million lb (3.361-million kg) harvest limit indicates that further constraints on the recreational fishery are required for 2000.

        The Council and Commission met at the Council's December 1999 meeting and voted to recommend a 15.5-inch (39.27-cm) TL minimum fish size, an 8-fish possession limit, and an open season from May 10 to October 2 (i.e., a closed season from January 1-May 9 and October 3-December 31) to meet the requirements of the 7.41-million lb (3.361-million kg) recreational harvest limit. Because regulations differed by state in 1999, the Council and Commission voted to base reductions on 1998 landings and on the number of fish, rather than on pounds of fish. In 1998, the regulations were consistent from state to state. As such, assuming recreational fishing effort in 2000 will be similar to that in 1998, a 41-percent reduction in recreational landings (in number of fish) is needed to achieve the recreational harvest limit of 7.41 million lb (3.361 million kg) for 2000. Assuming a 95 percent compliance rate, the Council's recommendation could reduce recreational landings by 44 percent.

        Under an interim rule that is effective until September 5, 2000 (March 7, 2000; 65 FR 11909), the states can select a different combination of minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons that result in the 41-percent reduction required to achieve the harvest limit in 2000. The interim regulations specify that the default measures will be the measures published in the final rule to implement annual summer flounder recreational measures, and equivalency of any other measures proposed by a state will be determined in comparison to those measures. Once a state's equivalency proposal is approved by the Commission, the Commission will recommend to NMFS that a notification be published in the Federal Register to waive the default measure and notify the public of the equivalent measures. The Council is developing an amendment to the FMP that will consider a permanent measure to implement conservation equivalencies.
        On April 25, 2000, during the last stages of review of the final specifications for the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, published on May 24, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Court) issued an opinion on a challenge to the 1999 summer flounder specifications by a number of environmental groups. The Court noted that the 1999 quota, when adopted, had only an 18-percent likelihood of meeting the conservation goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Court invalidated the 1999 quota and remanded the case to NMFS for further proceedings. The Court set a minimum standard for harvest quotas to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, namely that quotas must have at least a 50-percent probability of achieving the target fishing mortality rate. The preamble to the final specifications for the 2000 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, published on May 24, 2000, stated that NMFS considers it a matter of the highest urgency to address the remand of the Court and will work with the Council and the Commission to implement the decision.
        Black Sea Bass
        The FMP specifies that the 2000 TAL will be allocated to the commercial and recreational fisheries based on relative landings for the period 1983 to 1992. Based on a TAL of 6.17 million lb (2.798 million kg), the commercial quota is 3.02 million lb (1.37 million kg) (49 percent) for 2000, and the recreational harvest limit is 3.15 million lb (1.429 million kg) (51 percent), which is identical to the 1999 harvest limit. Using available data at the time the Council submitted its recommendations, landings for 1999 were projected to be 1.97 million lb (0.893 million kg) or 1.18 million lb (0.535 mt) less than the 1999 harvest limit. Final recreational landings data now available indicate landings were 1.95 million lb (0.884 million kg), upholding the projection. Current black sea bass recreational measures require a 10-inch (25.40-cm) TL minimum size, no possession limit, and no closed season. NMFS is publishing the recommendation of the Council which is to maintain these measures for the 2000 recreational fishery.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as follows:

          The regulatory impact review [prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council] analyzed various management measures from the standpoint of determining the resulting changes in revenue for party/charter vessels. Data on costs and revenues for party/charter vessels were not available. Therefore, revenues for party/charter vessels participating in these fisheries were estimated by employing various assumptions. The effects of measures were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches to the extent possible. Where quantitative data were not available, qualitative analyses were conducted. An estimated 1.468 million trips were taken by anglers aboard party and charter boats in 1998 in the Northeast Region. About 0.20 percent of those trips would have been affected by the implementation of the summer flounder measures proposed under the preferred alternative for the 2000 fishing year (15.5-inch (39.27-cm) total length (TL) size limit, 8-fish possession limit, and a closed season from January 1, to May 9, and October 3, to December 31). In other words, 2,935 (0.20 percent) angler trips taken aboard party/charter boats in 1998 landed at least one summer flounder that was less than 15.5 inches (39.27 cm) TL, landed more than 8 summer flounder, or landed at least one summer flounder during the proposed closed season. In 1998, an 8-fish possession limit and a 15-inch (38.10-cm) TL minimum size limit was in place. Thus, the proposed one-half inch size increase and the seasonal closure in 2000 would have affected 2,935 angler trips in 1998. Assuming angler effort in 2000 will be similar to 1998, party/charter boat revenues associated with these trips can be estimated by multiplying the number of potentially affected trips in 2000 by the average fee paid by anglers. Steinback et al. estimated that the average party/charter boat fee paid by anglers was $52.00 in the Northeast Region in 1994. Adjusted to its 2000 equivalent ($59.12) and multiplied by the number of potentially affected trips, this results in party and charter boat gross revenues of $173,517. Analysis of Northeast logbook data indicated that 274 party/charter vessels participated in the summer flounder fishery in 1998. Assuming that the same number of vessels will participate in 2000, the potential impact per boat could be up to a $633 (173,517/274) reduction in gross revenues, or a 0.20-percent reduction when compared to 1998. However, losses of this magnitude are not likely to occur, given that anglers will continue to have the ability to engage in catch and release fishing for summer flounder after they reach their possession limit or after the closed season, and because of the numerous alternative target species available to anglers. Very little information is available to estimate empirically how sensitive the affected party/charter boat anglers might be to the proposed regulations. While keeping fish is moderately important to anglers in the Mid-Atlantic, over 42 percent of anglers in New England in 1994 indicated that catching fish to eat was not an important reason for their marine fishing. Although these anglers are not likely to be the ones constrained by the regulations, the findings of this study generally concur with previous studies that found non-catch reasons for participating in marine recreational fishing were rated much higher than keeping fish for food. In combination with the numerous alternative target species available to anglers, the findings of the Steinback et al. study suggest that at least some of the potentially affected anglers would not reduce their effort when faced with the landings restrictions proposed under the preferred alternative. Therefore, party/charter revenue losses per boat could range anywhere from no revenue losses up to 0.20 percent, on average, of total expected boat revenue in 2000. Three other alternatives the Council analyzed produced reductions of 54, 46, and 49 percent in catch with revenue losses estimated between 0 and 6.85 percent.
          For black sea bass, the preferred alternative for the 2000 fishing year maintains the minimum size limit at 10 inches (25.40 cm) TL. Thus, it can be assumed that there will be no additional recreational fishing trips affected in 2000. As such, the size limit proposed under the preferred alternative will not likely alter party/charter boat revenue in 2000. The Council analyzed one alternative that would add a 20-fish possession limit to the management measures for the black sea bass recreational fishery. Of the estimated 1.468 million trips taken by anglers aboard party and charter boats in 1998 in the Northeast Region about 0.57 percent would have been affected by the implementation of the black sea bass measures proposed under non-preferred Alternative 1 for the 2000 fishing year (10-inch (25.40-cm) TL size limit, 20-fish possession limit). In other words, 8,366 (0.57 percent) angler trips taken aboard party/charter boats in 1998 landed at least one black sea bass that was less than 10 inches (25.40 cm), or landed more than 20 black sea bass. In 1998, a 10-inch (25.40-cm) minimum size limit was in place along with a closure from August 1, to August 15; there was no possession limit. Since no closure is proposed for black sea bass in 2000, a direct comparison of effort between 1998 and 2000 results in a small decrease in potentially affected trips. However, party/charter revenue losses per boat under this alternative could range anywhere 0 to 0.57 percent, on average, of total expected boat revenue in 2000.

        Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 11, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy 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 § 648.103, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.103
            Minimum fish sizes.

            (b) The minimum size for summer flounder is 15.5 inches (39.27 cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit, and party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members, or charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members.

      [FR Doc. 00-20846 Filed 8-15-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-U