        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        RIN 0648-AV29
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Crustacean Fisheries; Deepwater Shrimp

          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 Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Crustaceans FMP). If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 13 to the Crustaceans FMP would designate deepwater shrimp of the genus Heterocarpus as management unit species, and require Federal permits and data reporting for deepwater shrimp fishing in Federal waters of the western Pacific. Amendment 13 is intended to improve information on deepwater shrimp fisheries and their ecosystem impacts, and to provide a basis for future management of the fisheries, if needed.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 13, which includes an environmental assessment, must be received by October 14, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the amendment, identified by 0648-AV29, 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: Mail written comments to 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 (enter “N/A” in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of Amendment 13, 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, www.wpcouncil.org.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Federal Register document is accessible at the Office of the Federal Register website: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.

        Crustacean fisheries in the western Pacific are federally-managed within the waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, Hawaii, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA, including Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, and Midway Atoll). The EEZ around the CNMI and PRIA extends from the shoreline seaward to 200 nautical miles (nm), and the EEZ around the other islands extends from three to 200 nm offshore. Crustaceans FMP management unit species now include spiny lobsters, Panulirus marginatus and P. penicillatus, slipper lobsters of the family Scyllaridae, and Kona (spanner) crab, Ranina ranina.
        Eight species of Heterocarpus have been reported throughout the tropical Pacific. These shrimp are generally found at depths of 200 to 1,200 meters on the outer reef slopes that surround islands and deepwater banks. Species distribution tends to be stratified by depth with some overlap. The deepwater trap fisheries have primarily targeted Heterocarpus ensifer and H. laevigatus.
        Western Pacific commercial trap fisheries for deepwater shrimp are intermittent. There have been sporadic operations in Hawaii since the 1960s, small-scale fisheries in Guam during the 1970s, and some activity in the CNMI during the mid-1990s. The fisheries have been unregulated, and there has been no comprehensive collection of information about the fisheries. Most of these fishing ventures have been short-lived, probably as a result of sometimes-frequent loss of traps, a shrimp product with a short shelf life and history of inconsistent quality, and the rapid localized depletion of deepwater shrimp stocks leading to low catch rates. Despite these hurdles, interest in deepwater shrimp fisheries continues.
        Amendment 13 would designate deepwater shrimp of the genus Heterocarpus as management unit species under the FMP, and would require Federal permits and reporting for deepwater shrimp fishing in the EEZ. The proposed monitoring program (permits and logbooks) is intended to improve understanding of these fisheries and their impact on marine ecosystems. Although currently there are no resource concerns regarding western Pacific deepwater shrimp, the proposed designation of these shrimp as management unit species would provide a basis for management of the fisheries, if warranted in the future. Amendment 13 designates Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the complete assemblage of adult and juvenile Heterocarpus spp. as the outer reef slopes between 300 and 700 meters surrounding every island and submerged banks in the western Pacific, and includes all eight species of deepwater shrimp in the region: Heterocarpus ensifer, H. laevigatus, H. sibogae, H. gibbosus, H. Lepidus, H. dorsalis, H. tricarinatus and H. longirostris, as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

        Public comments on proposed Amendment 13 must be received by October 14, 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 prepared for Secretarial review and approval, and NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed regulation in the near future.

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

          Dated: August 8, 2008.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-18854 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 070611120-7120-01; I.D. 032607A]
        RIN 0648-AU77
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

           NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement daily bag limits for sport-caught albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) and bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off California under the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). This proposed rule would be implemented as a conservation measure as part of the 2007-2009 biennial management cycle as established in the HMS FMP Framework provisions for changes to routine management measures.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 27, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this notice, identified by I.D. 032607A, by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AU77.SWR@noaa.gov. Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
          • Fax: (562) 980-4047.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Craig Heberer, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, 760-431-9440, ext. 303.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On April 7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to implement the HMS FMP (69 FR 18444) that included annual specification guidelines at 50 CFR 660.709. These guidelines establish a process for the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to take final action at its regularly-scheduled November meeting on any necessary harvest guideline, quota, or other management measure and recommend any such action to NMFS. At their November 12-17, 2006, meeting, the Council adopted a recommendation to establish daily bag limits for sport caught albacore and bluefin tuna harvested in the EEZ off of California as a routine management measure for the 2007-2009 biennial management cycle. NMFS is initiating rulemaking for this action pursuant to procedures established at 50 CFR 660.709(a)(4) of the implementing regulations for the HMS FMP.
        This proposed rule would establish a daily bag limit of 10 albacore tuna harvested in the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception (34° 27′ N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico border and a daily bag limit of 25 albacore tuna harvested in the U.S. EEZ north of Point Conception to the California-Oregon border. This proposed rule would also establish a daily bag limit of 10 bluefin tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the entire California coast. The two bag limits for albacore tuna are intended to accommodate differences in fishing opportunity in the two regions south and north of Point Conception. The 25 fish albacore tuna bag limit north of Point Conception is consistent with the current albacore tuna bag limit established by the State of Oregon for recreational fisheries in its waters and recognizes the more frequent weather-related loss of fishing opportunity in these waters compared to waters south of Pt. Conception.
        California State regulations allow, by special permit, the retention of up to three daily bag limits for a trip occurring over multiple, consecutive days. California State regulations also allow for two or more persons angling for finfish aboard a vessel in ocean waters off California to continue fishing until boat limits are reached. NMFS and the Council would consider these additional state restrictions to be consistent with Federal regulations implementing the HMS FMP, including this proposed rule if implemented. If approved, this regulation will stay in effect until such time as the Council and/or NMFS proposes further modifications as part of the HMS FMP biennial management cycle process. The State of California has informed NMFS that it intends to implement companion regulations to impose daily albacore and bluefin bag limits applicable to recreational angling and possession of fish in state waters (0-3 nm).
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP and preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          Approximately 165 HMS recreational charter vessels based in California were permitted under the HMS FMP to operate in the HMS recreational fishery off the U.S. West Coast in 2006. The California HMS recreational charter vessels are considered small business entities. The HMS recreational charter fleet based in Oregon does not fish off the coast of California and would therefore not be impacted by this proposed rule. A review of historic recreational fisheries data in ocean waters adjacent to California by recreational anglers, in all marine areas, and all boat-based fishing modes from 1997 through 2005 shows that approximately 98 percent of sampled catches that contained albacore landed less than 10 fish per day. For the 2 percent of trips that would be impacted by this proposed rule, the estimated economic impact equates to a potential expenditure loss of 0.08 percent to 1.0 percent. The data for bluefin tuna catches shows that 100 percent of the 1997 through 2005 sampled catches that landed bluefin contained less than six fish per day therefore potential expenditure loss under this proposed rule would be zero. In addition, the proposed imposition of a daily bag limit for these species would not constrain continued catch-and-release angling should the bag limits be reached further mitigating the potential economic impacts this proposed rule would have on recreational fishermen and small business entities.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 21, 2007.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF THE WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. A new paragraph (qq) is added to § 660.705 to read as follows:

          § 660.705
          Prohibitions.
          (qq) Take and retain, possess on board, or land, fish in excess of any bag limit specified in § 660.721.

        3. Subpart K is amended by adding a new § 660.721 to read as follows:

          § 660.721
          Recreational fishing bag limits.
          (a) General. This section applies to recreational fishing for HMS management unit species in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington and in the adjacent high seas areas. In addition to individual fishermen, the operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ is responsible for ensuring that the bag limits of this section are not exceeded. The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of each 24-hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take more than one daily bag limit of fishing during one calendar day. Federal recreational HMS regulations are not intended to supersede any more restrictive state recreational HMS regulations relating to federally-managed HMS. The bag limits include fish taken in both state and Federal waters.
          (1) Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A recreational fisherman may take or retain no more than:
          (i) Ten albacore tuna per day in the U.S. EEZ south of a line running due west true from 34° 27′ N. latitude (at Point Conception, Santa Barbara County) to the U.S.-Mexico border.
          (ii) Twenty-five albacore tuna per day in waters north of a line running due west true from 34° 27′ N. latitude (at Point Conception, Santa Barbara County) to the California-Oregon border.
          (2) Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A recreational fisherman may take or retain no more than 10 bluefin tuna per day in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California.
          (3) Possession Limits. If the State of California requires a multi-day possession permit for albacore or bluefin tuna harvested by a recreational fishing vessel and landed in California, such restrictions would be deemed consistent with Federal law.
          (4) Boat Limits. Off the coast of California, boat limits apply, whereby each fisherman aboard a vessel may continue to use recreational angling gear until the combined daily limits of HMS for all licensed and juvenile anglers aboard has been attained (additional state restrictions on boat limits may apply). Unless otherwise prohibited, when two or more persons are angling for HMS species aboard a vessel in the EEZ, fishing may continue until boat limits are reached.

      [FR Doc. E7-12430 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 226
        [Docket No. 150817733-6519-02]
        RIN 0648-BF32
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the Endangered Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS published in the Federal Register of June 3, 2016, a document proposing to designate critical habitat for the endangered Carolina distinct population segment of the Atlantic sturgeon (Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon) and the endangered South Atlantic distinct population segment of the Atlantic sturgeon (South Atlantic DPS of Atlantic sturgeon) pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This correction clarifies what types of man-made structures are not included in the proposed designation.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposal must be received by September 1, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by the docket number NOAA-NMFS-2015-0157, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 0157 click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jason Rueter, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 727-824-5312, Jason.Rueter@noaa.gov; Andrew Herndon, Southeast Regional Office, 727-824-5312, Andrew.Herndon@noaa.gov; Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8466, Lisa.Manning@noaa.gov.

          Correction
          The proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 36078), contained misleading language regarding what areas were not to be considered part of the proposed designation. The original language inadvertently identified “marinas” and “maintained channels” as examples of areas not included. Because marinas and maintained channels may contain the physical features essential for the conservation of the species, these areas should be included in critical habitat. Further, the original language did not specify a date by which such structures would have to be in place to be considered “existing”. Therefore, we are clarifying what is meant by the term “man-made structures,” and we are inserting an effective date by which such structures would be covered under this provision.
          Correction
          In proposed rule FR Doc. 2016-12744 beginning on page 36078 in the issue of June 3, 2016, make the following correction.

            § 226.226
            [Corrected]
            On page 36101 in the third column, paragraph (d) of § 226.226 is corrected to read as follows:
            “(d) Areas not Included in Critical Habitat. Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), critical habitat does not include areas containing existing (already constructed), as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], federally authorized or permitted man-made structures where the physical features are not expected to be found, such as aids-to- navigation (ATONs), artificial reefs, boat ramps, docks, or pilings within the legal boundaries.”

            Dated: June 17, 2016.
            Samuel D. Rauch III,
            Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-15045 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 622 and 640
        [Docket No. 100305126-1558-03]
        RIN 0648-AY72
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Amendment 10

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). If implemented, this rule would revise the lobster species contained within the fishery management unit, establish an annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster, revise the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permitting requirements, revise the regulations specifying the condition of spiny lobster landed during a fishing trip, modify the undersized attractant regulations, modify the framework procedures, and incorporate the state of Florida's derelict trap removal program into the Federal regulations that apply to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Florida. Additionally, this rule would revise codified text to reflect updated contact information for the state of Florida and regulatory references for the Florida Administrative Code. The intent of this proposed rule is to specify ACLs for spiny lobster while maintaining catch levels consistent with achieving optimum yield (OY) for the resource.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 24, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0106 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: Susan Gerhart, 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, click on “submit a comment,” then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0106” in the keyword search and click on “search.” To view posted comments during the comment period, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0106” in the keyword search and click on “search.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          Electronic copies of documents supporting this proposed rule, which include a draft environmental impact statement and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or e-mail: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The spiny lobster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR parts 622 and 640 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The 2006 revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act require that in 2011, for FMPs for fisheries determined by the Secretary to not be subject to overfishing, ACLs must be established at a level that prevents overfishing and helps to achieve OY within a fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from Federally managed stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This rule would remove four species from the FMP; establish an ACL and an ACT for spiny lobster; revise the requirements for the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit; revise the regulations specifying the condition of lobster landed during a fishing trip; modify the regulations with respect to the use of undersized attractants; modify the framework procedures; and incorporate the state of Florida's derelict trap removal program into the Federal regulations that apply to the EEZ off of Florida. Additionally, this rule would revise codified text throughout the spiny lobster regulations to update relevant contact information and regulatory references.
        Removal of Species From the Fishery Management Unit

        Five species of lobster are currently within the FMP: the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), the smoothtail spiny lobster (Panulirus laevicaus), the spotted spiny lobster (Panulirus guttatus), the Spanish slipper lobster (Scyllarides aequinoctialis), and the ridged slipper lobster (Scyllarides nodifer). At present, only the Caribbean spiny lobster and the ridged slipper lobster have associated regulatory text; the other species are in the fishery management unit for data collection purposes only. This rule would remove all species from the FMP except the Caribbean spiny lobster (spiny lobster). The Councils and NMFS have determined these other lobster species are not in need of Federal management at this time. Although these species are targeted in some areas, landings are relatively low. Furthermore, individual states have the option to extend their regulations into Federal waters for these other lobster species. Also, most landings of these other species are off Florida, and Florida regulations concerning the taking of egg-bearing females, or stripping or removing eggs, are more conservative than Federal regulations for most of these species. Therefore, if Florida were to extend its regulations into Federal waters, these species could receive greater protection than under current management. If landings or effort changed for the other lobster species and the Councils determined management at the Federal level was needed, these species could be added back into the FMP at a later date.
        Spiny Lobster ACL and Accountability Measure
        In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was re-authorized and included a number of changes to improve the conservation of managed fishery resources. Included in these changes are requirements that fishery management councils establish both a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery and accountability measures (AMs) to help ensure that ACLs are not exceeded and to mitigate any ACL overages that may occur. Guidance also requires fishery management councils to establish a control rule to determine allowable biological catch (ABC).
        The Councils accepted the ABC control rule developed by the Gulf Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which set the ABC for spiny lobster at 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). The Councils chose not to set sector allocations and set a stock ACL equal to the ABC. Therefore, the spiny lobster stock ACL is proposed to be set at 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). An ACT was set at 90 percent of the ACL, which is 6.59 million lb (2.99 million kg). If the ACT is exceeded in any year, the Councils will convene a scientific panel to review the ACL and ACT, and determine if additional AMs are needed. The ACT is proposed to serve as the AM for the spiny lobster stock. Landings have not exceeded the ACT level since the 2000/2001 fishing year. Therefore, it is unlikely the ACT would be exceeded under the current ACT preferred alternative based on landings history. However, the updated framework procedure contained within this amendment would facilitate timely adjustments of the ACT or ACL if necessary.
        Revisions to Federal Spiny Lobster Tail-Separation Permit Requirements
        Spiny Lobster Amendment 1 (July 15, 1987, 52 FR 22659) initially implemented the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit. The original intent of the Councils was to confine holders of this permit to the commercial sector. However, the current requirements for obtaining the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit do not restrict the permit to commercial fishermen, which is contrary to the Councils' original intent. This rule would require applicants for a Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit to possess either (1) A Federal spiny lobster permit or (2) a valid Florida Restricted Species Endorsement and a valid Crawfish Endorsement associated with a valid Florida Saltwater Products License.
        Condition of Spiny Lobster Landed During a Fishing Trip
        Under certain situations and with possession of a valid Federal tail-separation permit, Caribbean spiny lobster tails may be separated from the body onboard a fishing vessel. This tail-separation provision can create difficulties for law enforcement personnel in determining if the lobster were originally of legal size. This rule would require lobster to be landed either all whole or all tailed during a single fishing trip. Requiring lobsters to be landed all whole or all tailed would discourage selective tailing of potentially undersized lobsters and thereby aid the enforcement of the minimum size limit.
        Use of Undersized Attractants

        Federal regulations allow as many as 50 spiny lobsters less than the minimum size limit or one per trap, whichever is greater, to be retained aboard a vessel to attract other lobsters for harvest. Currently, Federal regulations are not consistent with Florida regulations, which allow the retention of as many as 50 spiny lobsters less than the minimum size limit and one per trap. This rule would change the Federal regulations specific to the use of undersized attractants to be consistent with current Florida regulations. Additionally, although approximately 10 percent mortality is associated with the use of undersized attractants, traps using non-lobster bait or no bait at all take up to two to three times longer to harvest the same amount of lobsters as traps that use undersized attractants. This increase in effort may increase the bycatch and bycatch mortality of other species. Therefore, the use of undersized attractants that are consistent with Florida regulations provides both enforcement and biological benefits.
        Modification of Generic Framework Procedures
        To facilitate timely adjustments to harvest parameters and other management measures, the Councils have added the ability to adjust ACLs and AMs, and establish and adjust target catch levels, including ACTs, to the current framework procedures. These adjustments or additions may be accomplished through a regulatory amendment which is less time intensive than an FMP amendment. By including ACLs, AMs, and ACTs in the framework procedure for specifying total allowable catch, the Councils and NMFS would have the flexibility to more promptly alter those harvest parameters as new scientific information becomes available. The proposed addition of other management options into the framework procedures would also add flexibility and the ability to more timely respond to certain future Council decisions through the framework procedures.
        Removal of Derelict Spiny Lobster Traps in the EEZ Off Florida
        On August 27, 2009, an Endangered Species Act (ESA) biological opinion evaluating the impacts of the continued authorization of the spiny lobster fishery on ESA-listed species was completed. The opinion contained specific terms and conditions required to implement the prescribed reasonable and prudent measures, including consideration of alternatives to allow the public to remove trap-related marine debris in the EEZ off Florida. This proposed rule would authorize the removal of traps in Federal waters off Florida through Florida's trap cleanup program, as provided in existing Florida regulations. Florida's trap cleanup program includes provisions for public participation.
        Revisions To Update Contact Information and Regulatory Reference Text
        This rule proposes to revise a number of references within the regulations for spiny lobster. Specifically, this proposed rule would update the spiny lobster regulations with the contact information for the state of Florida administrative offices and the relevant references within the Florida statutes and administrative code that are contained within the Federal regulations in 50 CFR parts 622 and 640. These additional revisions are unrelated to the actions contained in Amendment 10.
        Actions in Amendment 10 That Are Not Contained in This Rulemaking
        Amendment 10 also contains non-regulatory actions to revise the definitions of management thresholds. Definitions of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), overfishing, and overfished were set for Caribbean spiny lobster in Amendment 6 to the FMP. Currently, the Councils have different definitions for each reference point. Amendment 10 would set a single definition for each biological reference point that would be used by both Councils and allow for a more consistent management of spiny lobster.
        Currently, no allocations are set between the commercial and recreational sectors for spiny lobster. The Councils considered setting such allocations, but instead chose to not sector allocations and therefore allow for a stock ACL, stock ACT, and AM that affects both sectors.
        The Councils considered alternatives to meet requirements from the 2009 biological opinion to establish lobster closed areas and lobster gear trap line marking requirements to protect threatened and endangered species; however, they chose to take no action at this time to allow time for additional stakeholder input. The Councils intend to develop Amendment 11 to the Spiny Lobster FMP to implement these measures prior to the beginning of the next spiny lobster commercial fishing season that begins on August 6, 2012.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 10 and the FMP subject to this rulemaking, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        The rule would affect all fishing in the EEZ that is managed under the FMP for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf and South Atlantic. Landings of spiny lobster occur predominantly in the Florida Keys (Monroe County) and elsewhere in south Florida. Relatively small (mostly confidential) amounts have been reported for other Gulf and South Atlantic states since 1977. Fishing for spiny lobster in Florida is managed cooperatively by the Councils and the state of Florida, which collects the data used to analyze the activity. Including fishing in Federal and state waters, the numbers of commercial vessels, commercial trips, and Florida spiny lobster trap landings, traps with commercial landings of spiny lobster in Florida have all declined substantially since the implementation of Florida's Trap Certificate Program in the early 1990's, and productivity (CPUE) has increased.

        Businesses directly affected by the proposed rule include those engaged in commercial shellfish harvesting (NAICS code 114112) and for-hire fishing (NAICS code 713990), and they meet the respective Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria for being small businesses. Commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that fish for spiny lobster in state and Federal waters off Florida must meet applicable Florida permitting requirements. An estimated 781 vessels landed spiny lobster commercially in Florida, on average, in the last 5 years. This includes 274 vessels (1,977 trips) with landings from the EEZ off Florida, where an estimated 35 vessels (130 trips) landed both tailed and whole lobsters on the same trips. On average, these 35 vessels have fewer, but longer trips, higher trip landings, haul more traps per trip, and they fish at greater depths. Another 23 vessels landed slipper lobster in Florida during that time. While the number of for-hire vessels that fish for spiny lobster in the EEZ off Florida is not known, it is likely that less than the 1,330 vessels that currently have the necessary Florida permits and licenses engage in for-hire fishing for spiny lobster in state and Federal waters. None of these for-hire vessels are believed to have State commercial fishing permits/licenses. The for-hire vessels target other species as well, because annual recreational landings of spiny lobster occur predominantly in late July through the first week of September.
        The majority of the actions in this proposed rule are either administrative in nature or would be expected to accommodate status quo harvests or fishing behavior. The possible exception to this determination is the proposed action relative to the possession and landing of tailed lobsters in or from the EEZ. Available data do not allow the quantification of the number of vessels that may be affected by this proposed action. Approximately 35 vessels with commercial landings from the EEZ landed both tailed and whole lobsters on the same trips. The effect on these vessels of the requirement to land either all tailed or all whole lobsters on one trip is not known. The proposed action may be a problem for for-hire vessels with a limited holding capacity. It is believed that some for-hire vessels may have been tailing lobsters during trips. The solution for these vessels may simply be the purchase of additional ice chests to store harvested lobster. However, while this proposed action may be limiting for some for-hire vessels, this would not be expected to be a problem, on average, for the for-hire fleet because the majority of vessels would not be expected to engage in the practice of landing tailed lobsters, or depend on this type of business for a significant portion of their revenues. As a result, the actions in this rule would not be expected to significantly reduce profits for a substantial number of small entities. Public comment, however, is requested on this determination because of the absence of data related to the potential effects of the proposed action on the possession and landing of tailed lobsters from the EEZ.
        Alternatives were considered regarding species other than Caribbean spiny lobster (spiny lobster) in the FMP, and the proposed action would remove the other four lobster species from the FMP. None of the alternatives would be expected have an economic impact on small entities because these species addressed are either not currently managed or are not significantly harvested. One alternative, the no-action alternative, would not meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act because three species would have remained in the FMP for data collection purposes only without the specification of ACLs and AMs (which is no longer allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act). The other alternatives were not selected as preferred alternatives because the Councils determined that these species no longer required management at the Federal level because protection at the state level was adequate.
        Among the alternatives considered for the action to set ACLs, the proposed action specifies a single (stock) ACL, whereby ACL = OY = ABC. The no-action alternative would not meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. The remaining alternatives to the proposed action would specify higher or lower ACLs, with each alternative specifying either a single ACL for the entire fishery or sector specific ACLs, one ACL for the commercial sector, and another ACL for the recreational sector. Alternatives that would have resulted in sector ACLs were not selected because the adoption of sector ACLs would have been inconsistent with the decision to not adopt allocation ratios for the sectors. Among the alternatives that would establish stock ACLs, the proposed action would be expected to result in the greatest economic benefits because it would allow the greatest total harvest and support more recreational trips and commercial revenues without compromising the health of the resource or jeopardizing future economic benefits.
        Several alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were considered for the action to set ACTs. The proposed action specifies an ACT which is less than the ACL. Although an ACT is not a required component of an FMP and the absence of an ACT would allow a harvest up to the level of the ACL, the no-action alternative was not selected because the Councils decided that an ACT was appropriate for this stock due to the uncertainty associated with harvest monitoring, particularly recreational landings. Similar to the action to specify the ACL, the remaining five alternatives to the proposed action would specify different ACTs, with each alternative specifying either a single ACT for the entire fishery or sector specific ACTs, one ACT for the commercial sector, and another ACT for the recreational sector. The alternatives that would have resulted in sector ACTs were not adopted because the adoption of sector ACTs would have been inconsistent with the decision to not select allocation ratios or ACLs for the sectors. Among the alternatives that would not establish sector ACTs, other than the no-action alternative, the proposed action would be expected to result in the greatest economic benefits because it would allow the greatest total harvest and support more recreational trips and commercial revenues.
        Several alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were considered for the action to establish AMs. The no-action alternative would not meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to establish AMs. The proposed action would establish the ACT as the AM for the spiny lobster stock. With the exception of the no-action alternative and an option to establish combined sector AMs, the alternatives to the proposed action would be inconsistent with the adoption of other actions in this proposed rule. Absent sector allocations, ACLs, and ACTs, the adoption of sector AMs would be inappropriate. Further, adjustment of sector seasons is not practical in the absence of sector ACLs or ACTs. The option that would establish combined sector AMs was not adopted because the Councils felt the proposed action would provide an adequate buffer between the target level of harvest and the annual limit on harvest.

        Among the alternatives, including the no-action alternative, considered to establish the framework procedure, the proposed action incorporates two of the alternatives, updating the current protocol for cooperative management and revising the current regulatory amendment procedures by adopting the base framework procedure. The no-action alternative was not selected because the current protocol is out of date with respect to terminology and relevant agency names and authorities, and the framework procedures are not consistent with current assessment and management methods. The proposed action would facilitate implementation of changes in management measures required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as changes in ACLs, ACTs, and AMs. Two of the remaining alternatives to the proposed action were not selected because they could result in a delay in the implementation of necessary changes to the FMP. Such delays would be expected to impede the effective and efficient management of the stock. The final alternative to the proposed action was not adopted because it would have given the Councils and NMFS too much discretion to change management outside of the plan amendment process.
        Five alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were considered for the action to revise the regulations regarding undersized spiny lobsters. The proposed action would allow undersized spiny lobster not exceeding 50 per vessel and 1 per trap aboard each vessel if used in the EEZ exclusively for luring, decoying, or otherwise attracting non-captive spiny lobsters into the trap. The proposed action would be expected to result in an unquantifiable increase in economic benefits to spiny lobster fishermen relative to the status quo. The other alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were not selected because they would not be consistent with Florida regulations and would result in greater restrictions on the possession of undersized spiny lobsters used as attractants. As a result, each of these alternatives would be expected to result in lower economic benefits than the proposed action.
        Four alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were considered for the action to modify tailing requirements. Two of the alternatives are included in the proposed action, which would require that all lobsters from the EEZ be landed either all whole or all tailed on a single trip, and require that vessels applying for a Federal tailing permit must have either the requisite Florida permits/licenses for commercial fishing for lobster or a Federal spiny lobster permit. The no-action alternative was not selected because the Federal tailing permit was originally intended to allow tailing by commercial fishermen on long trips but, instead, current regulatory language has allowed recreational fishermen to obtain the permit, contrary to the Councils' original intent. The remaining alternative to the proposed action would prohibit any Federal lobster tail-separation permits and was not selected because it would be expected to result in greater economic losses than the proposed action.
        Six alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were considered for the action to designate authority to remove derelict spiny lobster traps in the EEZ off Florida. The no-action alternative was not selected because it would not allow the removal of derelict traps, and would not, therefore, be consistent with the Council's objective to limit the amount of derelict spiny lobster gear in the EEZ off Florida. This proposed rule would authorize the removal of traps in Federal waters off Florida through Florida's trap cleanup program, as provided in existing Florida regulations, and would be expected to have the least economic impact on small entities, based on public comment provided by commercial fishermen. The other alternatives to the proposed action would allow the public to remove derelict traps, or portions thereof, during different portions of the closed season. Assuming such authority only resulted in the removal of derelict traps, and not licensed and appropriate lobster traps, none of the alternatives to the proposed action, other than the no-action alternative, would be expected to adversely affect ongoing activity in the commercial sector during the commercial open season because, by definition, the removed traps would no longer be part of an active business operation. The no-action alternative would also not be expected to affect ongoing commercial activity because derelict trap removal by the public would not be allowed. The proposed action was selected by the Councils to allow the traps to be removed through an existing, coordinated, and well-managed Florida program.
        Additional actions and alternatives were considered in the amendment but are not included in this proposed rule because they would either establish management reference points or the preferred action would not result in any regulatory change. These actions and alternatives are discussed in the following paragraphs.
        Alternative definitions for maximum sustainable yield, the overfishing threshold, and the overfished threshold and other biological parameters for spiny lobster were considered. The respective alternatives proposed by the Councils are intended to bring the FMP into compliance with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are based on SSC recommendations. Defining these biological parameters for a species does not alter the current harvest or use of the resource. Therefore, no economic impact on small entities would be expected to result from the specification of these management parameters.
        Among the alternatives considered by the Councils to establish sector allocations, the no-action alternative was adopted as the proposed action. The other alternatives would specify allocations that would have varying effects determined by the combination of alternatives used to specify allocations, ABC, ACL, OY, and ACT. The result is that some single (stock) or paired-set (sector) ACLs were greater than or less than the respective status-quo landings. Any scenario where allowable landings would be reduced would be expected to result in a reduction in economic benefits to the respective affected sector. The Councils concluded that it was best to manage the spiny lobster fishery without allocations between the recreational and commercial sectors because no mechanism currently exists to track recreational landings and the commercial trip ticket data are not compiled with sufficient speed to support in-season quota monitoring.
        Among the alternatives to specify an ABC control rule, the proposed action specifies the Gulf Council's SSC recommended ABC Control Rule. The no-action alternative and two other alternatives (for which the ABC exceeded that recommended by the SSC) would not meet Magnuson-Stevens Act guidance that an ABC control rule be used to set the ABC and that the SSC recommend the ABC to the Council. Each of the other alternatives to the proposed action would specify a lower ABC. Because specifying an ABC control rule is an administrative action, no direct economic effects on any small entities would be expected to result from any of these alternatives. The proposed action was adopted because it would be consistent with decisions made for other species managed by the Councils and would provide a statistically based method of setting ABC, even if a new stock assessment changed the status of the stock. Further, the remaining alternatives, other than the no action alternative, were not adopted because they would not allow for changes to the ABC based on subsequent stock assessments.
        Including the no-action alternative, four alternatives were considered for the action to limit spiny lobster fishing to certain areas in the EEZ off Florida to protect threatened staghorn and elkhorn corals. Each of the alternatives to the proposed action would increase the restrictions on where spiny lobster fishing could occur relative to the status quo. As a result, each of these alternatives would be expected to result in adverse economic effects to spiny lobster fishermen relative to the status quo. The no action alternative was adopted as the proposed action in order to allow more public input before taking additional action and this action will be re-addressed in a subsequent amendment to the FMP.

        Three alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were considered for the action to require gear markings on all lobster trap lines used in the EEZ off Florida. Each of the alternatives to the proposed action would impose new gear marking requirements and, as a result, each of these alternatives would be expected to result in adverse economic effects to spiny lobster fishermen relative to the status quo. The no action alternative was adopted as the proposed action in order to allow for more public input before taking additional action and this action will be re-addressed in a subsequent amendment to the FMP.

          List of Subjects
          50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.
          50 CFR Part 640
          Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: September 20, 2011.
           John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 640 are proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
          1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. In § 622.2, the definition for “Caribbean spiny lobster” is removed and the definition for “Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster” is added in alphabetical order to read as follows.

            § 622.2
            Definitions and acronyms.

              Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster means the species Panulirus argus, or a part thereof.

            3. In § 622.6, a sentence is added to the end of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:

            § 622.6
            Vessel and gear identification.

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (iv) * * * In the EEZ off Florida, during times other than the authorized fishing season, a Caribbean spiny lobster trap, buoy, or any connecting lines will be considered derelict and may be disposed of in accordance with Rules 68B-55.002 and 68B-55.004 of the Florida Administrative Code.

          PART 640—SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
          4. The authority for part 640 continues to read as follows:

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

          5. In § 640.1, the first sentence of paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

            § 640.1
            Purpose and scope.

            (b) This part governs the conservation and management of Caribbean spiny lobster (spiny lobster) in the EEZ in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico off the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states from the Virginia/North Carolina border south and through the Gulf of Mexico. * * *

            6. In § 640.2, the definitions for “slipper (Spanish) lobster” and “spiny lobster” are removed and the definition for “Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster” is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

            § 640.2
            Definitions and acronyms.

              Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster means the species Panulirus argus, or a part thereof.

            7. In § 640.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) are revised to read as follows:

            § 640.4
            Permits and fees.
            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) EEZ off Florida and spiny lobster landed in Florida. For a person to sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, trade, or barter, a spiny lobster harvested or possessed in the EEZ off Florida, or harvested in the EEZ other than off Florida and landed from a fishing vessel in Florida, or for a person to be exempt from the daily bag and possession limit specified in § 640.23(b)(1) for such spiny lobster, such person must have the licenses and certificates specified to be a “commercial harvester,” as defined in Rule 68B-24.002, Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399; telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

            (2) Tail-separation permits. For a person to possess aboard a fishing vessel a separated spiny lobster tail in or from the EEZ as defined in § 640.1 (b), a valid Federal tail-separation permit must be issued to the vessel and must be on board. Permitting prerequisites for the tail-separation permit are either a valid Federal vessel permit for spiny lobster or a valid Florida Saltwater Products License with a valid Florida Restricted Species Endorsement and a valid Crawfish Endorsement.

            8. In § 640.6, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as follows:

            § 640.6
            Vessel and gear identification.
            (a) EEZ off Florida. (1) An owner or operator of a vessel that is used to harvest spiny lobster by traps in the EEZ off Florida must comply with the vessel and gear identification requirements specified in sections 379.367(2)(a)1. and 379.367(3), Florida Statutes, in effect as of July 1, 2009, and in Rule 68B-24.006(3), (4), and (5), Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008.
            (2) An owner or operator of a vessel that is used to harvest spiny lobsters by diving in the EEZ off Florida must comply with the vessel identification requirements applicable to the harvesting of spiny lobsters by diving in Florida's waters in Rule 68B-24.006(6), Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008.
            (3) The incorporation by reference in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section of sections 379.367(2)(a)1. and 379.367(3), Florida Statutes, Rule 68B-24.006(3), (4), and (5), and (6) Florida Administrative Code, was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399; telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

            (c) Unmarked traps and buoys. An unmarked spiny lobster trap or buoy in the EEZ is illegal gear.
            (1) EEZ off Florida. Such trap or buoy, and any connecting lines, during times other than the authorized fishing season, will be considered derelict and may be disposed of in accordance with Rules 68B-55.002 and 68B-55.004 of the Florida Administrative Code. An owner of such trap or buoy remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.

            (2) EEZ other than off Florida. Such trap or buoy, and any connecting lines, will be considered unclaimed or abandoned property and may be disposed of in any manner considered appropriate by the Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer. An owner of such trap or buoy remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.
            9. In § 640.7, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:

            § 640.7
            Prohibitions.

            (g) Fail to return immediately to the water a berried spiny lobster; strip eggs from or otherwise molest a berried spiny lobster; or possess a spiny lobster, or part thereof, from which eggs, swimmerettes, or pleopods have been removed or stripped; as specified in § 640.21(a).

            10. In § 640.20, paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is removed, and paragraph (b)(3)(i) is revised and two sentences are added at the end of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

            § 640.20
            Seasons.

            (b) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (i) In the EEZ off Florida, the rules and regulations applicable to the possession of spiny lobster traps in Florida's waters in Rule 68B-24.005(3), (4), and (5), Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of June 1, 1994, apply in their entirety to the possession of spiny lobster traps in the EEZ off Florida. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399; telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. A spiny lobster trap, buoy, or rope in the EEZ off Florida, during periods not authorized in this paragraph will be considered derelict and may be disposed of in accordance with Rules 68B-55.002 and 68B-55.004 of the Florida Administrative Code. An owner of such trap, buoy, or rope remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.
            (ii) * * * A spiny lobster trap, buoy, or rope in the EEZ off the Gulf states, other than Florida, during periods not authorized in this paragraph (b)(3) will be considered unclaimed or abandoned property and may be disposed of in any manner considered appropriate by the Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer. An owner of such trap, buoy, or rope remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.

            11. In § 640.21, paragraph (a), the second sentence of paragraph (c), and paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:

            § 640.21
            Harvest limitations.
            (a) Berried lobsters. A berried (egg-bearing) spiny lobster in or from the EEZ must be returned immediately to the water unharmed. If found in a trap in the EEZ, a berried spiny lobster may not be retained in the trap. A berried spiny lobster in or from the EEZ may not be stripped of its eggs or otherwise molested. The possession of a spiny lobster, or part thereof, in or from the EEZ from which eggs, swimmerettes, or pleopods have been removed or stripped is prohibited.

            (c) Undersized attractants. * * * No more than fifty undersized spiny lobsters and one per trap aboard the vessel, may be retained aboard for use as attractants. * * *
            (d) Tail separation. (1) The possession aboard a fishing vessel of a separated spiny lobster tail in or from the EEZ as defined in § 640.1 (b), is authorized only when the possession is incidental to fishing exclusively in the EEZ on a trip of 48 hours or more and a valid Federal tail-separation permit, and either a valid Federal vessel permit for spiny lobster or a valid Florida Saltwater Products License with a valid Florida Restricted Species Endorsement and a valid Crawfish Endorsement, as specified in § 640.4(a)(2), has been issued to and are on board the vessel.
            (2) Spiny lobster must be landed either all whole or all tailed on a single fishing trip.
            12. In § 640.22, paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3)(i) are revised to read as follows:

            § 640.22
            Gear and diving restrictions.
            (a) * * *
            (3) Poisons and explosives may not be used to take a spiny lobster in the EEZ as defined in § 640.1 (b). For the purposes of this paragraph (a)(3), chlorine, bleach, and similar substances, which are used to flush a spiny lobster out of rocks or coral, are poisons. A vessel in the spiny lobster fishery may not possess on board in the EEZ any dynamite or similar explosive substance.

            (b) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (i) For traps in the EEZ off Florida, by the Division of Law Enforcement, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, in accordance with the procedures in Rule 68B-24.006(7), Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399; telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

            13. Section 640.25 is revised to read as follows:

            § 640.25
            Adjustment of management measures.
            In accordance with the framework procedure of the Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, the Regional Administrator may establish or modify the following items: reporting and monitoring requirements, permitting requirements, bag and possession limits, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons, closed areas, reopening of sectors that have been prematurely closed, annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), quotas, accountability measures (AMs), maximum sustainable yield (or proxy), optimum yield, total allowable catch (TAC), management parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions, gear restrictions, gear markings and identification, vessel identification requirements, allowable biological catch (ABC) and ABC control rule, rebuilding plans, and restrictions relative to conditions of harvested fish (such as tailing lobster, undersized attractants, and use as bait).
            14. Add § 640.28 to subpart B to read as follows:

            § 640.28
            Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs).
            For recreational and commercial spiny lobster landings combined, the ACL is 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg), whole weight. The ACT is 6.59 million lb, (2.99 million kg) whole weight.

      [FR Doc. 2011-24550 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-02-11876]
        Public Meeting on Motorcoach Safety Improvements

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces that NHTSA will be holding a public meeting regarding improvements in passenger crash protection regulations for motorcoaches. Because Canada shares a common interest in the safety of passengers that ride in motorcoaches, this meeting is being held jointly in cooperation with Transport Canada. This notice invites persons to make presentations and submit written comments on the same subject.
          NHTSA and Transport Canada recognize that the occupant protection issues for motorcoaches differ significantly from those of passenger cars and trucks. Safety countermeasures that are cost effective for passenger vehicles may not necessarily be as effective in motorcoaches, particularity given travel comfort expectations associated with long distance travel by motorcoach. Therefore, it was decided to hold this public meeting to hear the views and comments from manufacturers, operators, users, and the public at large in order to be better informed of their specific needs, and to help us determine whether improvements in motorcoach passenger crash protection standards are warranted.

          DATES:
          Public Meeting: NHTSA will hold a public meeting in Washington, DC on April 30, 2002, from 9:30 am until 5 pm at the below listed address.
          Written Comments: Written requests to speak at the public meeting, comments to be submitted for the public record, and suggestions for items to be included in the meeting agenda, should be received at Docket Management at the below address no later than April 29, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held at the National Transportation Safety Board's meeting room at 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC.
          Written Comments: Submit written comments to the DOT Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, PL 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          Comments should refer to the Docket Number (NHTSA-02-11876) and two copies should be submitted. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.

          Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the DOT Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” to obtain instructions for filing the comment electronically. In every case, the comment should refer to the Docket Number.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NPS-12, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-0247, Fax: 202-493-2739).
          Crash Statistics

          Historically, motorcoaches (intercity buses) have been a relatively safe mode of transportation with about 10 fatalities per year (9 passengers and 1 driver). However, in severe crashes and rollovers, motorcoach passengers may have not been provided sufficient crash protection against ejection from the motorcoach. Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems supplemented by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was used to obtain the following information about motorcoach fatalities. As shown in Table 1, during the period of 1991 through 2000, there were 48 motorcoach crashes resulting in 101 motorcoach fatalities (16 drivers and 85 passengers). Of the 16 driver fatalities, 12 percent (2) were ejected from the bus and 88 percent (12) were not ejected. Of the 85 passenger fatalities, 55 percent (47) were ejected from the bus and 45 percent (37) were not ejected, (one passenger had an unknown ejection status).

            Table 1.—1991-2000 Motorcoach Fatalities

              48 Crashes
              Total
              Ejected
              Not ejected
              Unknown

              Driver
              16
              2
              14

              Passenger
              85
              47
              37
              1

              Total
              101
              49
              51
              1

          A large number of motorcoach fatalities occur in crashes involving motorcoach rollover. In fact, during the 19912000 period, the motorcoach rolled over in 18 of the 48 fatal crashes resulting in 37 fatalities (2 drivers and 35 passengers). Fatality data is shown in Table 2. Of the 35 passenger fatalities, 74 percent (26) were ejected from the bus and 26 percent (9) were not ejected. There were two driver fatalities, one ejected and one not ejected.

            Table 2.—1990-1999 Motorcoach Fatalities (Rollover Crashes)

              18 Crashes
              Total
              Ejected
              Not ejected

              Driver
              2
              1
              1

              Passenger
              35
              26
              9

              Total
              37
              27
              10

          As shown in Table 3, there were 30 non-rollover crashes that produced 64 fatalities, 14 drivers and 50 passengers. Of the 50 passenger fatalities, 42 percent (21) were ejected from the bus and 58 percent (28) remained inside the bus. There were 14 driver fatalities. It should be noted that a single crash, where the bus did not rollover, produced 44 percent (22) of the passenger fatalities.

            Table 3.—1990-1999 Motorcoach Fatalities (Non-Rollover Crashes)

              30 Crashes
              Total
              Ejected
              Not ejected
              Unknown

              Driver
              12
              2
              10

              Passenger
              50
              21
              28
              1

              Total
              64
              23
              38
              1

          National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations
          In September 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made several safety recommendations to the agency regarding regulations for improvement of passenger crash protection, roof crush, and advance glazing research in motorcoaches. The Safety Recommendations are as follows:
          H-99-47—In 2 years, develop performance standards for motorcoach occupant protection systems that account for frontal impact collisions, side impact collisions, rear impact collisions, and rollovers.
          H-99-48—Once pertinent standards have been developed for motorcoach occupant protection systems, require newly manufactured motorcoaches to have an occupant crash protection system that meets the newly developed performance standards and retains passengers, including those in child restraint systems, within the seating compartment throughout the accident sequence for all accident scenarios.
          H-99-49—Expand your research on current advanced glazing to include its applicability to motorcoach occupant ejection prevention, and revise window glazing requirements for newly manufactured motorcoaches based on the results of this research.
          H-99-50—In 2 years, develop performance standards for motorcoach roof strength that provide maximum survival space for all seating positions and that take into account current typical motorcoach window dimensions.
          H-99-51—Once performance standards have been developed for motorcoach roof strength, require newly manufactured motorcoaches to meet those standards.
          In a March 3, 2000 letter to NTSB, the agency responded to NTSB with the following:

            In addressing this issue, NHTSA must also consider using its limited resources most efficiently. * * * The crashworthiness issues about motorcoaches the Safety Board raised deserve to be analyzed. Therefore, NHTSA will examine opportunities to share the cost of research with motorcoach manufacturers. The Safety Board's suggested time limitation of two years is not achievable given current resources. NHTSA asks that the Safety Board take under consideration that for many of the safety issues raised, appropriate industry standards are not in place on which to base regulations. Therefore, primary research needs to be performed prior to the issuance of any regulation.

          The motorcoach manufacturers have now formed a bus manufacturer's council to address safety issues regarding motorcoaches.
          Issues
          This section discusses a range of issues and presents a series of questions for public comment to aid the agency in evaluating motorcoach safety protection and in determining potential improvements in motorcoach passenger crash protection standards.

          (1) NHTSA and Transport Canada recognize that a two-tier approach is needed to improve occupant protection in motorcoaches. The first tier is the prevention of the crash or rollover event from occurring. There are technologies that are currently being developed for use in passenger cars, such as (i) smart cruise control, (ii) stability control, and (iii) equipment that warns the driver of inadvertent lane changes. Are there technologies being developed, or that can be developed, that will reduce the likelihood of a crash or rollover for use in motorcoaches?
          (2) The second tier is the mitigation of fatalities/injuries should a crash or rollover event occur. As stated earlier, passenger ejection appears to be a significant factor in severe motorcoach crashes and rollover events. Accident investigations reveal that large windows typically break away in a rollover, leaving large portals through which passengers can be ejected. We are interested in obtaining views on what structural changes in motorcoach design would be needed to mitigate ejection fatalities/injuries from motorcoach rollover events.
          (3) Mitigation of ejection fatalities/injuries can be done by limiting the size of the glazing materials, and also by upgrading the standard for window retention and emergency exits in motorcoaches so that the windows do not come open or break during crashes or rollover events. Limiting the size of the glazing would offer smaller portals for ejection and reduces the likelihood of ejection during a rollover event. What changes to the existing regulation on window retention and emergency exits would be necessary to limit the size of the glazing and upgrade the standard to make it more applicable to the type of buses manufactured today? Should the agency change the window retention requirements to require that the windows be manufactured from materials that will not breakaway during impacts?
          (4) Another possible improvement for motorcoaches may be to introduce a roof crush safety standard for motorcoaches. Such a standard could conceivably limit the size of the windows while providing additional structural support that could reduce intrusion into the passenger compartment during rollover events. What is the best approach to developing a roof crush standard that could conceivably maintain the size of the windows while providing additional structural support that could reduce intrusion into the passenger compartment during rollover events?
          (5) We are aware that new technology of side curtain airbags is currently being offered in passenger cars. Passenger car side curtains may reduce the likelihood of ejection of unrestrained passengers. Some aspects of this technology may be adaptable for use in motor coaches. We are interested in any comments regarding the use of this or other technologies to reduce motorcoach ejections.
          (6) Restraint systems are another possibility for mitigating ejection fatalities/injuries in motorcoach crashes. Technology was examined during NHTSA's school bus occupant protection research program to determine the feasibility for integrated lap/shoulder belts in school buses. What changes in the structure of the motorcoach would be necessary to ensure that the seats and seat belts have adequate strength to withstand impacts? What modifications to seat reclining features would be needed? What seat belt usage rates would be anticipated? What occupant size ranges would be necessary to accommodate for belt comfort and convenience?
          (7) Another area of concern is occupant fatalities/injuries that are caused by head impact into interior components. Motorcoaches have features such as seat back lap trays and television monitors that are not normally found in general passenger vehicles. We are seeking comments on how to bring about occupant interior impact safety improvements, while recognizing that these features are for the comfort of passengers on long trips.
          Procedural Matters
          If you wish to make a presentation at the meeting, please contact Charles Hott at the above mailing address or telephone number by April 26, 2002. If your presentation will include slides, motion pictures, or other visual aids, please so indicate and NHTSA will make the proper equipment available. Presenters should bring at least one copy of their presentation to the meeting so that NHTSA can readily include the material in the public record. Those speaking at the public meeting should limit the length of their presentations to 20 minutes. Due to time imitations, NHTSA may have to limit the number of presenters per organization. NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids to participants as necessary. Any person desiring “auxiliary aids” (e.g., sign language interpreter, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDDs), readers, taped texts, brailed materials, or large print materials and/or a magnifying device), please contact Charles Hott.
          The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally to allow for maximum participation by all who attend. Interested persons may ask questions or provide comments during any period after a party has completed its presentation, on a time allowed basis as determined by the presiding official. If time permits, persons who have not requested time to speak, but would like to make a statement, will be afforded an opportunity to do so. The agency is interested in obtaining the views of its customers, both orally and in writing. An agenda for the meeting will be made based on the number of persons wishing to make oral presentations and will be available on the day of the meeting.
          If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, at the street address given above, and copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
          All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered. Comments will be available for inspection in the docket. After the closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. It is therefore recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

            Issued: March 21, 2002.
            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator, for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 02-7366 Filed 3-27-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-BG42
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Fish Omnibus Amendment

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted its Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. We are requesting comments from the public on this amendment. This amendment would implement an annual landing limit, possession limits, and permitting and reporting requirements for certain previously unmanaged forage species and species groups within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Mid-Atlantic Forage NOA.”

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

          The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment that describes the proposed action and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives considered. Copies of the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA and associated analysis is accessible via the Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or
            http://www.mafmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9141; fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        Mid-Atlantic Council stakeholders identified managing forage species as a key concern for future action during a 2011 strategic planning and visioning process. Forage species are generally considered small, mostly pelagic schooling species that serve as prey for larger species. In 2014, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) developed a white paper on forage species. The paper indicated that forage species facilitate the transfer of energy from the lowest levels of the food chain to higher levels, highlighting the importance of forage species in maintaining the productivity of marine ecosystems. The Council recognized that although it already manages several forage species that are the target of directed commercial fisheries (Atlantic mackerel, longfin and Illex squid, and butterfish), there are other unmanaged species that serve as prey for species important to commercial and recreational fisheries managed within the Mid-Atlantic. However, the Council was concerned that insufficient information existed to assess the amount of unmanaged forage species currently being harvested and associated impacts to other marine resources. Due to the importance of forage species to the marine ecosystem and the health of important commercial and recreational fisheries, the Council sought to prevent the further expansion of commercial fishing effort on forage species. Therefore, the Council wanted to maintain existing commercial fisheries at recent levels until it could collect more detailed information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. On December 8, 2014, the Council initiated an action to begin protecting previously unmanaged forage species in each fishery management plan (FMP) under its jurisdiction. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species. Scoping meetings were held from Rhode Island through North Carolina in September and October 2015. These meetings sought public input on the type of action to undertake, which forage species to address, the geographic scope of the action, data needs, possible measures to prevent the expansion of commercial fisheries on forage species, and processes to evaluate the development of commercial fisheries in the future. After further developing proposed measures, the Council conducted public hearings in May and June 2016 to solicit additional input on the range of alternatives under consideration by the Council, with public comments accepted through June 17, 2016. At its August 2016 meeting, the Council adopted final measures under the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment. On November 23, 2016, the Council submitted the amendment and draft EA to NMFS for preliminary review. The Council submitted the final forage amendment on March 20, 2017. The Council reviewed the proposed regulations to implement these measures, as drafted by NMFS, and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate, as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act on March 10, 2017.
        This amendment would prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain Mid-Atlantic forage species until the Council can collect the information necessary to more fully evaluate the potential impacts of forage species harvests on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem. To do this, the Council would limit catch of certain forage species to recent levels and implement administrative measures necessary to more accurately record the catch of these species within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. Specifically, this action proposes the following measures:
        • Designate 15 species and species groups as ecosystem component species of FMPs under the Council's jurisdiction;
        • Specify a 1,700-lb (771-kg) combined possession limit for ecosystem component species within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters;

        • Set an annual catch limit of 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) for Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber colias);

        • Specify a 40,000-lb (18,144-kg) chub mackerel possession limit within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters (i.e., from New York through Cape Hatteras, NC, an area referred to as the “Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit”) once the chub mackerel annual landing limit is reached;
        • Require that all vessels possessing ecosystem component species and chub mackerel in Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit be issued a Federal commercial fishing vessel permit from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and comply with existing reporting requirements;
        • Allow vessels that catch ecosystem component species and chub mackerel outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit to transit through the area to land these species at other ports;
        • Develop appropriate codes to record the catch of these species in vessel trip reports and dealer reports;
        • Establish a Council policy requiring an exempted fishery permit and sufficient Council review before further development of any fishery for ecosystem component species; and
        • Expand framework provisions in the all of the Council's FMPs to allow future changes to annual landing limits and possession limits for Mid-Atlantic forage species.

        As proposed, the proposed chub mackerel measures are temporary, and would expire in 3 years. This would allow the Council to develop long-term measures and the scientific information necessary to formally integrate this chub mackerel as a stock in the fishery under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP. The Council initiated a separate action to develop these long-term measures at its February 2017 meeting for implementation by 2020, if approved.

        Public comments are being solicited on the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period specified in the DATES section of this notice of availability (NOA). Following NMFS's review of the amendment under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures, a rule proposing to implement measures outlined in this amendment may be published in the Federal Register for public comment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA, whether specifically directed to the NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision of this action.

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

          Dated: March 23, 2017.
          Karen H. Abrams,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-06114 Filed 3-27-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268; FRL 9969-09-Region 7]
        Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Oxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are approving the state's SIP revisions as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by November 13, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at casburn.tracey@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This document proposes to take action on the State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision(s) in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: September 27, 2017.
          Cathy Stepp,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 2017-21804 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P