        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 60
        [DOCKET NUMBER [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495; FRL 9905-61-OAR]
        Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
        Correction
        In proposed rule document 2014-01065 appearing on pages 3357-3358 in the issue of Wednesday, January 22, 2014, make the following corrections:

        1. On page 3357, in the third column, in the document heading, “40 CFR Part 63” is corrected to read “40 CFR Part 60”.

        2. On page 3358, in the second column, in the seventh line from the bottom, “List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63” should read “List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60”.

      [FR Doc. C1-2014-01065 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 070704F]
        RIN 0648-AR77
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to the Annual Harvest Specifications Process for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Amendment 48 to the FMP for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) (Amendments 48/48). If approved, Amendments 48/48 would revise the administrative process used to establish annual harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the GOA and the BSAI and would update the FMPs by revising the description of the groundfish fisheries and participants, revising the name of the BSAI FMP, revising text to simplify wording and correct typographical errors, and revising the description of the Council's Groundfish Plan Teams' responsibilities. This action is necessary to manage fisheries based on the best scientific information available, to provide for adequate prior public review and comment to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on Council recommendations, to provide for additional opportunity for Secretarial review, to minimize unnecessary disruption to fisheries and public confusion, and to promote administrative efficiency. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendments 48/48 must be submitted by September 13, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802;
          • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
          • E-mail to 4848NOA@noaa.gov and include in the subject line of the e-mail comments the document identifier: 48-48 NOA. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
          • FAX to 907-586-7557; or
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendments 48/48 and the amendments may be obtained from the same mailing address above or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment.
        Harvest Specifications Process Revision
        Amendments 48/48 were unanimously recommended by the Council in October 2003. If approved by NMFS, these amendments would revise the administrative process used to establish annual harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. Harvest specifications establish specific limits on the commercial harvest of groundfish and are used to manage the groundfish fisheries. Harvest specifications include total allowable catch (TAC), acceptable biological catch (ABC), overfishing levels, and prohibited species catch (PSC) amounts, and apportionments thereof, which have been recommended by the Council. Currently, the regulations provide for annual harvest specifications that are effective January 1 through December 31. The goals in revising the harvest specifications process are to: (1) manage fisheries based on the best scientific information available, (2) provide for adequate prior public review and comment to the Secretary on Council recommendations, (3) provide for additional opportunity for Secretarial review, (4) minimize unnecessary disruption to fisheries and public confusion, and (5) promote administrative efficiency.

        The current harvest specifications process requires publication of proposed, interim, and final rulemaking. Each October, the Council recommends proposed harvest specifications to NMFS which are reviewed and published in the Federal Register for public comment in December. In November, new biological information regarding the groundfish target species becomes available and is used to develop the Council's final harvest specifications recommendations for the fishing year starting in January. The Council makes its final harvest specifications recommendations to NMFS in December. NMFS reviews the Council's recommended final harvest specifications and publishes the final specifications in the Federal Register in February or March of the following year.
        Starting in January of the new fishing year, groundfish fisheries are managed using interim harvest specifications, pending publication of the final harvest specifications. These interim harvest specifications remain in place until superseded by final harvest specifications in February or March each year. The interim harvest specifications are required by § 679.20(c)(2) to be 25 percent or the first seasonal apportionment of the proposed TAC amounts for most groundfish target species and 25 percent of the proposed PSC amounts.

        A number of statutory requirements must be met by NMFS to implement annual harvest specifications. Section 553(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires prior public review and comment on a proposed rule, including review and comment on the information used as the basis for the proposed rule, unless the prior opportunity for public review is waived pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA. National standard 2 in section 301(a)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the management of the groundfish fisheries to be based on the best scientific information available. Each year in October, proposed harvest specifications for the following year are developed based on either TAC amounts used in the current year for some species or on projections from the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports written the previous year. The SAFE reports written in the previous year often are the best scientific information available in October for supporting the harvest specifications for the following year. The new SAFE reports completed in November are used by the Council to recommend final harvest specifications in mid-December, usually after publication in the Federal Register of the proposed harvest specifications.
        The proposed and final specifications process normally requires 6 months to complete, yet only 2 weeks exist between the time the new final SAFE reports are available (mid-December) and the start of the fishing year on January 1. The Council's Groundfish Plan Teams develop the SAFE reports in November for the following fishing year based on the summer survey data and new analysis. These November SAFE reports are reviewed and approved by the Council in December and used as the scientific basis for its recommended harvest specifications. Because of this time constraint, the proposed harvest specifications are completed before the new information supporting the final harvest specifications is available. The proposed harvest specifications and supporting information available for public review and comment can differ from the final harvest specifications and their supporting information.
        For some species, the harvest specifications change little among years, such as TAC amounts for certain long-lived target groundfish species in the GOA. For other species, harvest specifications can change greatly between the proposed and final harvest specifications for various reasons. In some cases, adjustments are made based on the new information developed in the November SAFE reports. In the BSAI, the need to maximize the harvest of a particular groundfish species can cause changes between proposed and final TACs for a number of groundfish species to maintain the overall harvest at or below the 2 million optimal yield specified at § 679.20(a)(1)(i). Because the proposed harvest specifications and supporting information can differ from the final harvest specifications and information on which they are based, the current specifications process raises concerns that it may not provide adequate opportunity for prior public review and comment on the annual harvest specifications or on the supporting information used for the annual harvest specifications.

        The use of interim specifications in the current specifications process also is problematic. Prior public review and comment on the interim specifications has been routinely waived for “good cause” pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA. However, this practice raises serious questions of compliance with the APA's notice and comment requirements. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans, 316 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the interim harvest specifications also may provide inadequate harvest and PSC amounts for those fisheries that are prosecuted in the early part of the year (i.e., rock sole).
        Amendments 48/48 would provide a process that allows for adequate prior public review and comment on the harvest specifications and supporting information and would allow the groundfish fisheries to be managed based on the best available scientific information. Each year in October, the Council would recommend to NMFS proposed harvest specifications that would be effective for up to 2 years. The rationale for harvest specifications that would be effective for up to 2 years is explained later in this document.

        In consideration of the current stock assessment survey schedules, regulatory procedures, and quality of stock assessment information for the BSAI and GOA target species, the proposed harvest specifications process would authorize specifications that would be effective for up to 24 months. NMFS would review the recommendations and publish proposed harvest specifications in November or early December, including detailed descriptions of what the final harvest specifications are likely to be and the new information anticipated to support them. In November, the new SAFE reports would be forwarded to the Council by the Council's Groundfish Plan Teams. The Council would consider the new SAFE reports, public comments on the proposed harvest specifications, and public testimony and then develop recommendations for the final harvest specifications in December. NMFS would review those recommendations and public comment on the proposed harvest specifications, and specifically determine if the final harvest specifications are a logical outgrowth of the proposed harvest specifications. If the final harvest specifications recommendations are consistent with applicable law and are a logical outgrowth of the proposed harvest specifications, the final harvest specifications may be published without additional public review and comment.
        If the final harvest specifications recommendations are not a logical outgrowth of the proposed harvest specifications, an additional publication of proposed harvest specifications may be needed to provide an additional opportunity for prior public review and comment under the APA. In May or June of the following year, the final harvest specifications would be published based on the additional proposed harvest specifications and after consideration of public comment. Alternatively, depending upon the circumstances, NMFS may find “good cause” to waive the additional publication of proposed harvest specifications for prior public review and comment. In this case, the final harvest specifications likely would become effective in March.
        To provide opportunity for an additional public comment period after the Council's final harvest specifications recommendation in December, the groundfish fisheries in the new fishing year would be managed on the specifications that had been published previously. These harvest specifications would be superseded by the new harvest specifications. This proposed specifications process would eliminate the need for the interim harvest specifications. Having harvest specifications effective into the second fishing year would allow time for NMFS to complete an additional public review and comment period, if needed, while preventing disruption of the fisheries.
        To provide consistency between the groundfish FMPs for the harvest specifications process and to provide flexibility during the harvest specifications process, Amendments 48/48 would allow specifications to be effective for up to 2 fishing years. The stock assessment models used for determining the harvest specifications would use 2-year projections for biomass and acceptable biological catch. The frequency of fishery resource surveys also affects whether specifications should be done on a more or less frequent basis. Allowing specifications to be effective for up to 2 years would fit well with the frequency of stock projections that must be used for the harvest specifications, and would provide the Council and NMFS the flexibility to adjust the specifications time periods in response to potential changes in the frequency of stock assessment surveys or other stock assessment data or administrative issues.
        The Council recommended that harvest specifications for the hook-and-line gear and pot gear sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) fisheries be limited to the succeeding fishing year to ensure those fisheries are conducted concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery. Having the sablefish IFQ fisheries concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery would reduce the potential for discards of halibut and sablefish in these fisheries. The sablefish IFQ fisheries would remain closed at the beginning of each fishing year, until the final harvest specifications for the sablefish IFQ fisheries are in effect. The trawl sablefish fishery would be managed using harvest specifications for up to 2 years with the remaining target species in the BSAI and with GOA pollock, Pacific cod, and the “other species” complex.
        Housekeeping Revisions to the FMPs
        Amendment 48 to the BSAI FMP would revise the title of the FMP. The GOA FMP title is a more concise description of the document compared to the title used for the BSAI FMP. Definitions at 50 CFR 679.2 describe the BSAI as the “Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area.” Consistency between the names of the groundfish FMPs and with the groundfish fishery regulations would reduce confusion for users of the documents. The BSAI FMP title would be revised to “The Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.” Catch histories and the socioeconomic and community descriptions also would be updated with more recent information. References supporting the descriptions would be added to the reference section of the FMP.
        The GOA and BSAI FMPs contain references related to the management of foreign vessels and foreign processors in the groundfish fisheries. Foreign participation in the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska ended in 1990. Amendments 48/48 would revise the text throughout the FMPs to revise references to the management of foreign fishing vessels and foreign processors.
        The description in the FMPs of the responsibilities of the Council's Groundfish Plan Teams would be revised with this action. The current FMPs require the Plan Teams to provide preliminary SAFE reports annually for the September Council meeting and to include PSC apportionments and allocations recommendations and economic analysis. The Council meeting was moved to October, and preliminary SAFEs are no longer developed by the Plan Teams. No information is available to the Plan Teams to allow recommendations of PSC apportionments and allocations. This information is usually available at the October and December Council meetings. No economists are on the Plan Teams, so an economic analysis cannot be produced by the Plan Teams for the October Council meeting. The amendments would revise the FMPs to limit the Plan Teams' responsibilities for the annual October Council meeting to providing the most recent information regarding proposed ABC amounts and overfishing levels to the Council. The amendments also would revise the FMP so that the Council may request the Plan Teams to recommend PSC allocations and apportionments among target fisheries and gear types and an economic analysis on the affects of such allocations. This revision would provide flexibility in the future, if the Plan Teams were to include an economist.

        The information regarding skates in the GOA FMP would be updated with this action. In 2003, a directed fishery for skates developed in the GOA, targeting big and longnose skate species. The current FMP language does not list big and longnose skate species in the description of skates, and describes the harvest of skates as bycatch only. This action would update the fishery information regarding skates to identify species taken and the methods of harvest of skates. Amendment 63 to the GOA FMP, approved by the Secretary on February 27, 2004, moved skates from the “other species” category to the target species category. Amendment 63 allows for the management of the skate directed fishery, and the Amendment 48 revision would provide a more accurate description of the skate fishery. Additional information on Amendment 63 is in the preamble to the proposed rule for Amendment 63 published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2004 (69 FR 614).
        Amendments 48/48 also would revise the text in the GOA and BSAI FMPs to correct typographical errors and to clarify wording.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendments 48/48 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). A proposed rule that would implement the amendments will be published in the Federal Register for public comment at a later date. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendments in order to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendments, whether specifically directed to the amendments or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Dated: July 8, 2004.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-15974 Filed 7-13-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 020311051-2051-01; I.D. 022002C]
        RIN 0648-AN75
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Pelagic Longline Gear Restrictions, Seasonal Area Closure, and Other Sea Turtle Take Mitigation Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule that would implement the reasonable and prudent alternatives of the March 29, 2001, Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by NMFS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  This proposed rule is intended to reduce interactions between endangered and threatened sea turtles and pelagic fishing gear and to mitigate the harmful effects of interactions that occur.  This proposed rule would apply to the owners and operators of all vessels fishing for pelagic species under Federal western Pacific limited access longline permits (longline vessels) within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the high seas around Hawaii, as well as those fishing for pelagic species with other types of hook and line gear (non-longline pelagic vessels) within the EEZ around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands (the western Pacific region).  This proposed rule would prohibit the targeting of swordfish north of the equator by longline vessels, close all longline fishing to longline vessels during April and May in waters south of the Hawaiian Islands (from 15° N. lat. to the equator, and from 145° W. long. to 180° long.), prohibit the landing or possessing of more than 10 swordfish per fishing trip by longline vessels fishing north of the equator, allow the re-registration of vessels to Hawaii longline limited access permits only during the month of October, require all longline vessel operators to annually attend a protected species workshop and, impose sea turtle handling and resuscitation measures on both longline vessels, and non-longline pelagic vessels.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., Hawaiian standard time, on May 14, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on this proposed rule or its Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) must be mailed to Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI, 96814-4700; or faxed to 808-973-2941.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Regulatory Impact Review, and IRFA prepared for this action may be obtained from Dr. Charles Karnella, PIAO.  See also http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov to view the EIS.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alvin Katekaru, PIAO, at 808-973-2937.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The BiOp concluded that the ongoing operations of the pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific region managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP), particularly the Hawaii-based longline fishery, were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of green, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles.  This conclusion was based on the status of these sea turtle populations, as well as the types and numbers of fishery interactions that occur annually.  The majority of interactions are believed to involve Hawaii-based longline vessels and typically are the result of hookings or entanglements with fishing gear that is soaking in the water column.  A percentage of these turtles die and others are released alive.  Of those released alive, some are injured and released with embedded hooks or trailing gear while others are released unharmed.  Historic data (1994-1999) indicate that, on average, this fishery was annually involved in 40 interactions with green sea turtles, 112 interactions with leatherback sea turtles, and 418 interactions with loggerhead sea turtles.  For this reason, the BiOp included a series of non-discretionary measures within its reasonable and prudent alternatives that are applicable to Hawaii-based longline vessels and which NMFS implemented as an emergency rule effective June 12, 2001, and subsequently extended on December 10, 2001.  Because the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizes the implementation of emergency rules for no more than two consecutive 180-day periods, that emergency rule will expire on June 8, 2002.  The entire suite of measures contained in the BiOp's reasonable and prudent alternatives have now been recommended for implementation by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, and comprise the measures contained in this proposed rule.
        The BiOp also examined the impact of non-longline FMP pelagic hook and line fisheries in the western Pacific region.  The known level of effort and the selectivity of gear used in these fisheries led NMFS to conclude that few interactions have historically occurred in these fisheries.  However, the BiOp includes non-discretionary measures applicable to these non-longline pelagic fisheries to provide for the protection of sea turtles in any interaction with this fishing gear.  These measures require the operators of all hook and line vessels to carry line cutters and bolt cutters on their vessels and to use them to release any hooked turtle or entangled turtle with the least harm possible.

        The entire suite of non-discretionary measures contained in the BiOp's reasonable and prudent alternatives was also included in the preferred alternative identified in a final EIS issued by NMFS on March 30, 2001.  That EIS provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of fishing activities conducted under the FMP on the human environment and provides detailed analysis of a range of management alternatives (see ADDRESSES).
        The measures in this proposed rule are intended to directly mitigate interactions between sea turtles and longline fishing vessels by ensuring that longline gear used north of the equator is set deeply where it is less likely to be encountered by sea turtles, and by preventing Hawaii-based vessel operators from moving their operations to California or other areas during swordfish season, de-registering their vessels from their Hawaii limited access longline permits, fishing without employing the mitigation measures specified here, and then moving back to Hawaii and re-registering their vessels to take advantage of the Hawaii tuna season.  These measures are also intended to indirectly mitigate interactions with sea turtles by requiring all longline vessel operators to be educated on the status of sea turtles, as well as to follow handling, resuscitation, and release procedures.  Finally, aspects of this rule that apply to non-longline pelagic fishing vessels will mitigate interactions with sea turtles by ensuring that they are handled, resuscitated, and released in a manner that promotes their long term survival.
        This proposed rule would implement the following restrictions governing the owners and operators of all vessels registered for use under either a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit (longline vessels):  (a) Prohibit longline vessels from using longline gear to target swordfish north of the equator; (b) require longline gear to be deployed such that the deepest point of the main longline between any 2 floats, (i.e., the deepest point in each sag of the main line), is at a depth greater than 100 m (328.1 ft or 54.6 fm) below the sea surface when fishing north of the equator; (c) require that a minimum of 15 branch lines are used between any 2 floats on vessels using monofilament gear when fishing north of the equator; (d) require that a minimum of 10 branch lines are deployed between any 2 floats on vessels using basket-style longline gear when fishing north of the equator; (e) require that longline vessel operators possess and employ float lines of at least 20 m (65.6 ft) to suspend the mainline beneath any float on fishing trips north of the equator; (f) prohibit possession of a lightstick on board a longline vessel on fishing trips north of the equator; (g) prohibit the landing or possessing of more than 10 swordfish per trip by longline vessels fishing north of the equator; (h) prohibit fishing by longline vessels from April 1 through May 31 in the area bounded on the south by the equator, on the west by 180° long., on the east by 145° W. long., and on the north by 15° N. lat.; (i) discourage the practice of de-registering a boat in the Hawaii longline fisheries in order to fish out of non-Hawaii-based ports and avoid turtle catch mitigation requirements, allow the processing of applications for the re-registration of a vessel that has been de-registered from a Hawaii longline limited access permit after March 29, 2001, only during the month of October and require that applications must be received or post-marked between September 15 and October 15 to allow sufficient time for processing; and (j) require operators of longline vessels to annually attend a protected species workshop conducted by NMFS.  This proposed rule would use slightly different wording from the current emergency rule in place for the requirement (see § 660.33(b)) that float lines used to suspend the mainline beneath floats be longer than 20 m (65.6 ft) when longlining north of the equator.  The revision clarifies that vessel operators may not maintain on board the vessel multiple shorter float lines and claim the lines will be fastened together to form a line exceeding 20 m when or if deployed.  The revised wording clarifies that the restriction applies not just to float lines when actually deployed, but also to float lines that are merely possessed on board a permitted vessel.  Also, the prohibition on the use of lightsticks would be clarified to mean any type of light emitting device, including any flourescent “glow bead,” chemical, or electrically powered light that is affixed underwater to the longline gear.
        This proposed rule would also:  (k) Require gear retrieval to cease if a sea turtle is discovered hooked or entangled on a longline during gear retrieval, until the turtle has been removed from the gear or brought onto the vessel's deck; (l) require operators of all “large” longline vessels (those with a working platform 3 ft (0.9 m) or more above the sea surface) to, if practicable, use a dip net meeting NMFS' specifications as prescribed in 50 CFR 660.32 to hoist a sea turtle onto the deck to facilitate the removal of the hook or to revive a comatose sea turtle.  Operators of all “small” longline vessels (those with a working platform less than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface) would be required to, if practicable, ease a sea turtle onto the deck by grasping its carapace (shell) or flippers.

        In addition, the operators of all longline vessels within the EEZ and the high seas around Hawaii, and non-longline pelagic fishing vessels fishing with hooks within EEZ waters of the western Pacific region, would be required to:  (m) Carry and use line-clippers to cut fishing line from hooked or entangled sea turtles.  Operators of “large” vessels (those with working platforms more than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface) would be required to use line clippers meeting NMFS' performance standard as prescribed in 50 CFR 660.32.  Operators of “small” vessels (those with working platforms 3 ft (0.9 m) or less above the sea surface) could carry and use either a line cutter that meets NMFS' performance standard, or one that is more appropriate to the size and configuration of the fishing vessel, but in either case this line clipper must be capable of cutting the vessel's fishing line or leader within approximately 1 ft of the eye of an embedded hook; (n) carry and use wire or bolt cutters capable of cutting through fishing hooks to facilitate cutting of hooks embedded in sea turtles; (o) remove all hooks from sea turtles as quickly and carefully as possible; however, if a hook cannot be removed, cut the line as close to the hook as possible;  (p) handle all incidentally taken sea turtles brought aboard for dehooking and/or disentanglement in a manner to minimize injury and promote post-hooking survival.  If a sea turtle is too large or hooked in such a manner to preclude safe boarding without causing further damage/injury to the turtle, use line-clippers to clip the line and remove as much line as possible prior to releasing the turtle; and (q) where practicable, bring comatose sea turtles on board the vessel and perform resuscitation as prescribed in 50 CFR 223.206 (d)(1), 660.22, and 660.32.
        This proposed rule would define Basket-style longline gear as a type of longline gear that is divided into units called “baskets” each consisting of a segment of mainline to which 10 or more branch lines with hooks are spliced.  The lines are made of multiple braided strands of cotton, nylon, or other synthetic fibers impregnated with tar or other heavy coatings that cause the lines to sink rapidly in seawater.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        On March 30, 2001, NMFS issued an EIS that analyzes the environmental impacts of U.S. pelagic fisheries in the western Pacific region.  The EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency; a Notice of Availability was published on April 6, 2001 (66 FR 18243).  See the preamble of this proposed rule for a discussion of the portions of the preferred alternative of the EIS that would be implemented by this rule.  See the EIS for a discussion of the other alternatives considered by NMFS.
        NMFS estimates that these measures would result in interactions between the Hawaii-based longline fishery and 11 green sea turtles (including 7 mortalities), 29 leatherback sea turtles (including 16 mortalities), and 0-5 interactions with loggerhead sea turtles (including 0-2 mortalities) each year.  The EIS also estimated that these measures would result in annual interactions between all western Pacific regional pelagic handline, troll, and pole and line fisheries of 1 sea turtle per fishery (not specified by species) with no mortalities.  The EIS found these measures are also expected to result in annual interactions between domestic longline fisheries based in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands of 3 hardshell turtles (not specified by species) and 1 leatherback turtle, per fishery (with 1 hardshell turtle mortality per fishery).  Impacts of these measures on seabirds are anticipated to be positive due to the prohibition on shallow setting which is known to have a higher seabird interaction rate.  Impacts on target and non-target fish stocks are anticipated to be minimal as these measures are not expected to significantly increase exploitation of these species.  Broad social impacts of these measures are anticipated to be positive in that they are intended to mitigate sea turtle and seabird interactions.  However, these measures may negatively impact individual fishery related  workers, as well as consumers of fishery products.
        A formal section 7 consultation under the ESA was concluded for the FMP.  In a BiOp dated March 29, 2001, NMFS determined that fishing activities conducted under the FMP and its implementing regulations were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the green sea turtle, leatherback turtle, and loggerhead turtle under the jurisdiction of NMFS and prescribed non-discretionary reasonable and prudent alternatives for this FMP to mitigate that determination.  As described previously in this preamble, this proposed rule would implement those non-discretionary reasonable and prudent alternatives.
        NMFS reinitiated consultation on the Pelagics FMP on December 12, 2001, based on new information which may improve NMFS' ability to quantify and evaluate the effects of the U.S. pelagic fisheries under the FMP and the reasonable and prudent alternative in the March 29, 2001, BiOp on listed sea turtle populations.

        An IRFA that describes the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities was prepared and is available from the PIAO office for public review and comment(see ADDRESSES).  A summary of the IRFA follows.

        The need for and objectives of this proposed rule are stated in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this document and are not repeated here.  This action does not contain reporting and record keeping requirements that would impact small entities.  It will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.  This action is taken under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 660.
        Both large and small vessels affected by this proposed rule are considered to be “small entities” under guidelines issued by the Small Business Administration because they are independently owned and operated, and have annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million.  Only the Hawaii-based longline fleet is expected to experience significant direct effects from this proposed rule.  This fishery averaged annual ex-vessel gross revenues of $40.7 million between 1994-1998 (the focus of the BiOp and the last full years prior to the implementation of a sequence of measures to protect sea turtles).
        Assuming that fishing effort that is displaced as a result of the swordfish targeting prohibition or seasonal area closure is transferred into allowable effort in open areas, the anticipated annual loss of ex-vessel gross revenues from this fishery is estimated to be 11 percent ($4.3 million).  At the other end of the extreme is a scenario in which all displaced effort is removed from the western Pacific longline fishery, resulting in an estimated annual decline of 42 percent ($17.2 million) in ex-vessel gross revenues.
        Impacts on the American Samoa-based pelagic longline fisheries (the only active non-Hawaii longline fishery in the western Pacific region) are anticipated to be minimal, as these vessels generally fish below the equator and thus will not be affected by either the targeting restrictions or the seasonal area closure.  The only direct cost for this fleet is that of acquiring bolt cutters and line clippers, for the smaller vessels, and bolt cutters, line clippers, and dip nets for the larger vessels.  Assuming that these items are purchased from businesses in Hawaii and are useable for several years, the average cost per vessel is anticipated to be approximately $20 per vessel for bolt cutters, $30 per vessel for line clippers, and $75 per vessel for dip nets.  The impact on fishing operations of using these items is anticipated to be minor because the likelihood of encountering a turtle is low, and in the event that a turtle is hooked or entangled, it is not a time-consuming procedure to free it.

        Impacts on non-longline pelagic vessels throughout the region are also anticipated to be minimal, as the proposed rule will not affect the operations of these vessels beyond the requirement that vessel operators purchase and use bolt cutters and line clippers to free hooked or entangled sea turtles.  Because the use of long handled line clippers is optional on these small vessels, it is believed that the majority of these vessel operators will employ their bolt cutters to cut their fishing line if necessary.  The impact on fishing operations of using these items is anticipated to be minor because the likelihood of encountering a turtle is low, and in the event that a turtle is hooked or entangled, it should not be a time-consuming procedure to free it.
        A range of alternatives was also considered in the IRFA.  The first alternative was the no action alternative, which was rejected because it would not provide any additional protection to sea turtles.  A second alternative would have prohibited shallow setting by longline vessels in the western Pacific region, required longline fishing vessel operators to carry and use line clippers and dip nets and to employ specific handling techniques to mitigate interactions with sea turtles.  This alternative was rejected because, although it would have mitigated longline interactions with sea turtles, it would not have provided sufficient mitigation to avoid jeopardizing their continued existence.  A third alternative would have closed waters north of 29° N. lat. to longline fishing from July through January of each year, and required longline fishing vessel operators to carry and use line clippers and dip nets and to employ specific handling techniques to mitigate interactions with sea turtles.  This alternative was also rejected because, although it would have mitigated longline interactions with sea turtles, it would not have provided sufficient mitigation to avoid jeopardizing their continued existence.  A fourth alternative would have closed all western Pacific EEZ waters to longline fishing and prohibited the landing of longline caught fish in all domestic western Pacific ports.  This alternative was also rejected because, although it would have provided increased protection to sea turtles as compared to the preferred alternative, it would also have eliminated western Pacific longline fisheries.  NMFS believes that the preferred alternative balances the ongoing harvest of pelagic fish in the western Pacific region with necessary protection to endangered and threatened sea turtles.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa,  Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  April 19, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          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 WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

          2.  In § 660.21, paragraph (l) is revised to read as follows (Note:  This proposed revision would supersede the addition of paragraph (l), at 66 FR 31564, June 12, 2001, originally effective June 12, 2001, through December 10, 2001, and later extended to June 8, 2002, at 66 FR 63630, December 10, 2001):

            § 660.21
            Permits.

            (l) Applications for the re-registration of any vessel that was de-registered from a Hawaii longline limited access permit after March 29, 2001, must be received at PIAO or postmarked, between September 15 and October 15.

          3.  In § 660.22, paragraphs (mm) through (uu) are removed, and paragraphs (z) through (ll) are revised to read as follows (Note:  The proposed removal of paragraphs (mm) through (uu), and the revision of paragraphs (z) through (ll) would supersede the suspension of paragraphs (ee) through (ll), at 66 FR 31564, June 12, 2001, originally effective June 12, 2001, through December 10, 2001, and later extended to June 8, 2002, at 66 FR 63630, December 10, 2001):

            § 660.22
            Prohibitions.

            (z) Fail to carry line clippers, dip nets, and wire or bolt cutters on a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, that has a working platform more than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface in violation of § 660.32 (a).
            (aa) Fail to carry line clippers and wire or bolt cutters on a vessel fishing with hooks for Pacific pelagic management unit species within EEZ waters around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands that has a working platform more than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface in violation of § 660.32 (a)(2).
            (bb) Fail to carry line clippers and wire or bolt cutters on a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit or on a vessel fishing with hooks for Pacific pelagic management unit species within EEZ waters around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands, that has a working platform less than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface, in violation of § 660.32 (a)(3).
            (cc) Fail to comply with the sea turtle handling, resuscitation, and release requirements when operating a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, or fishing with hooks for Pacific pelagic management unit species within EEZ waters around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands in violation of § 660.32(b).

            (dd) Direct fishing effort toward the harvest of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) using longline gear deployed north of the equator on a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit in violation of § 660.33(a).
            (ee) Fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species with a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit within closed areas or by use of unapproved gear configurations in violation of § 660.33 (b), (c), (g), or (h).
            (ff) Use a receiving vessel registered for use under a receiving vessel permit to receive, land, or tranship from another vessel, Pacific pelagic management unit species harvested from closed areas with longline gear in violation of § 660.33 (d).
            (gg) Land or tranship shoreward of the outer boundary of the EEZ around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands, Pacific pelagic management unit species that were harvested from closed areas with longline gear in violation of § 660.33 (e).

            (hh) Possess a light stick on board a vessel registered for use under either a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, on fishing trips that include any fishing north of the equator (0° lat.) in violation of § 660.33 (f).
            (ii) Possess or land more than 10 swordfish on board a vessel registered for use under either a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, from a fishing trip where any part of the trip included fishing north of the equator (0°  lat.) in violation of § 660.33 (i).
            (jj) Operate a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species without having onboard a valid protected species workshop certificate issued by NMFS or a legible copy thereof in violation of § 660.34 (c).
            (kk) Fail to comply with seabird take mitigation or handling techniques required under § 660.35(a) and (b).
            (ll) Use a large vessel to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species within an American Samoa large vessel prohibited area except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under  § 660.38.

          4.  In § 660.32 paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) respectively, new paragraphs (a)(1), and (a)(2) are added, and paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows  (Note:  This proposed revision would supersede the addition of paragraph (a)(3), at 66 FR 31564, June 12, 2001, originally effective June 12, 2001, through December 10, 2001, and later extended to June 8, 2002, at 66 FR 63630, December 10, 2001):

            § 660.32
            Sea turtle take mitigation measures.
            (a) Possession and use of required mitigation gear—(1) Owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit that have working platforms more than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface must carry aboard their vessels line clippers meeting the minimum design standards as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, dip nets meeting minimum standards prescribed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and wire or bolt cutters capable of cutting through the vessel's hooks.  These items must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles with the least harm possible to the sea turtles and as close to the hook as possible in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
            (2) Owners and operators of vessels using hooks to target Pacific pelagic management unit species within EEZ waters around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands, that have working platforms more than 3 ft (0.9 m) above the sea surface must carry aboard their vessels line clippers meeting the minimum design standards as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and wire or bolt cutters capable of cutting through the vessel's hooks.  These items must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles with the least harm possible to the sea turtles and as close to the hook as possible in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
            (3) Owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, or using hooks to target Pacific pelagic management unit species within EEZ waters around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands, that have working platforms 3 ft (0.9 m) or less above the sea surface must carry aboard their vessels line clippers capable of cutting the vessels fishing line or leader within approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) of the eye of an embedded hook as well as wire or bolt cutters capable of cutting through the vessel's hooks.  These items must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles with the least harm possible to the sea turtles and as close to the hook as possible in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

          5.  Section 660.33 is revised to read as follows (Note:  This proposed revision would supersede the suspension of § 660.33 at 66 FR 31564, June 12, 2001, originally effective from June 12, 2001, through December 10, 2001, and later extended to June 8, 2002, at 66 FR 63630, December 10, 2001):

            § 660.33
            Western Pacific longline fishing restrictions.

            (a) Owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit may not use longline gear to fish for or target swordfish (Xiphias gladius) north of the equator (0° lat.).
            (b) A person aboard a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a western Pacific general longline permit that is fishing for Pacific pelagic management unit species north of the equator (0° lat.) may not possess or deploy any float line that is shorter than or equal to 20 m (65.6 ft or 10.9 fm).  As used in this paragraph “float line” means a line used to suspend the main longline beneath a float.
            (c) From April 1 through May 31, owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit may not use longline gear in waters bounded on the south by 0° lat., on the north by 15° N. lat., on the east by 145° W. long., and on the west by 180° long. (see Figure 1 to this section).
            (d) From April 1 through May 31, owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a receiving vessel permit may not receive from another vessel Pacific pelagic management unit species that were harvested by longline gear in waters bounded on the south by 0° lat., on the north by 15° N. lat., on the east by 145° W. long., and on the west by 180° long. (see Figure 1 to this section).
            (e) From April 1 through May 31, owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit, a longline general permit, or a receiving vessel permit, may not land or transship shoreward of the outer boundary of the EEZ around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway, Johnston or Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef, and Wake, Jarvis, Baker, or Howland Islands, Pacific pelagic management unit species that were harvested by longline gear in waters bounded on the south by 0° latitude, on the north by 15° N. lat., on the east by 145° W. long., and on the west by 180° long. (see Figure 1 to this section).
            (f) No light stick may be possessed on board a vessel registered for use under either a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, during fishing trips that include any fishing north of the equator (0° lat.).  A light stick as used in this paragraph is any type of light emitting device, including any flourescent “glow bead,” chemical, or electrically powered light that is affixed underwater to the longline gear.

            (g) When a conventional monofilament longline is deployed in the water north of 0° lat. by a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit, no fewer than 15 branch lines may be set between any 2 floats when fishing north of the equator.  Vessel operators using basket-style longline gear must set a minimum of 10 branch lines between any 2 floats when fishing north of the equator.
            (h) Longline gear deployed north of 0° lat. by a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit must be deployed such that the deepest point of the main longline between any 2 floats, i.e., the deepest point in each sag of the main line, is at a depth greater than 100 m (328.1 ft or 54.6 fm) below the sea surface.(i) Owners and operators of longline vessels registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit may land or possess no more than 10 swordfish from a fishing trip where any part of the trip included fishing north of the equator (0° lat.).

          BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          Figure 1 to § 660.33—Longline Fishing Restricted Area

            EP29AP02.000

          BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

          6.  Section 660.36 is redesignated as § 660.34 and revised to read as follows (Note:  This redesignation and revision supersedes the addition to § 660.34 and Figure 3 to § 660.34, at 66 FR 31564, June 12, 2001, effective June 12, 2001, through Dec. 10, 2001, and the effective date was extended to June 8, 2002, at 66 FR 63630, Dec. 10, 2001):

            § 660.34
            Protected species workshop.
            (a) Each year the operator of a vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit must attend and be certified for completion of a workshop conducted by NMFS on mitigation, handling, and release techniques for turtles and seabirds and other protected species.
            (b) A protected species workshop certificate will be issued by NMFS annually to any person who has completed the workshop.
            (c) An operator of a vessel registered for use under Hawaii longline limited access permit or a longline general permit and engaged in longline fishing, must have on board the vessel a valid protected species workshop certificate issued by NMFS or a legible copy thereof.

      [FR Doc. 02-10081 Filed 4-26-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 181010932-8999-01]
        RIN 0648-XG562
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 2019 Bluefish Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2019 Atlantic bluefish fishery, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This action is necessary to comply with the implementing regulations of the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan that require NMFS to publish specifications for the fishery after providing the opportunity for public comment. The proposed specifications are intended to establish allowable harvest levels for the stock that will prevent overfishing while allowing optimum yield, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan. This action also informs the public of the proposed fishery specifications, and provides an opportunity for comment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by January 10, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0127, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0127,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          —OR—

            Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Bluefish Specifications.”

            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 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).

          Copies of the Supplemental Information Report (SIR) prepared for this action and other supporting documents for the proposed specifications are available upon request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at http://www.mafmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission jointly manage the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP requires the specification of the acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch targets (ACT), commercial quotas, recreational harvest limit, and other management measures, for up to three years at a time. This action proposes specifications for the bluefish fishery for the 2019 fishing year.
        In 2015, the 60th Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop concluded that the Atlantic bluefish stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The most recent data update (2018) showed slight declines in biomass after 2016, but no change in stock status from the 2015 benchmark assessment. Based on this best available scientific information, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended that specifications for the 2019 bluefish fishery remain unchanged from the 2018 specifications provided in the August 4, 2016, final rule (81 FR 26267), as corrected in the September 27, 2016, final rule (81 FR 66197). The SSC found no compelling reason to change the overfishing limit, ABC, or subsequent catch limits and targets. The Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee (MC) also made status quo recommendations following their 2018 meeting, consistent with the SSC.

        The Bluefish FMP has a prescriptive process for deriving specifications from the ABC. The FMP sets the ACL equal to the ABC, and there is historically no reduction due to management uncertainty because of persistent under-harvest of available catch limits. The ACL is then divided between the commercial and recreational sectors by allocating 17 percent to the commercial ACT and 83 percent to the recreational ACT. Discards are then subtracted from each sector to calculate each sector's TAL. Commercial discards are assumed to be negligible and recreational discards are projected using a terminal year estimate derived from Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) data. If the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit, then quota may be transferred from the recreational to the commercial sector increasing the resulting commercial quota up to 10.5 million pounds (4,763 mt). The Council may also specify a research set-aside (RSA) quota of up to 3 percent of the TAL; however, no RSA quota has been allocated since 2015. The final commercial quota is then allocated to the coastal states from Maine to Florida based on percent shares specified in the FMP.
        The Council and the Commission's Bluefish Management Board met jointly in August 2018 to consider the SSC and MC's recommendations and receive public comments. The Council and Board also voted to recommend largely status quo specifications for the 2019 bluefish fishery. Additionally, the Council recommended that the 2017 estimate of recreational catch be used as the basis for recreational landings projections and discards. They also recommended that the sector quota transfer from the recreational fishery to the commercial fishery be 4.0 million pounds (1,814 mt), rather than the maximum allowable transfer of 6.1 million pounds (2,767 mt). The Council stated that the resulting final quotas more accurately represent the current sector-based allocations and the overall goals of the Bluefish FMP. This will result in slightly different final commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits than 2018, so proposed specifications are not entirely status quo. The Council and Board did not recommend changes to any other regulations in place for bluefish; therefore, all other fishery management measures in place would remain unchanged for the 2019 fishing year.
        The bluefish stock will undergo an operational assessment in early 2019. The assessment is designed to incorporate updated MRIP information. It is expected the Council and Commission will use the assessment results to set specifications for the 2020-2022 fishing years.
        Proposed Specifications
        A summary of the Council's recommended specifications is shown below in Table 1.

          Table 1—Summary of Current 2018 and Proposed 2019 Bluefish Specifications

            Current 2018 specifications
            million lb
            metric tons
            Proposed 2019 specifications
            million lb
            metric tons

            Overfishing Limit
            27.97
            12,688
            27.97
            12,688

            ABC = ACL
            21.81
            9,895
            21.81
            9,895

            Commercial ACT
            3.71
            1,682
            3.71
            1,682

            Recreational ACT
            18.11
            8,213
            18.11
            8,213

            Commercial TAL
            3.71
            1,682
            3.71
            1,682

            Recreational TAL
            15.11
            6,857
            15.62
            7,083

            Sector Transfer
            3.54
            1,604
            4.00
            1,814

            Commercial Quota
            7.24
            3,286
            7.71
            3,497

            Recreational Harvest Limit
            11.58
            5,253
            11.62
            5,271

        These recommendations are largely status quo compared to the current 2018 specifications, with only minor adjustments to the final commercial quota and recreational harvest limit to account for most recent recreational catch and an adjusted sector transfer. The Council and Board did not recommend any changes to the recreational fishing measures for bluefish, so the possession limit of up to 15 fish per person would remain in place for 2019.
        Once the final commercial quota is determined, state commercial quota from Maine through Florida are allocated based on specified percentages defined in the FMP. The proposed commercial state allocations for 2019 based on the Council-recommended commercial quota is shown below in Table 2. No states exceeded their state allocated quota in 2018; therefore, no accountability measures need to be implemented for the 2019 fishing year.

          Table 2—Proposed 2019 Bluefish State Commercial Quota Allocations

            State
            Percent share
            Proposedquota
              (lb)

            Proposedquota
              (mt)

            Maine
            0.67
            51,538
            23.38

            New Hampshire
            0.41
            31,956
            14.49

            Massachusetts
            6.72
            517,828
            234.88

            Rhode Island
            6.81
            524,874
            238.08

            Connecticut
            1.27
            97,626
            44.28

            New York
            10.39
            800,645
            363.17

            New Jersey
            14.82
            1,142,264
            518.12

            Delaware
            1.88
            144,801
            65.68

            Maryland
            3.00
            231,426
            104.97

            Virginia
            11.88
            915,857
            415.43

            North Carolina
            32.06
            2,471,746
            1121.17

            South Carolina
            0.04
            2,714
            1.23

            Georgia
            0.01
            732
            0.33

            Florida
            10.06
            775,558
            351.79

            Total
            100.00
            7,709,565
            3,497.00

        The current 2018 specifications are in effect until December 31, 2018. After this date, the bluefish fishery will function without a quota in 2019 until these proposed specifications are finalized. Therefore, it is important to implement final specifications as quickly as possible into the fishing year in January 2019 to minimize time without functional quotas. To accomplish this, NMFS is requesting public comments by January 10, 2019. Please see the DATES section for submission instructions.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule is exempt from review under 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.
        The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a SIR. Because no regulatory changes are proposed that would affect the bluefish fishery, they are not considered in the evaluation. The proposed measures would maintain the existing 2018 bluefish catch specifications and management measures with only minor adjustments to the final recreational TAL and resulting specifications.
        According to the commercial ownership database, 703 affiliate firms landed bluefish commercially (with a Federal commercial and/or charter/party permit) during the 2015-2017 period. Of the 703 affiliate firms categorized as commercial fishing operations, 698 are categorized as small business and 5 categorized as large business. Because the Council-recommended specifications are largely status quo, the proposed action would have no impact on the way the fishery operates or affect small entities. These measures are expected to provide similar fishing opportunities in 2019 when compared to 2018 (proxy for base year 2017). As such, revenue changes are not expected in 2019 due to these specifications.
        Analyses indicate that the proposed action is not expected to substantially change fishing effort or the risk of overfishing, prices/revenues, or fishery behavior. The proposed specifications are intended to maintain stability in the fishery for all regulated entities, while maintaining the healthy stock condition.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in this action.

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

          Dated: December 18, 2018.
          Donna S. Wieting,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-27878 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 111104664-1798-01]
        RIN 0648-BB61
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Revisions of Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Protocols

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the framework procedures for adjusting management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic FMP), this rule would certify two new bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) for use in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and South Atlantic shrimp fisheries, and revise a harvesting restriction for shrimp vessels fishing in Federal waters of the Gulf. Both BRDs represent modifications to the Composite Panel BRD, which is provisionally certified through May 24, 2012. This rule would incorporate these BRDs to the list of allowable BRDs, and provide technical specifications for the construction and subsequent legal enforcement of these BRDs. Additionally, this rule would revise the shrimp effort reduction threshold for the Gulf shrimp fishery. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to improve bycatch reduction efforts in the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp fisheries, provide greater flexibility to the industry, reduce the social and economic impacts to fishing communities, and meet the requirements of National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 8, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0274, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (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 at http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0274” in the keyword search, then select “Send a Comment or Submission.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Wordperfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Steve Branstetter, telephone: (727) 824-5305, fax: (727) 824-5308, email: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The shrimp fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf is managed under the Gulf FMP prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council), and the shrimp fishery in the EEZ of the South Atlantic is managed under the South Atlantic FMP prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council). The Gulf and South Atlantic FMPs are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This rule would certify two new BRDs for use in the Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp fisheries, and revise a harvesting restriction for shrimp vessels fishing in Federal waters of the Gulf.
        BRD Certifications
        BRDs are modifications to trawl nets that limit the amount of non-targeted species caught during a fishing trip. Federal regulations require BRDs to be installed in shrimp trawls in nearly all southeastern shrimp fisheries conducted in Federal waters. The South Atlantic Council established this requirement in 1997 (April 16, 1997, 62 FR 18536). Similar requirements were established by the Gulf Council in 1998 for the western Gulf (April 14, 1998, 63 FR 18139), and in 2004 for the eastern Gulf (January 9, 2004, 69 FR 1538).
        In 2008, NMFS published a final rule (February 13, 2008, 73 FR 8219) establishing a standardized criterion by which all BRDs are certified for use in the southeastern shrimp fisheries. To be certified for use in the fisheries, data collected under a standardized sampling procedure must demonstrate a BRD candidate reduces finfish biomass by at least 30 percent. To ensure the statistical certainty in regard to the sample mean value, under a Bayesian approach, the result must meet two probability statements:
        1. “There is a 50 percent probability the true reduction rate meets the bycatch reduction criterion,” and
        2. “There is no more than a 10 percent probability the true reduction rate is more than 5 percent less than the bycatch reduction criterion.”

        In addition, NMFS established a provisional certification status that applies to a BRD candidate not quite meeting the criteria for certification. A BRD provisional certification is effective for 2 years from the date of a publication in the Federal Register originally announcing the provisional certification. This time period is intended to allow additional wide-scale industry evaluation of the BRD candidate. The intent is to also further refine the design or application of the BRD candidate so it can eventually meet the certification criterion with greater certainty. To be provisionally certified, statistical analyses of the test results for a BRD candidate must demonstrate:

          There is at least a 50 percent probability the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate is no more than 5 percent less than the bycatch reduction criterion (i.e., the BRD candidate demonstrates a best point estimate [sample mean] of 25 percent or greater for finfish bycatch reduction).

        In 2008, NMFS published a final rule (February 13, 2008, 73 FR 8219) which provisionally certified the Composite Panel BRD for use in Federal waters throughout the Gulf and South Atlantic. The initial test data for this BRD indicated there is a 52 percent probability the true reduction rate of this BRD design is at least 25 percent.

        The provisional certification of the Composite Panel BRD in the Gulf and South Atlantic, along with the Expanded Mesh BRD in the Gulf, was extended in 2010 through May 24, 2012 (May 24, 2010, 75 FR 28760). No new data were available to indicate these two BRDs no longer met the provisional certification criterion. As of May 25, 2012, 2 years after the provisional certification expires, both provisionally certified BRDs will be automatically decertified, and not allowed for use in the shrimp fisheries. It should be noted that the Expanded Mesh BRD remains fully certified for use in the South Atlantic after May 25, 2012.
        Since 2010, subsequent industry testing has occurred for various modifications to the Composite Panel BRD following standardized procedures outlined by NMFS and using NMFS-approved observers to collect the data. Subsequently, NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center personnel conducted the statistical analyses of the data collected on two of these modified versions of the Composite Panel BRD. One version incorporates the addition of a square mesh panel [Square Mesh Panel (SMP) Composite Panel BRD]; the other version incorporates the addition of a cone fish deflector in the cod end of the trawl behind the BRD (Cone Fish Deflector Composite Panel BRD). Results indicated the SMP Composite Panel BRD reduces finfish biomass by 49.9 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval of 44.1 to 55.6 percent. A Bayesian analysis indicates a 100 percent probability that the reduction rate exceeds the target 30 percent finfish biomass reduction, and there is less than a 1 percent probability that the reduction rate is less than the minimum threshold of 25 percent. Results for the Cone Fish Deflector Composite Panel BRD indicate it reduces finfish biomass by 51.3 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval of 45.0 to 57.7 percent. A Bayesian analysis indicates a 100 percent probability that the reduction rate exceeds the target 30 percent finfish biomass reduction, and there is less than a 1 percent probability that the reduction rate is less than the minimum threshold of 25 percent.
        BRDs may have different capabilities under different fishing conditions, and having a wider variety of BRDs for use in the fisheries would allow fishermen to choose the most effective BRD for the specific local fishing conditions.
        Gulf Shrimp Trawl Effort Threshold
        To end overfishing of Gulf red snapper by 2010, the 2005 Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR 7) stock assessment results indicated the benchmark 2001-2003 level of red snapper bycatch mortality attributable to shrimp fishing needed to be reduced by 74 percent. Regulations implementing Amendment 14 to the Gulf FMP (January 29, 2008, 73 FR 5117) established, for 2008 through 2010, an effort reduction threshold 74 percent less than the effort during the benchmark years. This threshold applies to fishing effort expended by the shrimp fleet between the 10 fathom (18.3 m) and 30 fathom (54.9 m) depth contours from Mobile Bay, Alabama to the Texas-Mexico border. The depth stratum in this geographic range is known to have higher concentrations of juvenile red snapper.
        In establishing this regulation, the Gulf Council recognized that recovery of the red snapper stock would provide direct benefits through incremental increases in allowable catch to those persons in the directed reef fish fishery who target red snapper. However, there are no similar direct benefits accruable to the shrimp fishery for its contribution towards rebuilding the red snapper stock. Therefore, to provide some recovery benefit for the Gulf shrimp fishery, the Gulf Council decided to relax the threshold for bycatch mortality reduction over time. In Amendment 14, the Gulf Council decided the effort threshold for the shrimp fishery should be relaxed to a 67 percent reduction from the 2001-2003 benchmark beginning in 2011, contingent upon updated stock assessments indicating the red snapper stock is rebuilding on schedule, and that overfishing ended by 2010.
        An update assessment for red snapper was conducted in August 2009. The conclusions of the update assessment projected that overfishing likely ended in 2009, and the stock appeared to be increasing in accordance with the rebuilding plan targets. Based on these results, the Gulf Council submitted regulatory amendments to the Gulf reef fish FMP in 2010 and 2011 to increase the allowable catch for the directed reef fish fishery in each of those years, and NMFS implemented the allowable harvest increases through subsequent rulemaking (May 1, 2010, 75 FR 23186; April 29, 2011, 76 FR 23911).
        Given that the Gulf red snapper stock appears to be rebuilding at the expected levels, and overfishing is projected to have ended, the directed reef fish fishery for red snapper is recognizing the benefits of stock recovery. This rulemaking to relax the shrimp effort threshold is intended to provide similar benefits to the shrimp fleet, as intended by the Gulf Council.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Gulf and South Atlantic FMPs, 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.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
        This proposed rule would not impose any new requirements on fishing entities in the southeastern shrimp fisheries. There are 2,144 unique vessels with permits to harvest shrimp in the EEZ of the Gulf and South Atlantic. These shrimp trawlers are already required to have a BRD installed in their shrimp nets and fishermen can continue to use their existing BRD. The proposed action would certify two new BRDs and simply allow fishermen, at their discretion, to use an alternative BRD in their shrimp nets. It would also provide greater flexibility in the construction and installation requirements for the Composite Panel BRD. Any decision to use alternative gear would be expected to occur only if its use would result in improved performance by the fishing vessel. As a result, any economic effects on any entity—large or small—are expected to be positive. Providing greater flexibility in the construction and installation requirements for the two new BRDs is also expected to lower costs and result in no additional adverse economic effects.

        The proposed action to reduce the bycatch reduction threshold for juvenile red snapper in the Gulf shrimp fishery from 74 percent to 67 percent is also not expected to have direct economic effects on the 1,707 vessels with permits to harvest shrimp from the Gulf EEZ. If economic conditions in the fishery improve, decreasing the bycatch reduction threshold would allow vessels to increase their effort and thereby increase their gross revenue and potentially their profits. Further, the proposed reduction in bycatch threshold, and the resulting potential increase in fishing effort, is consistent with the red snapper rebuilding plan and the most recent red snapper stock assessment.
        Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant direct economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: January 4, 2012.
          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 622 is 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 § 622.34, the second sentence of paragraph (l)(1) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.34
            Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

            (l) * * *
            (1) * * * The RA's determination of the need for such closure and its geographical scope and duration will be based on an annual assessment, by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, of the shrimp effort and associated shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper in the 10-30 fathom area of statistical zones 10-21, compared to the 67-percent target reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper from the benchmark years of 2001-2003 established in the FMP. * * *

            3. In § 622.41, paragraph (g)(3)(ii) is removed and reserved and paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(G) and (H) are added to read as follows:

            § 622.41
            Species specific limitations.

            (g) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (G) Cone Fish Deflector Composite Panel.
            (H) Square Mesh Panel (SMP) Composite Panel.

            4. In Appendix D to part 622, paragraph (G) is revised and paragraph (H) is added to read as follows:

              Appendix D to Part 622B—Specifications for Certified BRDs

              G. Cone Fish Deflector Composite Panel
              1. Description. The Cone Fish Deflector Composite Panel BRD is a variation to the alternative funnel construction method of the Jones-Davis BRD, except the funnel is assembled by using depth-stretched and heat-set polyethylene webbing with square mesh panels on the inside instead of the flaps formed from the extension webbing. In addition, no hoops are used to hold the BRD open.
              2. Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements. The Cone Fish Deflector Composite Panel BRD must contain all of the following:
              (a) Webbing extension. The webbing extension must be constructed from a single rectangular piece of 11/2-inch to 13/4-inch (3.8-cm to 4.5-cm) stretch mesh number with dimensions of 241/2 meshes by 150 to 160 meshes. A tube is formed from the extension webbing piece by sewing the 241/2-mesh sides together. The leading edge of the webbing extension must be attached no more than 4 meshes from the posterior edge of the TED grid.
              (b) Funnel. The V-shaped funnel consists of two webbing panels attached to the extension along the leading edge of the panels. The top and bottom edges of the panels are sewn diagonally across the extension toward the center to form the funnel. The panels are 2-ply in design, each with an inner layer of 11/2-inch to 15/8-inch (3.8-cm to 4.1-cm) heat-set and depth-stretched polyethylene webbing and an outer layer constructed of no larger than 2-inch (5.1-cm) square mesh webbing (1-inch bar). The inner webbing layer must be rectangular in shape, 36 meshes on the leading edge by 20 meshes deep. The 36-mesh leading edges of the polyethylene webbing should be sewn evenly to 24 meshes of the extension webbing 11/2 meshes from and parallel to the leading edge of the extension starting 12 meshes up from the bottom center on each side. Alternately sew 2 meshes of the polyethylene webbing to 1 mesh of the extension webbing then 1 mesh of the polyethylene webbing to 1 mesh of the extension webbing toward the top. The bottom 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene layers are sewn evenly to the extension webbing on a 2 bar 1 mesh angle toward the bottom back center forming a v-shape in the bottom of the extension webbing. The top 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene layers are sewn evenly along the bars of the extension webbing toward the top back center. The square mesh layers must be rectangular in shape and constructed of no larger than 2-inch (5.1-cm) webbing that is 18 inches (45.7 cm) in length on the leading edge. The depth of the square mesh layer must be no more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) less than the 20 mesh side of the inner polyethylene layer when stretched taught. The 18-inch (45.7-cm) leading edge of each square mesh layer must be sewn evenly to the 36-mesh leading edge of the polyethylene section and the sides are sewn evenly (in length) to the 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene webbing. This will form a v-shape funnel using the top of the extension webbing as the top of the funnel and the bottom of the extension webbing as the bottom of the funnel.
              (c) Cutting the escape opening. There are two escape openings on each side of the funnel. The leading edge of the escape openings must be located on the same row of meshes in the extension webbing as the leading edge of the composite panels. The lower openings are formed by starting at the first attachment point of the composite panels and cutting 9 meshes in the extension webbing on an even row of meshes toward the top of the extension. Next, turn 90 degrees and cut 15 points on an even row toward the back of the extension webbing. At this point turn and cut 18 bars toward the bottom front of the extension webbing. Finish the escape opening by cutting 6 points toward the original starting point. The top escape openings start 5 meshes above and mirror the lower openings. Starting at the leading edge of the composite panel and 5 meshes above the lower escape opening, cut 9 meshes in the extension on an even row of meshes toward the top of the extension. Next, turn 90 degrees, and cut 6 points on an even row toward the back of the extension webbing. Then cut 18 bars toward the bottom back of the extension. To complete the escape opening, cut 15 points forward toward the original starting point. The area of each escape opening must total at least 212 in2 (1,368 cm2). The four escape openings must be double selvaged for strength.
              (d) Cone fish deflector. The cone fish deflector is constructed of 2 pieces of 15/8-inch (4.1-cm) polypropylene or polyethylene webbing, 40 meshes wide by 20 meshes in length and cut on the bar on each side forming a triangle. Starting at the apex of the two triangles, the two pieces must be sewn together to form a cone of webbing. The apex of the cone fish deflector must be positioned within 12 inches (30.5 cm) of the posterior edge of the funnel.
              (e) 11-inch (27.9-cm) cable hoop for cone deflector. A single hoop must be constructed of 5/16-inch (0.79-cm) or 3/8-inch (0.95-cm) cable 34 1/2 inches (87.6 cm) in length. The ends must be joined by a 3-inch (7.6-cm) piece of 3/8-inch (0.95-cm) aluminum pipe pressed together with a 1/4-inch (0.64-cm) die. The hoop must be inserted in the webbing cone, attached 10 meshes from the apex and laced all the way around with heavy twine.
              (f) Installation of the cone in the extension. The apex of the cone must be installed in the extension within 12 inches (30.5 cm) behind the back edge of the funnel and attached in four places. The midpoint of a piece of number 60 twine (or at least 4-mesh wide strip of number 21 or heavier webbing) 3 ft (1.22 m) in length must be attached to the apex of the cone. This piece of twine or webbing must be attached within 5 meshes of the aft edge of the funnel at the center of each of its sides. Two 12-inch (30.5-cm) pieces of number 60 (or heavier) twine must be attached to the top and bottom of the 11-inch (27.9-cm) cone hoop. The opposite ends of these two pieces of twine must be attached to the top and bottom center of the extension webbing to keep the cone from inverting into the funnel.

              H. Square Mesh Panel (SMP) Composite Panel
              1. Description. The SMP is a panel of square mesh webbing placed in the top of the cod end to provide finfish escape openings.
              2. Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements. The SMP Composite Panel BRD must contain all of the following:
              (a) Webbing extension. The webbing extension must be constructed from a single rectangular piece of 11/2-inch to 13/4-inch (3.8-cm to 4.5-cm) stretch mesh number with dimensions of 241/2 meshes by 150 to 160 meshes. A tube is formed from the extension webbing piece by sewing the 241/2-mesh sides together. The leading edge of the webbing extension must be attached no more than 4 meshes from the posterior edge of the TED grid.
              (b) Funnel. The V-shaped funnel consists of two webbing panels attached to the extension along the leading edge of the panels. The top and bottom edges of the panels are sewn diagonally across the extension toward the center to form the funnel. The panels are 2-ply in design, each with an inner layer of 11/2-inch to 15/8-inch (3.8-cm to 4.1-cm) heat-set and depth-stretched polyethylene webbing and an outer layer constructed of no larger than 2-inch (5.1-cm) square mesh webbing (1-inch bar). The inner webbing layer must be rectangular in shape, 36 meshes on the leading edge by 20 meshes deep. The 36-mesh leading edges of the polyethylene webbing should be sewn evenly to 24 meshes of the extension webbing 11/2 meshes from and parallel to the leading edge of the extension starting 12 meshes up from the bottom center on each side. Alternately sew 2 meshes of the polyethylene webbing to 1 mesh of the extension webbing then 1 mesh of the polyethylene webbing to 1 mesh of the extension webbing toward the top. The bottom 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene layers are sewn evenly to the extension webbing on a 2 bar 1 mesh angle toward the bottom back center forming a v-shape in the bottom of the extension webbing. The top 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene layers are sewn evenly along the bars of the extension webbing toward the top back center. The square mesh layers must be rectangular in shape and constructed of no larger than 2-inch (5.1-cm) webbing that is 18 inches (45.7 cm) in length on the leading edge. The depth of the square mesh layer must be no more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) less than the 20 mesh side of the inner polyethylene layer when stretched taut. The 18-inch (45.7-cm) leading edge of each square mesh layer must be sewn evenly to the 36-mesh leading edge of the polyethylene section and the sides are sewn evenly (in length) to the 20-mesh edges of the polyethylene webbing. This will form a v-shape funnel using the top of the extension webbing as the top of the funnel and the bottom of the extension webbing as the bottom of the funnel.
              (c) Cutting the escape opening. There are two escape openings on each side of the funnel. The leading edge of the escape openings must be located on the same row of meshes in the extension webbing as the leading edge of the composite panels. The lower openings are formed by starting at the first attachment point of the composite panels and cutting 9 meshes in the extension webbing on an even row of meshes toward the top of the extension. Next, turn 90 degrees and cut 15 points on an even row toward the back of the extension webbing. At this point turn and cut 18 bars toward the bottom front of the extension webbing. Finish the escape opening by cutting 6 points toward the original starting point. The top escape openings start 5 meshes above and mirror the lower openings. Starting at the leading edge of the composite panel and 5 meshes above the lower escape opening, cut 9 meshes in the extension on an even row of meshes toward the top of the extension. Next, turn 90 degrees, and cut 6 points on an even row toward the back of the extension webbing. Then cut 18 bars toward the bottom back of the extension. To complete the escape opening, cut 15 points forward toward the original starting point. The area of each escape opening must total at least 212 in2 (1,368 cm2). The four escape openings must be double selvaged for strength.
              (d) SMP. The SMP is constructed from a single piece of square mesh webbing with a minimum dimension of 5 squares wide and 12 squares in length with a minimum mesh size of 3-in (76-mm) stretched mesh. The maximum twine diameter of the square mesh is #96 twine (4 mm).
              (e) Cutting the SMP escape opening. The escape opening is a rectangular hole cut in the top center of the cod end webbing. The posterior edge of the escape opening must be placed no farther forward that 8 ft (2.4 m) from the cod end drawstring (tie-off rings). The width of the escape opening, as measured across the cod end, must be four cod end meshes per square of the SMP (i.e. a cut of 20 cod end meshes for a SMP that is 5 meshes wide). The stretched mesh length of the escape opening must be equal to the total length of the SMP. No portion of the SMP escape opening may be covered with additional material or netting such as chaffing webbing which might impede or prevent fish escapement.
              (f) Installation of the SMP. The SMP must be attached to the edge of the escape opening evenly around the perimeter of the escape opening cut with heavy twine.

      [FR Doc. 2012-153 Filed 1-6-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P