        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 190423389-9389-01]
        RIN 0648-BI95
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Grouper Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). The framework action is titled “Modification of Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper Annual Catch Limits and Annual Catch Targets.” This proposed rule would reduce the red grouper commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs). The purpose of this rule is to continue the Gulf red grouper commercial and recreational ACL and ACT reductions implemented through emergency rulemaking in 2019 to protect the stock and to continue to achieve optimum yield (OY).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by August 19, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0061” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0061, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit all written comments to Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/framework-action-modification-gulf-mexico-red-grouper-annual-catch-limits-and-annual-catch.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: peter.hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The FMP, which includes red grouper, was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
        All weights described in this proposed rule are in gutted weight.
        Background
        The stock status of Gulf red grouper was last evaluated in 2015 through the Southeast Data Assessment Review (SEDAR) 42 stock assessment. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the assessment results and agreed with the assessment's determination that red grouper were not overfished or experiencing overfishing. At that time, the SSC recommended increases in the overfishing limit and the acceptable biological catch (ABC), which were the basis for the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs in place prior to the 2019 emergency rule.
        Based on this assessment, the red grouper commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs were implemented through a framework action to the FMP in 2016 (81 FR 70365, October 12, 2016). These values were based on a red grouper stock ACL equal to 10.70 million lb (4.85 million kg). The current sector allocation for red grouper is 76 percent commercial and 24 percent recreational, and the commercial and recreational ACTs reduce the sector-specific ACLs by 95 percent and 92 percent, respectively. Prior to the 2019 emergency rule, as of 2018, the red grouper commercial ACL in effect was 8,190,000 lb (3,714,922 kg) and the commercial ACT (commercial quota) was 7,780,000 lb (3,528,949 kg); while the red grouper recreational ACL in effect was 2,580,000 lb (1,170,268 kg) and the recreational ACT was 2,370,000 lb (1,075,014 kg).
        At the October 2018 meeting, the Council requested that NMFS implement an emergency or interim rule to reduce the Gulf red grouper stock ACL for the 2019 fishing year to 4.60 million lb (2.09 million kg), or equal to the 2017 total red grouper landings level, whichever is less. The Council also began work on this red grouper framework action to reduce the red grouper catch limits beyond 2019. The Council took these actions based on recent information regarding the health of the stock. Since 2014, combined commercial and recreational Gulf red grouper landings have trended downwards from over 7.26 million lb (3.29 million kg) in 2014 to approximately 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg) in 2017, an indication that the stock may be in decline. The most recent red grouper stock assessment, SEDAR 61, will not be completed until later in 2019. Therefore, the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) conducted an interim red grouper stock analysis to assist the SSC in developing harvest advice for 2019. This analysis suggested that the stock may be declining and supported recommending that the Council reduce the 2019 Gulf red grouper total ACL to 4.60 million lb (2.09 million kg). The Council received this advice at its meeting in October 2018.
        In addition to the SSC's advice based on the interim analysis, the Council heard public testimony at the October 2018 meeting primarily from commercial fishermen. These fishermen expressed concern about the status of the red grouper stock, noting that red grouper are harder to catch than in previous years and that there appears to be a scarcity of legal-size and larger fish throughout the species' range on the west Florida shelf.
        The Council also discussed the severe red tide conditions that occurred off the Florida west coast in the summer and fall of 2018, which may have adversely affected the red grouper stock. Although the impacts of this recent red tide are unknown, the 2009 SEDAR 12 update assessment indicated that a similar red tide event in 2005 reduced the red grouper spawning stock biomass.

        The 2017 combined red grouper commercial and recreational landings (approximately 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg)) are less than the SSC recommended combined ACL of 4.60 million lb (2.09 million kg). Therefore, NMFS implemented an emergency rule (84 FR 22389, May 17, 2019) to reduce the red grouper commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs consistent with a stock ACL of 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg). The emergency rule was effective on May 17, 2019, for 180 days (November 13, 2019), although NMFS may extend the emergency rule's effectiveness for a maximum of an additional 186 days. This allows for sufficient time for the Council and NMFS to develop and implement this rule to manage the red grouper stock for the 2020 fishing year and beyond. Without the measures in this current framework action being implemented to supersede the emergency rule's management measures, the sector ACLs and ACTs will increase and revert back to their values in place in 2018, thereby jeopardizing the red grouper stock health.
        Accountability Measures
        The commercial sector is managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. The commercial red grouper quota equals the commercial ACT, and is allocated to red grouper shareholders each year. The commercial IFQ program also serves as the accountability measure (AM) for the commercial sector.
        The current recreational AMs specify that if the recreational ACL is reached or projected to be reached, red grouper fishing will be closed to the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. If the ACL is exceeded in the following fishing year, the level of harvest will be set at the prior year's recreational ACT and the length of the recreational red grouper fishing season will be adjusted based on the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT. If the stock is overfished and an overage occurs, NMFS will reduce the recreational ACL by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The overage adjustment will also apply to the following year's recreational ACT.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        For red grouper, this proposed rule would continue the red grouper ACLs and ACTs implemented by the emergency rule for the 2019 fishing year. Based on the framework action, the stock ACL would be 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg), which is equal to the combined red grouper commercial and recreational landings. Applying the commercial allocation of 76 percent to the stock ACL of 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg) would continue the commercial ACL of 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg) that was set in the emergency rule. The commercial ACT would be set at 95 percent of the commercial ACL, or 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg).
        For the recreational sector, 24 percent of the 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg) proposed total stock ACL results in a recreational ACL of 1.00 million lb (0.45 million kg). The recreational ACT would be set at 92 percent of the recreational ACL, or 0.92 million lb (0.42 million kg).
        The continuation of the ACLs and ACTs implemented through the emergency action and proposed in this rule are expected to benefit the stock. As described in the framework action, indicators suggest the stock may be in decline and that harvest levels need to be lowered. The actual stock condition is currently being evaluated through SEDAR 61 and the Council's SSC is expected to subsequently make an ABC recommendation. The reductions in ACLs and ACTs by this proposed rule are expected by the Council to lessen the impact of any possible future reductions in the ACLs and ACTs in response to the information and management advice (ABC) derived from SEDAR 61.
        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 FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the RFA, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this proposed rule and its purpose and need are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.
        The rule concerns recreational and commercial fishing for red grouper in Federal waters of the Gulf. It directly affects both anglers (recreational fishers) and commercial fishing businesses that harvest red grouper in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and IFQ shareholders of the commercial red grouper annual quota.
        Anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private or leased vessels. Therefore, neither estimates of the number of anglers nor the impacts on them are required or provided in this analysis.
        Any business that operates a commercial fishing vessel that harvests red grouper in the Gulf EEZ must have a valid Gulf reef fish permit attached to that vessel and the vessel permit must be linked to an IFQ account.
        From 2013 through 2017, an annual average of 376 permitted vessels had IFQ landings of red grouper. An estimated 330 businesses own those vessels that land red grouper annually. All of these businesses operate in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411), but some also in related industries, such as fish and seafood merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424460) and fish and seafood (retail) markets (NAICS code 445220). However, all are expected to operate primarily in the commercial fishing industry.
        For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. A preliminary examination of annual dockside revenues of vessels owned by the above businesses indicates the total annual revenue of each business to be less than $11 million. Consequently, all of the businesses directly affected by the proposed action are identified as small.
        An emergency rule reduced both the red grouper commercial ACL and commercial ACT in 2019. This rule would reduce both the red grouper commercial ACL and commercial ACT beyond 2019: The ACL from 8.19 million lb (3.71 million kg) to 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg), and the ACT (quota) from 7.78 million lb (3.53 million kg) to 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg). That is a quota reduction of 4.78 million lb (2.17 million kg), which is a 61.44 percent decrease.
        The maximum loss of commercial landings would be 4.78 million lb (2.17 million kg). At an average dockside price of $4.11 per lb, the maximum annual loss of total revenue would be approximately $19.65 million (2018 $). However, annual commercial landings of red grouper have been less than the quota and declining.

        From 2013 through 2017, average annual landings totaled 4.56 million lb (2.07 million kg). If future annual landings are consistent with that average, this rule would reduce commercial landings by 1,564,953 lb (709,851 kg) and associated dockside revenue by approximately $6.43 million, a 34.3 percent decrease. The average loss for each of the 330 small businesses would be $19,491 (2018 $), and for each of the 376 vessels, $17,106. However, not all vessels or small businesses are the same. From 2013 through 2017, vessels that used bottom longline gear had 65.5 percent of the red grouper landings, those with bandit gear had 21.5 percent, hand hook-and-line 11.0 percent, and other gears 2.0 percent. If those percentages apply in the future, the average vessel would experience a loss of total annual revenue ranging from 7.3 percent to 28.0 percent, depending on the gear used. Those percentages presume the average dockside price of red grouper stays at the 2018 level of $4.11; however, the decrease in supply is expected to raise that price, which would reduce the adverse economic impact.
        Nonetheless, NMFS concludes that this rule would have a significant economic impact on the average annual 330 commercial fishing businesses and their combined 376 federally permitted fishing vessels that harvest red grouper from the Gulf of Mexico.
        Two alternatives were considered but not selected by the Council. The first alternative, the status quo, would keep the commercial quota at its current level and would have no impact on small businesses. However, it would be expected to have the greatest adverse long-term impact. The second alternative would have a smaller adverse economic impact than the selected action because the reduction of the quota is less: 3.32 million lb (1.51 million kg) versus 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg). However, that second non-selected alternative could generate a smaller long-term benefit than the selected alternative.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Red grouper.

          Dated: July 15, 2019.
          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 OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

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

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

        2. Amend § 622.39 by:
        a. Lifting the suspension on paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C);
        b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C); and
        c. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(D).
        The revision reads as follows:

          § 622.39
          Quotas.

          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (C) Red grouper—3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg)

        3. Amend § 622.41 by:
        a. Lifting the suspension on paragraph (e);
        b. Revising paragraph (e); and
        c. Removing paragraph (r).
        The revision reads as follows:

          § 622.41
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (e) Red grouper—(1) Commercial sector. The IFQ program for groupers and tilefishes in the Gulf of Mexico serves as the accountability measure for commercial red grouper. The commercial ACT for red grouper is equal to the applicable quota specified in § 622.39(a)(1)(iii)(C). The applicable commercial ACL for red grouper, in gutted weight, is 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg).
          (2) Recreational sector. (i) Without regard to overfished status, if red grouper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limit of red grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. This bag and possession limit applies in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e. in state or Federal waters.
          (ii) Without regard to overfished status, and in addition to the measures specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, if red grouper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to maintain the red grouper ACT, specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section, for that following fishing year at the level of the prior year's ACT, unless the best scientific information available determines that maintaining the prior year's ACT is unnecessary. In addition, the notification will reduce the length of the recreational red grouper fishing season the following fishing year by the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT in the following fishing year.
          (iii) If red grouper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, and red grouper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section, the following measures will apply. In addition to the measures specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the ACL for that following year by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year, and reduce the ACT, as determined in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
          (iv) The recreational ACL for red grouper, in gutted weight, is 1.00 million lb (0.45 million kg). The recreational ACT for red grouper, in gutted weight, is 0.92 million lb (0.42 million kg)

      [FR Doc. 2019-15329 Filed 7-18-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter B
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037]
        Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) extends the comment period for its May 28, 2019, advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and its May 31, 2019 correction notice concerning Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that may need to be amended, revised, or eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of automated driving systems equipped commercial motor vehicles onto our Nation's roadways. FMCSA received a request for an extension to the comment period from the American Trucking Associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Technology Engagement Center. The Agency believes it is appropriate to extend the comment period to provide interested parties additional time to submit their responses to the ANPRM. Therefore, the Agency extends the deadline for the submission of comments for 30 days.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the ANPRM published May 28, 2019, at 84 FR 24449, and corrected on May 31, 2019, at 84 FR 25229, is extended by 30 days. Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2018-0037 using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2018-0037. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Michael Huntley, Division Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, michael.huntley@dot.gov, (202) 366-9209. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        A. Submitting Comments

        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037), indicate the specific section of the ANPRM to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2018-0037. Click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
        FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
        B. Viewing Documents and Comments

        To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in the ANPRM as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2018-0037 and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        C. Privacy Act

        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

        II. Background
        The May 2019 ANPRM (84 FR 24449) requested public comment on 10 subject areas: Whether the FMCSRs require a human driver; commercial driver's license endorsements; drivers' hours of service rules; medical qualifications for human operators; distracted driving and monitoring; safe driving and drug and alcohol testing; inspection, repair, and maintenance; roadside inspections; cybersecurity; and confidentiality of shared information.
        The comment period for the ANPRM was set to expire on July 29, 2019. FMCSA received a request to extend the comment period from the American Trucking Associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Technology Engagement Center. A copy of the request, which was not filed in the docket, has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
        ATA and C_TEC requested a 30-day extension of the comment period, stating that the additional time was needed to coordinate with and gather information from members and more usefully respond to the detailed questions posed in the ANPRM.
        FMCSA believes that other potential commenters to this ANPRM will benefit from an extension as well. Accordingly, FMCSA extends the comment period for all comments on the ANPRM to August 28, 2019.
        Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

          Larry W. Minor,
          Associate Administrator for Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2019-16331 Filed 7-26-19; 4:15 pm]
       BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 030612150-3150-01; I.D. 051503B]
        RIN 0648-AQ94
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Regulatory Amendment

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes a regulatory amendment to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This amendment was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce.  The proposed amendment would change the management subareas and the allocation process for Pacific sardine.  The purpose of this proposed amendment is to establish a more effective and efficient allocation process for Pacific sardine and increase the possibility of achieving optimum yield (OY).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 28, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments on the proposed rule to Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA  90802.
          Copies of the environmental assessment/regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) may be obtained from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Pacific sardines are managed pursuant to the CPS FMP, which was implemented by regulations published at 64 FR 69893, December 15, 1999.  The annual harvest guideline for Pacific sardine is allocated two-thirds south of Pt. Piedras Blancas, CA (35°40′ N. lat.) (a point south of Monterey, California, which includes the fishery in Southern California) and one-third north (includes fisheries in Monterey, CA, Oregon, and Washington), beginning annually on January 1.  On October 1, the harvest guideline remaining in each sub-area is added together, then divided equally between the two areas.
        In 2002, the northern allocation was reached before October 1, which required closure of the fishery while significant amounts of sardine remained unharvested in the south (67 FR 58733, September 18, 2002).  Rough ocean conditions in the Pacific Northwest beginning in October make fishing with purse seine gear difficult or impossible.  Because the fisheries off Oregon and Washington would be virtually over by October, the Council requested an emergency rule to make the required allocation in 2002 earlier than October 1, to avoid losses in jobs and revenue.  An emergency rule was implemented on September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60601), that reallocated the harvest guideline and reopened the fishery.
        The FMP established a limited entry fishery south of Pt. Arena, CA (39° N. lat.), which is a point north of San Francisco, CA.  An open access fishery exists north of Pt. Arena, CA made up of fisheries off Northern California, Oregon, and Washington.
        There was no sardine fishery in Oregon and Washington when the CPS FMP was implemented.  The allocation procedure included in the CPS FMP was adopted from California rules and was designed to protect the Monterey, CA fishery (in the northern subarea or Subarea A) from the possibility of the fishery in Southern California (in the southern subarea or Subarea B) catching the entire harvest guideline before sardine became available in Monterey.  The fishing pattern that has developed is that, generally, sardine become available to the Southern California fishery at the beginning of the year, the Pacific Northwest in the summer, and Monterey in the fall.  As a result, there are three areas affected by the existing allocation system rather than two, and the possibility exists that the fishery in the Pacific Northwest might preempt the Monterey fishery.  If Pacific sardine remain unharvested in either area following the reallocation on October 1, there currently is no procedure to make further reallocations to increase the likelihood of achieving optimum yield (OY).
        The Council recognized that a process with more flexibility for making allocation decisions was needed. Therefore, the Council considered a regulatory amendment pursuant to the  framework process identified in 50 CFR 660.517 of the regulations implementing the CPS FMP.  At its November 2002 meeting in Foster City, CA, the Council adopted a set of management alternatives to address the allocation issue and directed its Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (Management Team) to analyze these alternatives and others it believed appropriate.  The primary goal was to avoid closing any segment of the fishery while a portion of the harvest guideline remain unharvested.  The Management Team provided a draft environmental assessment for the Council′s March 2003 meeting in Sacramento, CA, which included a range of options that showed the projected harvest in the three areas and how much of the harvest guideline would remain at the end of the fishing season.  After receiving reports from its Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and its Management Team, and after hearing public comments, the Council adopted a range of alternatives for public review.  A revised environmental assessment was provided to the public during the week of March 24, 2003.
        At its meeting in Vancouver, WA on April 10, 2003, the Council received reports from its Subpanel and its Management Team, and heard public comments.  The Council then adopted an option that:    (1) changes the definition of subarea A and subarea B by moving the geographic boundary between the two areas from Pt. Piedras Blancas at 35° 40′ 00” N. lat. to Pt. Arena at 39° 00′ 00” N. lat., (2) moves the date when Pacific sardine that remain unharvested are reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B from October 1 to September 1, (3) changes the percentage of the unharvested sardine that is reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B from 50 percent to both subareas to 20 percent to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea B, and (4) reallocates all unharvested sardine that remain on December 1 coast wide.  This procedure is proposed to be in effect for 2003 and 2004, and for 2005 if the 2005 harvest guideline is at least 90 percent of the 2003 harvest guideline.
        An interim approach was taken because the sardine resource has recovered after decades of absence and there is insufficient information available on stock structure and migration patterns to assess the impacts of a more detailed allocation process on the fishing communities along the Pacific coast.  The proposed change would most likely avoid the need for an emergency rule to reallocate unharvested portions of the OY and would have a greater possibility of achieving OY than the current allocation process.  Information from resource surveys scheduled for the Pacific Northwest in 2003 and 2004 plus accumulated data on size and age of sardine from all areas of the fishery will improve the assessment model and provide better data for measuring the impacts of various allocation options for the longer-term.
        While the proposed action is being taken as a regulatory amendment under a framework, implementing the proposed action permanently will eventually require a change in Section 5.2 of the FMP, which describes the north-south allocation.  The only regulatory change that would be required is to redefine Subarea A and Subarea B at 50 CFR 660.503.  If the regulatory amendment is approved, the fishery in Monterey, CA would become a part of the Subarea B fishery rather than Subarea A, and Pacific sardine landed in Monterey in 2003 would become part of the Subarea B landings.

        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  The IRFA is available from the Council (see
          ADDRESSES).  A summary of the IRFA follows:

        A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this proposed rule.  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.  There are no reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule.
        Approximately 140 vessels are permitted in the sardine fisheries off the U.S. West Coast; 65 vessels are permitted in the Federal coastal pelagic species (CPS) limited entry fishery off California, while approximately 55 vessels are permitted in State of Oregon and Washington sardine fisheries.  An additional 18 live bait vessels are permitted in Southern California and 2 live bait vessels are permitted in Oregon and Washington.  All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the Small Business Administration standards.  Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts resulting between small and large vessels under the proposed action.  Because cost data are lacking for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels, it was not possible to evaluate the economic impacts from estimated changes in sardine landings in terms of vessel profitability.  Instead, economic impacts were evaluated based only on changes in sardine ex-vessel revenues compared to sardine landings under the status quo.  Therefore, the difference between vessel revenues generated by 2003 proposed quotas and those generated by 2003 projected landings were used as a proxy for vessel profitability among the three regions evaluated.  All projections utilized 2001 data and changes in ex-vessel revenues are described in 2001 dollars.  CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including anchovy, mackerel, squid, and tuna.  However, since data on individual vessel operations were not readily available, it was not possible to evaluate potential changes in fishing strategies by these vessels in response to different opportunities to harvest sardines under each of the allocation alternatives and what this would mean in terms of total ex-vessel revenues from all species.
        Under the proposed action, sardine landings for CPS vessels for the entire West Coast are estimated to increase 9,846 metric tons (mt) from the status quo, with a corresponding increase in ex-vessel value of $1,077,540.  All of the coastwide harvest guideline OY would be caught by the end of the season under the proposed action.  Sardine landings by vessels participating in the Oregon/Washington fishery were estimated to be 7,622 mt greater than the status quo, with ex-vessel revenues increasing by $873,526.  Landings by CPS vessels that historically would have participated in the Northern California sardine fishery would increase 2,449 mt above the status quo with a corresponding rise in ex-vessel revenues of $228,035.  Under the proposed action, a loss of 225 mt in landings was estimated for vessels that historically fished out of Southern California ports, which equates to foregone ex-vessel revenues amounting to $24,021, or approximately $370 per vessel, in lost ex-vessel revenue relative to the status quo.  Twenty live bait vessels landed approximately 2,000 mt per year of mixed species from 1993 through 1997.  Those landings were comprised mostly of Pacific sardine and northern anchovy.  The estimated live bait 18 vessels fishing in Southern California are expected to be only minimally impacted by this action similar to results for the CPS limited entry vessels fishing in that area.  The two live bait vessels fishing in Oregon and Washington are not expected to be impacted by this action.
        For the 65 CPS limited entry vessels that could participate in either the Southern California or Northern California sardine fisheries, the 225 mt loss represents a potential loss in ex-vessel revenues for the CPS vessels choosing to operate in Southern California, which is substantially less than 0.01 percent per vessel.  If the 65 CPS limited entry vessels choose to fish in the traditional Northern California sardine fishery, the potential gain in ex-vessel revenue for that fishery is estimated to be approximately $3,508 per vessel per year.  However, this amount could be underestimated since data from the 2001 SAFE report show that only 27 CPS vessels landed in Monterey/Santa Cruz and only 13 CPS vessels landed in San Francisco.
        Even though limited entry vessels based in Southern California are not restricted from participating in the Northern California or the open access Oregon/Washington sardine fisheries, it is unlikely that it would be profitable for all Southern California vessels to do so due to additional travel time and fuel costs.  However, any loss in profitability by the CPS vessels choosing to fish in Southern California could be mitigated to a certain extent by moving northward to land larger, higher-priced sardines in Northern California ports.
        Vessels that participate in the Oregon/Washington sector of the fishery are estimated to increase ex-vessel revenues by $15,882 per vessel based on the estimated 55 State sardine permits issued.  However, this figure may be underestimated since data show that, of the 35 Washington permitted vessels, only 19 vessels participated in these fisheries in 2002 with the majority of the catch accomplished by only 13 vessels.
        The Council considered 3 alternatives to the proposed action in addition to the no-action alternative.  All alternatives resulted in ex-vessel revenue gains of various magnitudes for the fishery as a whole.  However, the proposed alternative yielded the greatest overall gain, with the least negative impacts to individual vessels from any one region while also providing the fishery with the possibility of achieving OY as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        Alternative 1 (status quo)   With a 10 percent increase in harvest from 2002, total landings would be 101,061 mt and total ex-vessel revenues would amount to $10,587,481.  Southern California vessels would realize ex-vessel revenues of $5,749,562, Northern California vessels $1,039,424, and Oregon/Washington vessels $3,798,405.
        Alternative 2 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line to 39° N lat., September [50-50] reallocation, and December [coastwide] reallocation).  Relative to the status quo, Southern California vessels would lose 3,618 mt or $386,201 in ex-vessel revenues.  Northern California vessels would gain 35 mt or $3,306, and Oregon/Washington would gain 10,108 mt or $1,158,314,  for a net increase in coastwide ex-vessel revenues of $775,420.
        Alternative 4 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line not changed, September [50-50] reallocation, and December [coastwide] reallocation).  Compared to the status quo, Southern California vessels would realize no change in landings, Northern California vessels would gain 274 mt or $25,518 in ex-vessel revenues, and Oregon/Washington vessels would gain 8,091 mt or $927,167.  This results in an overall net increase of $952,685 in ex-vessel revenues.

        Alternative 5 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line to 39° N lat., September coastwide reallocation).  Relative  to the status quo, Southern California vessels would lose 2,500 mt or $266,924 in ex-vessel revenues.  Northern California vessels would gain 2,239 mt or $208,547, and Oregon/Washington vessels would gain 10,108 mt or $1,099,937, for a net increase in overall ex-vessel revenues of $1,099,937.

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

          Dated: June 19, 2003.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 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 § 660.503, paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)((1) are revised to read as follows:

          § 660.503
          Management subareas.

          (b) * * *
          (2) Southern boundary - at 39° 00′ 00” N. lat. (Pt. Arena).
          (c) * * *
          (1) Northern boundary - at 39° 00′ 00” N. lat. (Pt. Arena); and

        3.  Section 660.509 is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.509
          Closure of directed fishery.
          (a) The date when Pacific sardine that remains unharvested will be reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B has been changed from October 1 to September 1 for 2003 and 2004, and for 2005 if the 2005 harvest guideline is at least 90 percent of the 2003 harvest guideline.
          (b) All unharvested sardine that remains on December 1 will be available for harvest coast wide.
          4.  In § 660.511, new paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

          § 660.511
          Catch restrictions.

          (f) The percentage of the unharvested sardine that is reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B has been changed from 50 percent to both subareas to 20 percent to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea B.

      [FR Doc. 03-16084 Filed 6-25-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500030115]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Two Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings and initiation of a status review.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on two petitions to list, reclassify, or delist wildlife or plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that one petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a review of the status of that species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether or not the petitioned action is warranted, in accordance with the Act. We also find that one petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to that petition. We refer to this finding as a “not substantial” petition finding.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on April 17, 2018. As we commence work on the status review, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species or its habitat. Any information received during our work on the status review will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the bases for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Supporting information in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Submitting information: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we made these petition findings, or their habitats, please submit that information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see Table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the Search button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see Table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below, for more information).

            Not-substantial petition finding: A summary of the basis for the not-substantial petition finding contained in this document is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Supporting information in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you have new information concerning the status of, or threats to, this species, or its habitat, please submit that information to the appropriate person.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Common name
              Contact person

              Cape mountain zebra
              Bridget Fahey, 703-358-2163; bridget_fahey@fws.gov.

              Preble's meadow jumping mouse
              Mike Thabault, 303-236-4210; michael_thabault@fws.gov.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the Lists (i.e., “list”), remove a species from the Lists (i.e., “delist”), or to change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened, or from threatened to endangered (i.e., “reclassify”) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

        Our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).

        A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

        These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
        We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an “endangered” species or “threatened” species under the Act.

        If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual, population, and species-level effects, and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or “threatened species.”
        If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, the Act requires us to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the tables below and the bases for the findings, along with supporting information, are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table 1—Status Review

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov.

            Cape mountain zebra
            FWS-HQ-ES-2017-0100

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2017-0100.

          Table 2—Not-Substantial Petition Finding

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Preble's meadow jumping mouse
            FWS-R6-ES-2017-0102

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2017-0102.

        Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Cape Mountain Zebra or Reclassify the Subspecies as a Threatened Species Under the Act
        Species and Range
        Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra): South Africa (Eastern and Western Cape provinces).
        Petition History

        On May 10, 2017, we received a petition dated May 10, 2017, from Conservation Force and the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa requesting that we delist the Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) or reclassify the subspecies from an endangered species to a threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Cape mountain zebra due to the reduction or elimination of threats related to the following: Habitat availability (Factor A); commercial and recreational use (Factor B); disease and predation (Factor C); hybridization and inbreeding (Factor E); and the inadequacy of existing regulations with regards to a number of these threats (Factor D) (for information about these factors, see Background, above). However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the subspecies, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this subspecies, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the subspecies falls within the definition of either “endangered species” under section 3(6) of the Act or “threatened species” under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2017-0100 under Supporting Documents.
        Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Under the Act
        Species and Range
        Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei): Colorado and Wyoming.
        Petition History
        On March 30, 2017, we received a petition dated March 29, 2017, from Pacific Legal Foundation (on behalf of Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II; Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability; Wyoming Stock Growers Association; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Association of Home Builders; and Housing and Building Association of Colorado Springs), requesting that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse be delisted under the Act due to an error in taxonomic information. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition and the source cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents no additional or new information that would support a taxonomic revision for the Preble's mouse or that would indicate that the subspecies is not a valid entity under the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the Preble's meadow jumping mouse may be warranted. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the Preble's meadow jumping mouse may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see Not-substantial petition finding under ADDRESSES, above).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of this petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0102 under Supporting Documents.
        Request for Information for Status Reviews

        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting of a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (a status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
        (d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected trends.
        (2) The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Background, above) that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both.
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning the status review by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider information in the petition and sources cited in the petition, as well as information that is readily available, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the “best scientific and commercial data available” to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition summarized above for the Cape mountain zebra presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating a status review to determine whether the action is warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned action is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
        In addition, we have determined that the petition summarized above for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review for this species.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: February 23, 2018.
          James W. Kurth,
          Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-07707 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 0909011267-91269-01]
        RIN 0648-AY19
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing to implement a regulatory amendment to modify the fishing vessel permit regulations to include specific terms and conditions for Federal fishing vessel permits obtained through the purchase of fishing vessels using Federal grant awards. The terms and conditions would authorize the NMFS Administrator, Northeast Region (Regional Administrator), to suspend, cancel, fail to renew, modify, or otherwise rescind any Federal fishing vessel permit, or the rights thereto, if the terms and conditions of any Federal grant award used to obtain said permit, or an associated memorandum of understanding, are violated by the grant recipient.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on November 2, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AY19, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Michael Pentony.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Vessel Permit Regulatory Amendment.”

          Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) are available upon request from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281-9283.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        This proposed rule would implement changes to the Northeast (NE) fisheries regulations at 50 CFR part 648 to authorize the Regional Administrator to suspend, cancel, fail to renew, modify, or otherwise rescind any Federal fishing vessel permit, including the rights thereto, held by a person, corporation, non-profit organization, or government entity if the terms and conditions of any Federal grant award used to obtain said permit, or an associated memorandum of understanding, are violated by the grant recipient. The intent of this proposed action is to establish a new regulatory mechanism through which NOAA would be able to enforce the terms and conditions of any Federal grant award used to obtain Federal fishing vessel permits in the NE Region.
        As several fisheries in the NE Region begin to transition to catch-share management strategies, various fishing organizations, conservations groups, and states are exploring alternatives to the traditional vessel-permit ownership model. Traditionally, an individual or corporation invests in a fishing vessel and obtains the appropriate vessel permits necessary to participate in the target fishery. An individual or corporation may own multiple vessels, but each of these vessels is generally associated with a unique vessel permit (or, a unique set of permits to operate in different fisheries may be associated with each vessel). An alternative model known as “permit banking” is developing in the Northeast, whereby an organization obtains a suite of permits in a particular fishery, with the option to lease out the fishing rights associated with those permits.

        Permit banks hold promise for addressing two important issues related to the development and implementation of effective catch-share management programs: First, permit banks can be used to ease the transition to catch-share management by expanding the pool of catch shares available for use; and, second, permit banks could demonstrate that small fishing operations and small communities can be successful participants in catch-share management programs. Depending on the structure of the permit bank, and the criteria used for participation, permit banks could be very effective at protecting the fishing interests of small communities and small fishing operations by mitigating some of the consolidation of fishing rights that often follows implementation of catch-share programs.
        Examples of new permit banks in the Northeast Region include those being developed by the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, the Northeast Seafood Coalition, and The Nature Conservancy in partnership with the Penobscot East Resource Center. These groups are using donations and other funds to purchase fishing vessels with NE multispecies fishing permits. The permits would be held by the permit bank organization, which would then make the fishing rights associated with the permits available to its members or other qualified applicants. The fishing rights associated with the permits initially would include days-at-sea, to be leased out at generally below-market value. With the development of sector management in the NE multispecies fishery, the fishing rights may include annual catch entitlements (ACEs) associated with the permits (i.e., the shares of the overall quotas allocated to each permit based on fishing history). The ACEs may be used in establishing a new fishing sector, or to bolster the total catch shares available to an existing sector.
        Interest in developing permit banking programs is expanding in the NE and, because of NOAA's policy position promoting catch-share management, the NMFS NE Regional Office has proposed a pilot program designed to guide the development and expansion of permit banks in order to facilitate the implementation of effective catch-share programs. In the spending plan for a recent Congressional authorization for New England fisheries assistance, NOAA proposed to award a $1 million grant to develop this pilot permit banking program in the State of Maine. Since then, we have been working in partnership with Maine's Division of Marine Resources on a program that would allow the state to use the grant award to purchase fishing vessels with associated permits. The fishing rights associated with those permits would then serve as the basis for a permit bank to be operated by the state to facilitate the transition to catch-share management by leasing additional fishing opportunities to qualified vessels in small ports. The State of Maine is very interested in developing such a partnership and establishing a permit bank. If the pilot program proves successful, NOAA may consider expanding the program throughout other parts of the NE Region.
        Absent a regulatory change such as the proposed action, NOAA would not be able to retain sufficient control and oversight of the resulting permit banking program to ensure its success. Under current grant management rules and fishing vessel permit regulations, once a grant award is made to an organization, and the award is used to obtain fishing vessel permits, NOAA would lose all control over the implementation and operation of the resulting permit bank. Even if the grant includes special award conditions specifying the criteria to be used in operation of the permit bank, NOAA would have no effective mechanism to enforce those criteria once an organization obtains the permits. In order to protect NOAA's and the public's interests in the successful development, implementation, and operation of such a program, a regulatory change is required to provide NOAA with an appropriate enforcement mechanism.
        The proposed action would amend the NMFS NE Region regulations regarding fishing vessel permits to include specific terms and conditions that would apply to Federal fishing vessel permits obtained through the purchase of fishing vessels using Federal grant awards. The terms and conditions would authorize the Regional Administrator to suspend, cancel, fail to renew, modify, or otherwise rescind any Federal fishing vessel permit, including the rights thereto, held by a person, corporation, non-profit organization, or government entity if the terms and conditions of any Federal grant award used to obtain said permit, or an associated memorandum of understanding, are violated by the grant recipient.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the NE Region, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, and is necessary to discharge the general responsibility to carry out said FMPs, 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 proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          The intent of this proposed action is to establish a new regulatory mechanism through which NOAA would be able to enforce the terms and conditions of any Federal grant award used to obtain Federal fishing vessel permits. This action would have no effect on any Federal fishing vessel permit currently held by a person, corporation, non-profit organization, or government entity, and would only affect such permits obtained in the future if the person, corporation, non-profit organization, or government entity obtains a Federal fishing vessel permit using funds awarded to that entity through a Federal grant award. Further, the proposed action would have no effect on any entity unless that entity violates the terms and conditions of the Federal grant award used to obtain such a permit, or an associated memorandum of understanding. If the terms and conditions of a Federal grant award, or associated memorandum of understanding, are violated, this action would authorize the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to enforce the terms and conditions of the grant award or memorandum of understanding. These administrative changes are intended to ensure NOAA has available appropriate enforcement mechanisms when awarding Federal grants that may be used to obtain Federal fishing vessel permits. As such, the rule will not have significant direct or indirect economic impacts on small entities.

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

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: September 28, 2009.
          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 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.4, paragraph (n) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.4
          Vessel permits.
          (n) Federal grant awards. The Regional Administrator may suspend, cancel, fail to renew, modify, or otherwise rescind any Federal fishing vessel permit, issued pursuant to this section, including the rights thereto, held by a person, corporation, non-profit organization, or government entity if the terms and conditions of any Federal grant award used to obtain said permit, or an associated memorandum of understanding, are violated by the grant recipient.

      [FR Doc. E9-23704 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-XD649
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a new management program for trawl groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed action would create a new management program that would allocate allowable harvest to individuals, cooperatives, and other entities that participate in GOA trawl groundfish fisheries. The proposed action is intended to improve stock conservation by imposing accountability measures for utilizing target, incidental, and prohibited species catch, creating incentives to eliminate wasteful fishing practices, providing mechanisms for participants to control and reduce bycatch in the trawl groundfish fisheries, and to improve safety of life at sea and operational efficiencies. The EIS will analyze the impacts to the human environment resulting from the proposed trawl bycatch management program. NMFS will accept written comments from the public to identify the issues of concern and assist the Council in determining the appropriate range of management alternatives for the EIS.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted through August 28, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0150, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0150, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Baker, (907) 586-7228 or email rachel.baker@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the United States has exclusive fishery management authority over all living marine resources found within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The management of these marine resources, with the exception of marine mammals and birds, is vested in the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Council has the responsibility to prepare fishery management plans for the fishery resources that require conservation and management in the EEZ off Alaska. Management of the Federal groundfish fisheries in the GOA is carried out under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The FMP, its amendments, and implementing regulations (found at 50 CFR part 679) are developed in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable Federal laws and executive orders, notably the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        The Council is considering the establishment of a new management program for the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries. The proposed action would allocate allowable harvest of selected target and bycatch species to individuals, cooperatives, and other entities. The purpose of the program is to improve management of all species caught in the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries by creating vessel-level and/or cooperative-level incentives to avoid and reduce bycatch, and to create accountability measures for participants when utilizing target and bycatch species. The Council also intends for the program to improve operational efficiencies, reduce incentives to fish during unsafe conditions, and support the continued participation of coastal communities that are dependent on the fisheries. NMFS and the Council have determined the preparation of an EIS may be required for this action because some important aspects of the bycatch management program on target and bycatch species and their users may be uncertain or unknown and may result in significant impacts on the human environment not previously analyzed. Thus, NMFS and the Council are initiating scoping for an EIS in the event an EIS is needed.
        NMFS and the Council are seeking information from the public through the EIS scoping process on the range of alternatives to be analyzed, and on the environmental, social, and economic issues to be considered in the analysis. Written comments generated during this scoping process will be provided to the Council and incorporated into the EIS for the proposed action.
        Management of the GOA Trawl Groundfish Fisheries

        The Council and NMFS annually establish biological thresholds and annual total allowable catch limits for groundfish species to sustainably manage the groundfish fisheries in the GOA. To achieve these objectives, NMFS requires vessel operators participating in GOA groundfish fisheries to comply with various restrictions, such as fishery closures, to maintain catch within specified total allowable catch limits. The GOA groundfish fishery restrictions also include measures that are intended to minimize catch of certain species, called prohibited species, which may not be retained for sale by the vessel harvesting groundfish. For example, current GOA groundfish fishery regulations require Pacific halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) to be discarded immediately after it is recorded, and Chinook salmon must be retained by the harvest vessel only until sampled by an observer. The GOA groundfish fishery restrictions also include PSC limits for Pacific halibut and Chinook salmon to constrain the amount of bycatch of these species in the groundfish fisheries. When harvest of prohibited species in a groundfish fishery reaches the specified PSC limit for that fishery, NMFS closes directed fishing for the target groundfish species, even if the total allowable catch limit for that species has not been harvested.

        The GOA PSC limits are established on an annual basis by management area and are further apportioned by season, fishery category, gear, and operation type (e.g., catcher vessel or catcher/processor). This apportionment process ensures that halibut and Chinook salmon PSC limit is available for use in groundfish fisheries earlier in the year, but limits that use so that PSC remains to support other groundfish fisheries that occur later in the year. The limits assigned to each season reflect halibut PSC likely to be taken during specific seasons by specific fisheries.
        For many years, the Council and NMFS have controlled the amount of fishing in the North Pacific Ocean by establishing scientifically-based harvest limits which ensure that fisheries are conservatively managed and do not exceed established biological thresholds. In addition to measures that control the amount of harvest, the Council and NMFS also implemented the license limitation program (LLP), which limits access to the groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries in the GOA and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The LLP limits entry into federally managed fisheries. The groundfish LLP requires each vessel in the GOA to have an LLP license on board the vessel at all times while directed fishing for license limitation groundfish, with limited exemptions. The preamble to the final rule implementing the groundfish LLP provides a more detailed explanation of the rationale for specific provisions in the LLP (October 1, 1998; 63 FR 52642).
        While the LLP limits the total number of vessels that can participate in the fishery, it does not limit harvest by individual vessels or assign exclusive harvest privileges to specific vessels or entities. This has led to a competitive derby fishery in the GOA groundfish fisheries with fishermen racing each other to harvest as much fish as they can before the annual catch limit or the PSC limit is reached and the fishery is closed for the season. A derby fishery relies on a fairly rigid management structure that is not adaptable to changes in weather, markets, or other operating considerations. Therefore, a derby fishery often results in shorter fishing seasons and unsafe fishing practices. It can also create a substantial disincentive for participants to take actions to reduce bycatch use and waste, particularly if those actions could reduce groundfish catch rates. In a derby fishery, participants who choose not to take actions to reduce bycatch and waste stand to gain additional groundfish catch by continuing to harvest at a higher bycatch rate, at the expense of any vessels engaged in bycatch avoidance.
        Allocation of allowable harvests in the form of exclusive harvest privileges is a management approach that replaces the rigid management structure of a derby fishery with a flexible program that provides accountability and removes disincentives to controlling and reducing bycatch and waste. Allocating exclusive harvest privileges to fishery participants can mitigate the potential negative impacts of a derby fishery on target and bycatch species, and on the operational and economic efficiency of the fisheries. In this type of management approach, a portion of the catch for a species is allocated to individual fishermen or groups. Each holder of a harvest privilege must stop fishing when his/her specific share of the quota is reached. This removes the incentives for each participant to maximize catch rates to capture a larger share of the available catch before the fishery is closed. As a result, participants can make operational choices to improve fishing practices. These choices could include fishing in a slower and more efficient fashion, using modified gear with a lower harvest rate but which reduces bycatch, coordinating with other vessel operators to avoid areas of high bycatch, and processing fish in ways that yield increased value but which are possible only by slowing the pace of the fishery. This management approach allows fishermen to plan their fishing effort around the weather, markets, or other business considerations and allows other fishery dependent businesses to plan more effectively.
        The Council has recommended, and NMFS has implemented, management programs in the EEZ off Alaska that allocate exclusive harvest privileges to fishery participants. Based on experience with these programs, the Council and NMFS have determined that allocating exclusive harvest privileges of target and bycatch species creates a structure for fishery participants to efficiently manage harvesting and processing activities that can result in reduced bycatch and improved utilization of groundfish fisheries. Additional information on these management programs is provided in the final rules implementing the American Fisheries Act in the Bering Sea (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002), the Amendment 80 Program in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007), and the Rockfish Program in the Central GOA (76 FR 81248, December 27, 2011).
        Over the past few years, the Council has recommended amendments to the FMP to reduce PSC in the GOA groundfish fisheries. Under Amendments 93 and 97 to the FMP, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented Chinook salmon PSC limits in the GOA trawl fisheries (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012 and 79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014). Under Amendment 95 to the FMP, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented reductions to halibut PSC limits for GOA trawl and hook-and-line fisheries (79 FR 9625, February 20, 2014). This series of actions reflects the Council's commitment to reduce PSC in the GOA groundfish fisheries. The Council also recognizes that although the current management system of establishing and apportioning PSC limits places a cap on the amount of PSC that may be used in GOA groundfish fisheries, the derby fishery under the LLP creates a substantial disincentive for participants to take actions to avoid and reduce PSC usage.
        In October 2012, the Council unanimously adopted a purpose and need statement, and goals and objectives, to support the development of a new management program that would allocate allowable harvest to individual, cooperatives, or other entities. The Council determined that this kind of management program would mitigate the adverse effects of the current derby-style race for fish by removing disincentives to reduce bycatch and PSC, and providing a more flexible and efficient management system for participants to better manage and utilize groundfish species in the GOA trawl fisheries. This new management program is referred to as a bycatch management program in the following sections of this notice.
        Proposed Action

        The proposed action to be analyzed in the EIS is a bycatch management program for the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries that allocates allowable harvest to individuals, cooperatives, or other entities. The bycatch management program would replace the derby fishery with a program that provides tools to effectively manage bycatch and reduce PSC use, and that promotes increased utilization of groundfish harvested in the GOA. The proposed action would apply to participants in Federal groundfish fisheries prosecuted with trawl gear in the following areas: (1) The Western GOA Regulatory Area (Western GOA), (2) the Central GOA Regulatory Area (Central GOA), and (3) the West Yakutat District of the Eastern GOA Regulatory Area (West Yakutat District). These areas are defined at § 679.2 and shown in Figure 3 to 50 CFR part 679.
        Alternatives
        NMFS, in coordination with the Council, will evaluate a range of alternative bycatch management programs for the trawl groundfish fisheries in the Western GOA, Central GOA, and West Yakutat District. NMFS and the Council recognize that implementation of a GOA trawl bycatch management program allocating exclusive harvest privileges would result in substantial changes to many of the current management measures for the groundfish fisheries. The EIS will analyze these changes as well as alternative ways to manage target and bycatch species in the GOA groundfish fisheries. The potential alternatives already identified for the EIS include:
        Alternative 1
        The existing management program (no action).
        Alternative 2
        A bycatch management program that would allocate exclusive harvest privileges to participants in the Western GOA, Central GOA, and West Yakutat District trawl groundfish fisheries who voluntarily join a cooperative. Participants who do not choose to join a cooperative would have the opportunity to participate in the current limited access management system under the groundfish LLP.
        In Alternative 2, the Council is considering allocating exclusive harvest privileges to cooperatives. Alternative 2 contains several elements and options for determining eligible participants, groundfish and PSC species to be allocated, and methods for determining allocations to cooperatives and the limited access fishery. Alternative 2 also includes elements and options for cooperative formation and membership that are intended to provide incentives for participation by harvesters and processors to improve coordination and operational efficiencies. Alternative 2 also contains a number of elements that are intended to provide for fishery dependent community stability, such as harvest privilege consolidation limits and area- and port-specific delivery requirements.
        Alternative 3
        A bycatch management program that would allocate exclusive harvest privileges to fishery participants who voluntarily join a cooperative and either 1) a Community Fishing Association as defined in section 303A(c)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or 2) an Adaptive Management Program. Participants who do not choose to join a cooperative would have the opportunity to participate in the current limited access management system under the groundfish LLP.
        In Alternative 3, the Council is considering allocating exclusive harvest privileges to cooperatives and either a Community Fishing Association or to persons who meet the criteria established for an Adaptive Management Program. The allocation to a Community Fishing Association or Adaptive Management Program would meet objectives that include providing for sustained participation of fishing communities, promoting conservation measures, and assisting vessel owner-operators, captains, and crew who want to enter and participate in the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries.
        Public Involvement
        Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement process is to identify a range of reasonable management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing among those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. Through this notice, NMFS is notifying the public that an EIS and decision-making process for this proposed action have been initiated so that interested or affected people may participate and contribute to the final decision.

        NMFS is seeking written public comments on the scope of issues, including potential impacts, and alternatives that should be considered for bycatch management programs for the trawl groundfish fisheries in the Western GOA, Central GOA, and West Yakutat District of the GOA. Written comments should be as specific as possible to be the most helpful. Written comments received during the scoping process, including the names and addresses of those submitting them, will be considered part of the public record of this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Written comments will be accepted at the address above (see ADDRESSES). Please visit the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov for more information on the GOA trawl bycatch management program EIS and for guidance on submitting effective written public comments.

        The public is invited to participate and provide input at Council meetings where the latest scientific information regarding the GOA groundfish fisheries is reviewed and alternative bycatch management programs are developed and evaluated. Notice of future Council meetings will be published in the Federal Register and on the Internet at http://www.npfmc.org/. Please visit this Web site for information and guidance on participating in Council meetings. Additional information on the Council's development of the GOA trawl bycatch management program is available at http://www.npfmc.org/goa-trawl-bycatch-management/.

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

          Dated: July 8, 2015.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-17191 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P