        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 0907151138-1011-02]
        RIN 0648-AY03
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Queen Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Queen Conch Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would implement measures to address overfishing of Caribbean queen conch in the U.S. Caribbean. If promulgated, this rule would extend the queen conch seasonal closure from 3 months to 5 months, and prohibit fishing for and possession of queen conch in or from the Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) east of 64°34′ W. longitude, which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), when harvest and possession of queen conch is prohibited in St. Croix territorial waters as a result of a territorial quota closure. The intended effects of this proposed rule are to prevent additional fishing pressure on queen conch in the U.S. Caribbean, and to improve enforcement of regulations affecting the queen conch resource by improving compatibility among Federal and territorial regulations.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by 0648-AY03, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Britni Tokotch, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an Environmental Assessment (EA), an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a regulatory impact review, and a fishery impact statement may be obtained from Britni Tokotch, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 or may be downloaded from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Britni Tokotch, 727-824-5305.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Caribbean queen conch fishery is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council), and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background

        Amendment 1 to the FMP (70 FR 62073, Oct. 28, 2005), prohibited fishing for and possession of Caribbean queen conch in or from the Caribbean EEZ, except during October through June in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude, which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, USVI (this area will subsequently be referred to as Lang Bank). Amendment 1 was intended to reduce fishing mortality and help rebuild the overfished stock of Caribbean queen conch.
        According to the NMFS Report on the Status of the U.S. Fisheries for 2008, Caribbean queen conch continues to be overfished and is undergoing overfishing. Additional management measures are therefore needed to prevent additional fishing pressure on the queen conch resource.
        In June 2008, the USVI implemented several measures to address overfishing of queen conch, including setting an annual quota of 50,000 lb (28,680 kg) for St. Croix, an annual quota of 50,000 lb (28,680 kg) for St. Thomas and St. John, and closing the fishery seasonally from June 1 through October 31 each year. In April 2009, the St. Croix quota was determined to be reached, and territorial waters off St. Croix were closed to queen conch fishing beginning May 1, 2009. In a letter to the Council dated April 21, 2009, the USVI government requested the Council implement a compatible quota closure for queen conch through an emergency rule that would prohibit the harvest and possession of queen conch in or from the EEZ when St. Croix closes territorial waters to queen conch fishing.
        The Council and NMFS have evaluated this request and have determined that an emergency rule to end overfishing of queen conch is not warranted at this time. The available data for queen conch landings does not distinguish between harvest obtained from Federal vs. territorial waters; therefore, it is not clear whether these management measures would actually end overfishing of the queen conch resource. Instead, the Council and NMFS acted to implement a compatible seasonal closure and compatible quota closure for queen conch through a regulatory amendment and this rulemaking. These measures would prevent additional fishing pressure from occurring, until additional landings data are available to determine if these measures would end overfishing. Additionally, these measures would aid in enforcement efforts because when territorial waters close, Federal waters would close as well.
        Provisions Contained in This Proposed Rule
        The USVI seasonal closure is a 5-month closure, from June 1 through October 31 each year. To be compatible with this territorial seasonal closure, this rule would extend the current 3-month (July 1 through September 30) closure in Federal waters at Lang Bank to a 5-month closure, from June 1 through October 31 each year.
        This rule would also implement a compatible queen conch harvest quota closure for Federal waters. Under this rule, when the USVI closes territorial waters off St. Croix to the harvest and possession of queen conch, NMFS would concurrently close the queen conch harvest in Lang Bank. NMFS would notify the public of the closure by filing a notice with the Office of the Federal Register. During the closure, fishing for or possession of Caribbean queen conch on board a fishing vessel, in or from Lang Bank would be prohibited. Closure of Lang Bank would be in effect until the next fishing season for territorial waters opens November 1, each year.
        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 regulatory amendment, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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, and the 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 summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see
          ADDRESSES).
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to relieve fishing pressure on queen conch and enhance enforcement of regulatory measures to protect queen conch by prohibiting fishing for and possession of queen conch in or from Lang Bank, when harvest of queen conch is prohibited in St. Croix territorial waters as a result of a either quota or seasonal closure. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        This proposed rule, if adopted, would directly apply to and may directly affect commercial fishermen and for-hire vessels in St. Croix that harvest queen conch. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial fish harvesters and for-hire operations. A business involved in fish harvesting 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 has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, the other qualifiers apply and the revenues threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
        All commercial fishermen who may be affected by this proposed rule are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities. Federal permits are not required to fish in the U.S. Caribbean. The USVI, however, requires a commercial fishing permit to harvest marine species for commercial purposes. In 2008, there were 383 permitted fishermen in the USVI, of which 223 were in St. Croix and 160 were in St. Thomas and St. John. The ex-vessel value of total harvests by USVI fishermen in 2008 was approximately $8.8 million, or approximately $23,000 per fisherman. This estimate is substantially lower than the SBA small entity threshold. Comparable values for just St. Croix fishermen are not available. However, if all revenues for the USVI are attributed to St. Croix fishermen, the appropriate average revenue per entity would be only approximately $39,000. Even this value, as an extreme upper bound for average revenues for St. Croix fishermen, is significantly lower than the SBA threshold.
        The number of for-hire dive operations in the USVI is unknown. However, 27 for-hire vessels were identified in the USVI in 2000. Information on the economic profile of these vessels is not available. However, for-hire vessels have been determined to be small business entities in all Federal fishery-related regulatory actions to date in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Therefore, all for-hire businesses that may be affected by this proposed rule are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small business entities.
        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

        It is unknown whether this proposed rule, if adopted, would have any direct adverse economic effect on any small entities. Available queen conch harvest data do not distinguish between queen conch harvested from territorial waters and from Lang Bank. Incompatible Federal and St. Croix territorial water seasonal closures only began in 2008, and the first quota closure of St. Croix territorial waters occurred in 2009. It is unknown whether landings, originating from Lang Bank, continued after closure of the territorial waters in these years, or whether the territorial closure resulted in fishermen ceasing harvest activity in Lang Bank. If the territorial possession prohibition resulted in fishermen stopping all harvest activity, including activity that historically occurred in the Lang Bank, then the proposed rule would not have any direct effect on harvest activity or associated revenues from Lang Bank, because no such harvest activity would be expected to continue to occur. As a result, the only direct effect of the proposed action on fishery participants would be the benefits of regulatory simplicity.
        If, however, harvest activity in Lang Bank continues during the period when the territorial waters closed, this proposed rule would result in a reduction in the short-term revenues associated with these harvests. As previously stated, available data do not allow quantification of any harvests from Lang Bank that may be affected. In general, however, because queen conch are distributed in habitats where water depth is less than 100 fathoms (183 m), and the majority of the benthos at that depth around St. Croix is located in territorial waters, it is assumed that the majority of queen conch in the USVI are harvested from territorial waters. As a result, any reduction in harvests, and associated revenues, from Lang Bank that might occur as a result of compatible closures is expected to be minimal. However, because of the absence of location-specific harvest data, public comment is solicited on the validity of these conclusions.
        Only one alternative to the proposed rule was considered. This alternative, the no action alternative (status quo), would not implement compatible closures and, as a result, would not achieve the Council's objectives.

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

          Dated: January 13, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

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

          2. In § 622.32, paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is revised to read as follows:
          § 622.32 Prohibited and limited harvest species.

          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iv) No person may fish for, or possess on board a fishing vessel, a Caribbean queen conch in or from the Caribbean EEZ, in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, except during November 1 through May 31.

          3. In § 622.33, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
          § 622.33 Caribbean EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

          (d) Queen conch closure in the Caribbean EEZ. (1) Pursuant to the procedures and criteria established in the FMP for Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, when the U.S. Virgin Islands closes territorial waters off St. Croix to the harvest and possession of queen conch, the Regional Administrator will concurrently close the Caribbean EEZ, in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank, east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, by filing a notification of closure with the Office of the Federal Register. Closure of the adjacent EEZ will be effective until the next fishing season for territorial waters opens November 1.
          (2) During the closure, as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no person may fish for or possess on board a fishing vessel, a Caribbean queen conch, in or from the Caribbean EEZ, in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank, east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

      [FR Doc. 2011-1182 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 721 and 799
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520; FRL-9343-9]
        RIN 2070-AJ66
        Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Test Rule and Significant New Use Rule; Fourth Group of Chemicals; Notice of Public Meeting

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA will hold a public meeting on May 16, 2012, to give the public an opportunity to comment on a proposed test rule for 23 high production volume (HPV) chemical substances and a significant new use rule (SNUR) for another 22 HPV chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The test rule would require manufacturers and processors to develop screening-level health, environmental, and fate data based on the potential for substantial exposures of workers and consumers to the 23 HPV chemical substances, and the SNUR would require persons to file a significant new use notice (SNUN) with EPA prior to manufacturing, importing, or processing any of the 22 HPV chemical substances for use in a consumer product or for any use, or combination of uses, that would be reasonably likely to expose 1,000 or more workers at a single-corporate entity to the chemical substances. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. The opportunity to present oral comment was offered in the proposed rule and, in response to that offer, a request to present oral comments was received.

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before May 15, 2012.

          To request accommodation of a disability, please contact either technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA East Rm. 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460-0001.

          Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520, may be submitted to either technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Robert Jones or Paul Campanella, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone numbers: (202) 564-8161 and (202) 564-8091; email addresses: jones.robert@epa.gov and campanella.paul@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?

        You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of the chemical substances that are listed in 40 CFR 799.5090(j) or 40 CFR 721.10228(a) of the proposed rule's regulatory text published in the Federal Register issue of October 21, 2011 (76 FR 65580) (FRL-8876-6). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
        • Manufacturers (defined by statute to include importers) of one or more of the subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
        • Processors of one or more of the subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

        This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. See Unit VI. of the October 21, 2011 proposed rule for export notification requirements.
        B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

        EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
        II. Background
        In the Federal Register issue of October 21, 2011, EPA published a proposed test rule and SNUR to regulate 45 HPV chemical substances. EPA is proposing a test rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) for 23 of these 45 HPV chemical substances to require manufacturers, importers, and processors to conduct testing to obtain screening level data for health and environmental effects and chemical fate. EPA has preliminarily determined that: Each of the 23 HPV chemical substances included in that proposed rule is produced in substantial quantities and that there is or may be substantial human exposure to each of them; there are insufficient data to reasonably determine or predict the effects on health or the environment of the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of the chemical substances or of any combination of these activities; and the testing program proposed is necessary to develop such data. Data developed under the proposed rule, when finalized, will provide critical information about the environmental fate and potential hazards associated with the subject chemical substances. When combined with information about exposure and uses, these data will allow the Agency and others to evaluate potential health and environmental risks and to take appropriate follow-up actions.
        EPA is also proposing to establish significant new use reporting and recordkeeping under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for the other 22 HPV chemical substances that would require EPA notification prior to worker or consumer exposures rising to substantial levels. The SNUN allows EPA to evaluate the use according to the specific parameters and circumstances for that intended use and, if warranted, be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of the chemical substance before the designated significant new uses of the chemical substance occur.
        In response to the proposed rule, EPA received a request to present oral comment from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Written comments provided during the comment period for the proposed rule, including those requesting an opportunity for oral comment, are available and can be reviewed in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520.
        III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

        You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to either technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI.
        Requests to participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520, must be received on or before May 15, 2012.

          List of Subjects
          40 CFR Part 721
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
          40 CFR Part 799
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 3, 2012.
          Louise P. Wise,
          Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

      [FR Doc. 2012-8473 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 070720400-7483-01]
        RIN 0648-AV30
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Precious Corals Fisheries; Black Coral Quota and Gold Coral Moratorium

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would designate the Au`au Channel, Hawaii, black coral bed as an “Established Bed” with a harvest quota of 5,000 kg every two years that applies to Federal and State of Hawaii waters, and would establish a 5-year moratorium on the harvest of gold coral throughout the U.S. western Pacific. The proposed rule is intended to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yields of black coral resources, and to prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by July 14, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the amendment, identified by 0648-AV30, may be sent to either of the following addresses:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

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

          Copies of the Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Precious Corals FMP), and proposed FMP Amendment 7, which includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review (RIR), and initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel. 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or website www.wpcouncil.org.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Federal Register document is also accessible at the Office of the Federal Register at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
        Precious corals (also called deep sea corals) belong to the class of animals, Anthozoa, which includes corals, jellyfish, sea anemones, and their relatives. Gold corals are found in deep water (100-1,500 m) on solid substrates where bottom currents are strong. Black corals also live on solid substrates, but generally at depths of 30-110 m. Precious corals are suspension feeders, thriving in areas swept by strong currents, and are most abundant on substrates of shell sandstone, limestone, or basaltic rock with a limestone veneer. All precious corals are slow-growing and are characterized by low rates of natural mortality and recruitment. Unexploited populations are relatively stable, and a wide range of age classes is generally present. This life-history pattern (longevity and many age classes) has two important consequences with respect to exploitation. First, the population response to harvesting is drawn out over many years. Second, because of the great longevity of individuals and the associated slow population turnover rates, a long period of reduced fishing effort is required to restore a stock's ability to produce at the maximum sustainable yield if a stock has been over exploited for several years.
        Beds of gold, pink, and bamboo corals have been found in eight locations in the U.S. EEZ around Hawaii. They likely occur in the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA, i.e., Baker Isl., Howland Isl., Jarvis Isl., Wake Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, and Palmyra Atoll), but their distribution and abundance are unknown in areas beyond Hawaii. The species composition and density of corals vary considerably in these beds, and the beds are small--only two have an area greater than 1 km2 and the largest is 3.6 km2. In addition to the beds of gold, pink, and bamboo corals, there are also three known major black coral beds and several smaller ones. Most of these are located in State of Hawaii waters (0-3 nm from shore), but the largest bed, the Au`au Channel Bed, extends into Federal waters.
        The Precious Corals FMP and Federal regulations require permits and data reporting, and allow harvesting of precious corals only with selective gear (e.g., submersibles or hand harvest). There are also bed-specific quotas, refuges from fishing (refugia), and size limits. Since the implementation of the Precious Corals FMP in 1980, no precious corals harvester has received a Federal permit to fish in U.S. EEZ waters around American Samoa, the CNMI, Guam, or the PRIA; there are currently no permitted operations for gold corals in the western Pacific.
        Black corals in Hawaii have historically been harvested by divers using conventional scuba gear. Hand-held tools are used to remove the black coral from the substrate, and float bags are used to lift the harvested colonies to the surface. The number of people participating in the commercial black coral fishery in Hawaii has been decreasing in recent years as experienced fishermen retire without new divers taking their place. In 2007, fewer than three fishermen applied for and received Federal permits to harvest precious corals in Hawaii.
        From 1990-97, the annual harvest of black coral in Hawaii averaged 1,400 kg (3,084 lb). More recent landings of black corals are not presented in detail due to confidentiality requirements, but recent black coral landings have generally increased. Mixed-gas diving methods and rebreathers now enable divers to reach the maximum depths at which colonies of black coral are known to occur (about 110 m). Other technological advances, such as the global positioning system (GPS) and multibeam bathymetry maps, assist divers in harvesting black corals. These advances may lead to greater fishing pressure on black corals.
        Since 1980, almost all of the black coral harvested around the Hawaiian Islands has been taken from the Au`au Channel Bed. The Precious Corals FMP designates the Au`au Channel as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for precious corals. The bed is also a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for precious corals because of the ecological function it provides, rarity of the habitat type, sensitivity to human-induced environmental degradation, and commercial importance.

        Research has shown that the biomass of the Au`au Channel black coral population has decreased by at least 25 percent in the last 30 years. Data collected during submersible dives showed a decline in both recruitment and relative abundance of legal-sized black coral colonies. The decline in recruitment may be related to both fishing pressure and competition with alien coral species. The highly-invasive soft coral, Carijoa riisei, or snowflake coral, has been found overgrowing large areas of black coral habitat. A recent submersible survey of the Au`au Channel Bed found Carijoa overgrowing and killing up to 70 percent of the black coral colonies at depths of 68-114 m. Although the fishery primarily harvests black coral at depths shallower than 70 m, the potentially-devastating snowflake coral, combined with fishing pressure, warrants management action and further research.
        This proposed rule would designate the Au`au Channel as an “Established Bed” (Fig. 1) with a harvest quota for black coral of 5,000 kg (11,023 lb) every two years. This quota would apply in both Federal and State of Hawaii waters, and all other existing Federal restrictions would continue to apply.

          EP30MY08.000

        Currently-accepted estimates of the linear growth rate for gold coral are about 6.6 cm/yr, suggesting that large colonies are relatively young. These estimates are based on the assumption that growth rings are laid down annually, as in other precious corals (e.g., black and pink corals). Recent research, however, on the aging of gold corals using radiometric dating on three samples collected from the Makapu`u Bed and off of the island of Hawaii found that gold coral may grow at a much slower rate, possibly 0.004 to 0.0014 cm/yr, making some samples 450-2,740 years old. Similar research on large Atlantic gold coral colonies estimated their ages to be about 1,800 years. (By comparison, the oldest black corals observed in the Au`au Channel Bed are thought to be 75 years old, but black corals may live longer.) The slow growth rates of gold corals indicate that some gold coral colonies are thousands of years old and, thus, highly-susceptible to over-harvesting.
        Unlike the active black coral fishery in Hawaii, the gold coral fishery in the U.S. western Pacific is dormant. With recent research results challenging current assumptions about gold coral growth rates, this proposed rule would place a five-year moratorium on the harvest of gold corals from all EEZ waters of the western Pacific region. Additional research results on gold coral age structures, growth rates, and correlations between length and age would be considered by the Council and NMFS prior to the expiration of the 5-year moratorium.
        This proposed rule is intended to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yields of black corals, and to prevent overfishing and stimulate research on gold corals.

        To be considered, comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 14, 2008, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. In addition to soliciting public comments on this proposed rule, NMFS is soliciting comments on proposed FMP Amendment 7 through July 22, 2008, as stated in the Notice of Availability published on May 23, 2008. Public comments on this proposed rule, if received by July 22, 2008, will also be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 7. Comments received after that date will be considered for this proposed rule, but not in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 7.
        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 Precious Corals FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        The Council prepared an Environmental Assessment for Amendment 7 that evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Copies of the environmental assessment are available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). The purpose and need for the proposed action is twofold: (a) to reduce the effect that harvesting has on the decline in black coral biomass, thereby preventing overfishing and achieving optimum yield, and (b) to prevent the gold coral fishery from resuming, thereby preventing overfishing while research on growth rates is conducted. The anticipated impacts, as compared to the no-action alternative, of the preferred alternatives are summarized below.
        Au`au Channel Black Coral Harvest Quota
        Under the preferred alternative (designation of the Au`au Channel black coral bed as an Established Bed with a harvest quota of 5000 kg every two years), the potential risk of overfishing black corals in the Au`au channel would be reduced because the proposed quota is significantly lower than recent harvests and would reduce fishing pressure on these resources. For this alternative to be fully effective, the entire bed would need to be managed by the quota; the State is developing management measures for a black coral quota in State waters of the Au`au Channel that would complement the proposed Federal quota there. The preferred alternative would have little to no impact on non-target species, as only selective gear can be used to harvest precious corals, eliminating most of the potential for catches of non-target species or degradation of their habitat. There would be neutral or beneficial impacts to protected resources (marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds), EFH, and HAPC, because this alternative would not lead to changes in fishing operations or to increased fishing effort. In the short-term, this alternative would likely reduce the harvests by some commercial fishermen in the Au`au channel fishery if the black coral fishery is closed as a result of reaching the quota. Stockpiled black coral (that which has been harvested but not yet sold) may serve to offset potential losses in the short- to medium-term following a closure of the Au`au Channel fishery. In the long-term, keeping harvests below the harvest quota would contribute to the sustainability of the fishery. The charter and recreational fishing sectors would not be affected under this alternative, as these sectors are not involved in the harvest of black corals. Fishing communities would not be affected by this alternative, as there are no communities that are substantially dependent on the harvest of precious corals to meet social and economic needs.
        Gold Coral Harvest Moratorium
        Under the preferred alternative (a 5-year moratorium on harvest of live and dead gold coral), the potential risk of overfishing gold corals would be eliminated for five years, during which time further research into gold coral growth rates would be conducted. This would ensure that harvests of gold coral are sustainable. There would be neutral or beneficial impacts on non-target species and their habitat, protected resources, EFH, and HAPC. In the short-term this alternative could adversely impact potential commercial gold coral harvesters. Charter and recreational fishing sectors would not be affected, as these sectors are not involved in the harvest of precious corals. In the short-term, there could be adverse impacts on the region's economy by prohibiting the potential harvest of gold coral for five years and, in the long-term, there would be a positive impact on the regional economy by preserving opportunities for the future development of a sustainable and profitable gold coral fishery.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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, and the 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 this analysis is contained in Amendment 7, available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). The analysis follows.

          NMFS prepared an IRFA for this rulemaking. 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, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance requirements associated with this rule. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. Furthermore, there are no disproportionate impacts from this rule by vessel size, gear type, or geographical location.
          Description of Affected Entities
          There are three permitted vessels in the fishery for black coral, but only two have reported landings in Hawaii. Both vessels are considered to be small entities under the Small Business Administration definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently-owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million. Specific net revenues by individual vessels cannot be analyzed in this IRFA due to confidentiality restraints, but potential economic impacts are discussed below. The fishery for gold coral also includes the same three vessels permitted to harvest black corals under a generic precious corals permit issued by NMFS. However, these vessels are currently dormant in the gold coral fishery, having no identifiable harvest in 2006, although modest commercial quotas of 20 kg (44 lb) for sites in the Main Hawaiian Islands and 67 kg (149 lb) for sites in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are specified.
          Description of Alternatives
          Au`au Channel Black Coral Harvest Quota

            Alternative A1: No Action. This alternative would continue to regulate the black coral fishery based on minimum sizes, not by maximum sustainable yield or geographic area.

            Alternative A2: Designate the Au`au Channel black coral bed as an Established Bed with an annual harvest quota of 5,000 kg every two years for the entire bed including State and Federal waters (Preferred Alternative). The Au`au Channel black coral bed would be designated as an Established Bed and harvests would be limited to 5,000 kg every two years from both State and Federal waters combined. All other regulations would continue to apply. Minimum size regulations and gear restrictions would continue to apply.

            Alternative A3: Designate the Au`au Channel black coral bed as an Established Bed with an annual harvest quota of 5,000 kg every two years for Federal waters only. The Au`au Channel black coral bed would be designated as an Established Bed and harvests would be limited to 5,000 kg every two years from Federal waters only. All other regulations would continue to apply. Minimum size regulations and gear restrictions would continue to apply.
          Western Pacific Gold Coral Moratorium

            Alternative B1: No Action. Gold coral harvests would continue to be regulated based on harvest quotas by area and gear restrictions, and no moratorium would be implemented.

            Alternative B2: Implement a five-year moratorium on live and dead gold corals (Preferred Alternative). A five-year moratorium on the harvest of live and dead gold corals would be implemented for the western Pacific while an associated research program further examines linear/axial growth, recruitment/mortality, and deterioration rates of gold coral. Bed-specific quotas and gear restrictions would not be required during this period. The moratorium may be renewed if the research program is not completed within the five years.

            Alternative B3: Implement a five-year moratorium on live gold coral. A five-year moratorium on the harvest of live gold corals would be implemented for the western Pacific while an associated research program further examines linear/axial growth, recruitment and mortality, and deterioration rates of gold coral. Bed quotas and gear restrictions would not be required during this period. The moratorium may be renewed if the research program is not completed within the five years.

            Alternative B4: Reduce the harvest quota by 50 percent of gold coral in all precious coral beds. Harvest quotas for gold coral would be reduced by 50 percent in all precious coral beds throughout the western Pacific. Gear restrictions would continue to apply. In 2002, the Council recommended suspending the harvest quota for gold coral at the Makapu`u Bed as a precautionary measure expected to increase the probability that a recovery in the number of gold coral colonies at the Makapu`u Bed eventually occurs.
          Economic Impacts to Small Entities

            Alternative A1. The implementation of the no-action alternative would have no economic impact to the two vessels currently engaged in the harvest of black corals in the Au`au Channel.

            Alternative A2 (Preferred). This alternative would reduce the harvests of black coral and, thus, could adversely affect both vessels currently engaged in the fishery. Due to confidentiality agreements, the amounts of the reductions, both absolute and on a relative basis, could not be reported here.

            Alternative A3. This alternative would not likely reduce the harvest, as most of the harvest comes from State waters, thus resulting in no or little economic impact to the two vessels engaged in the fishery.

            Alternatives B1, B2 (Preferred), B3, and B4. Because the gold coral fishery is currently dormant, there would be no impact to vessels from this rulemaking resulting from alternatives B1, B2, and B3. If the permitted vessels chose to reenter the fishery under alternative B4 (quota reduction), it would appear that there were positive economic impacts because of the movement from no fishing to fishing. However, a 50 percent quota reduction from current quota levels could not be construed to have positive economic impacts. For a discussion of impacts to the economy, please see the RIR in FMP Amendment 7.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian Natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: May 23, 2008.
          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 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 665.12, in the definition of “Precious coral permit area”, the introductory text is republished and paragraph (1) is revised to read as follows:

          § 665.12
          Definitions.

            Precious coral permit area means the area encompassing the precious coral beds in the management area. Each bed is designated by a permit area code and assigned to one of the following four categories:
          (1) Established beds. (i) Makapu`u (Oahu), Permit Area E-B-1, includes the area within a radius of 2.0 nm of a point at 21° 18.0′ N. lat., 157° 32.5′ W. long.
          (ii) Au`au Channel (Maui), Permit Area E-B-2, includes the area west and south of a point at 21° 10′ N. lat., 156° 40′ W. long., and east of a point at 21° N. lat., 157° W. long., and west and north of a point at 20° 45′ N. lat., 156° 40′ W. long.

        3. In § 665.82, add a new paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

          § 665.82
          Prohibitions.

          (b) * * *
          (5) In a bed that has been closed pursuant to §§ 665.85 or 665.90.

        4. Revise § 665.83 to read as follows:

          § 665.83
          Seasons.
          The fishing year for precious corals begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 the following year, except at the Makapu`u and Au`au Channel Beds, which have a two-year fishing period that begins July 1 and ends June 30, two years later.

        5. In § 665.85, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 665.85
          Closures.

          (a) If the Regional Administrator determines that the harvest quota for any coral bed will be reached prior to the end of the fishing year, or the end of the 2-year fishing period at Makapu`u Bed or Au`au Channel Bed, NMFS shall publish a notice to that effect in the Federal Register and shall use other means to notify permit holders. Any such notice must indicate the reason for the closure, the bed being closed, and the effective date of the closure.

        6. Under subpart F, add a new § 665.90 to read as follows:

          § 665.90
          Gold coral harvest moratorium.
          Fishing for, taking, or retaining any gold coral in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2013.

        7. Revise Table 1 to part 665 to read as follows:

          Table 1 to Part 665 Precious Coral Quotas

            Type of coral bed
            Name of coral bed
            Harvest quota in kilograms
            Number of years

            Established Beds
            Au`au Channel
            Black: 5,000
            2

            Makapu`u
            Pink: 2,000Gold: 0 (zero)
              Bamboo: 500

            2--
              2

            Conditional Beds
            180 Fathom Bank
            Pink: 222Gold: 67
              Bamboo: 56

            11
              1

            Brooks Bank
            Pink: 17Gold: 133
              Bamboo: 111

            11
              1

            Kaena Point
            Pink: 67Gold: 20
              Bamboo: 17

            11
              1

            Keahole Point
            Pink: 67Gold: 20
              Bamboo: 17

            11
              1

            Refugia
            Westpac
            All: 0 (zero)
            --

            Exploratory Areas
            Hawaii,American Samoa,
              Guam,
              U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas

            1,000 per area (all species combined except black corals)
            1

          Notes:

            1. No fishing for coral is authorized in refugia.

            2. A moratorium on gold coral harvesting is in effect through June 30, 2013.

      [FR Doc. E8-12127 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.: 180110025-8025-01]
        RIN 0648-BH51
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northern Gulf of Maine Measures in Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes some of the measures included in Framework Adjustment 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan that establish scallop specifications and other measures for the Northern Gulf of Maine scallop management area for fishing years 2018 and 2019. This action is necessary to prevent overfishing and improve both yield-per-recruit and the overall management of the Atlantic sea scallop resource in the Northern Gulf of Maine. The intended effect of this rule is to notify the public of these proposed measures and to solicit comment on the potential scallop fishery management changes.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by March 7, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          The New England Fishery Management Council has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures, other considered alternatives, and analyzes the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. The Council submitted a decision draft of the framework to NMFS that includes the draft EA, a description of the Council's preferred alternatives, the Council's rationale for selecting each alternative, and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Copies of the decision draft of Framework Adjustment 29, the draft EA, and the IRFA, are available upon request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0007, 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-2018-0007, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Northern Gulf of Maine Measures in Framework Adjustment 29.”

            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 z“N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The scallop fishery's management unit ranges from the shorelines of Maine through North Carolina to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), established in 1982, includes a number of amendments and framework adjustments that have revised and refined the fishery's management. The New England Fishery Management Council sets scallop fishery catch limits and other management measures through specification or framework adjustments that occur annually or biennially. The Council adopted Framework Adjustment 29 (Framework 29) to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP in its entirety on December 7, 2017, and submitted a decision draft of the framework, including a draft EA, to NMFS on December 21, 2017, for review and approval. Framework 29 includes catch, effort, and quota allocations and adjustments to the rotational area management program for fishing year 2018 and default specifications for fishing year 2019.
        This action proposes the portion of Framework 29 that establishes scallop specifications and other measures for the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) scallop management area for fishing years 2018 and 2019. These measures were developed to address harvesting activities by the limited access fleet in the past two years. In fishing years 2016 and 2017, the limited access fleet harvested substantially more scallops from the NGOM than they had since the beginning of the NGOM management program. Because the limited access fleet accessed the NGOM through the days-at-sea (DAS) program, there was no hard limit on its landings from the area. This resulted in total landings from the NGOM by the limited access fleet that far exceeded the total allowable catch (TAC) for the limited access general category (LAGC) fleet. The Council felt that this was inconsistent with the goals of the NGOM management program. Accordingly, the Council developed Framework 29, in part, to put measures in place to temporarily divide the catch more equitably between the two fleets and limit the total catch by the limited access fleet from the NGOM to a level consistent with its specified TAC for the NGOM.
        Prior to its approval of Framework 29 at its December meeting, the Council raised concerns regarding the complexity of Framework 29 and the timeline for implementation. Specifically, the Council was concerned that if the NGOM measures in Framework 29 are not in place by April 1, 2018, the limited access fleet could exceed its portion of the total allowable catch (TAC) proposed in the framework, potentially undermining the sustainability of the NGOM fishery in at least the short term. We informed the Council at the December meeting that we would consider separating out the NGOM measures in Framework 29 to ensure that they were in place prior to April 1, 2018. To help prevent excessive fishing in the NGOM, we are separating out the NGOM measures in Framework 29 to expedite their implementation. As a result, this action addresses only the portions of Framework 29 that affect fishing in the NGOM. We will address the remaining specifications and other management measure in Framework 29 in a follow-up action.
        This action would set new management measures in the NGOM for the scallop fishery for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years, including prohibiting the limited access fleet from accessing the NGOM while participating in the DAS program. In addition, this action would divide the annual NGOM TAC between the limited access fleet while on a research set-aside (RSA) trip and LAGC fleets for the 2018 and 2019 (default) fishing years as follows:

          Table 1—NGOM TAC for Fishing Years 2018 and 2019
          [Default]

            Fleet
            2018
            lb
            kg
            2019 (default)
            lb
            kg

            LAGC
            135,000
            61,235
            102,500
            46,493

            Limited access
            65,000
            29,484
            32,500
            14,742

            Total
            200,000
            90,718
            135,000
            61,235

        Setting the NGOM TAC
        The NGOM TAC would be set by applying a fishing mortality rate (F) of F = 0.18 using only the projected exploitable biomass on Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank for fishing years 2018 and 2019. The Council chose to base the F rate only on these two areas because the Council projects that this is where the bulk of the fishing in the NGOM will take place. The 2017 survey of Stellwagen Bank did not see any signs of recruitment to the NGOM resource. Therefore, the Council chose to set a more conservative TAC for fishing years 2018 and 2019 that may lead to more consistent harvests in the NGOM. The overall TAC for the entire NGOM management area would be set at 200,000 lbs (90,718 kg) for fishing year 2018, and 135,000 lbs (61,235 kg) for fishing year 2019 (Table 1).
        Dividing the NGOM TAC
        If current measures remain in place for the NGOM, limited access scallop vessels will be able to fish in the NGOM while on DAS until the LAGC fleet reaches the TAC. Since this could result in extremely high catch and fishing mortality in the NGOM, this action would divide the TAC between the LAGC fleet and the limited access fleet while on a RSA trip at a level consistent with the biomass in the area. The NGOM TAC for the LAGC component was set at 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) from fishing year 2008 through fishing year 2016. Using this as a basis, the Council recommended that the first 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) of the NGOM TAC should be allocated to the LAGC fleet, and that any remaining pounds should be split equally between the LAGC and limited access fleets (Table 1). Each fleet would operate independently under its own portion of the TAC. The NGOM management area would remain open for each component until their TAC is projected to be harvested, even if the other component has reached its TAC. For example, if the LAGC component harvests its TAC before the limited access fleet harvests all of its allocation, the area would remain open for limited access fishing. The Council considered several options for temporarily dividing the TAC between the two fleets. This TAC division is intended to be a short-term solution to allow controlled fishing in the NGOM management area until the Council and NMFS can develop a future action to address NGOM issues more holistically.
        Managing Limited Access Removals
        This action would not change how the LAGC component currently operates in the NGOM. However, the limited access fleet would be prohibited from accessing the NGOM while participating in the DAS program. The limited access share of the NGOM TAC would be available through RSA compensation fishing only. Each year the Scallop FMP sets aside 1.25 million lb (566,990 kg) of scallops to fund research relevant to the FMP. RSA projects are selected through a competitive grants process, with priorities established by the Council. NMFS allocates award recipients a portion of the RSA quota and recipients use the money generated by the sale of the awarded RSA quota, to fund the proposed research. This action would allow NMFS to allocate the limited access portion of the NGOM TAC (65,000 lb (29,484 kg)) to be harvested as RSA compensation quota. This allocation would not be in addition to the 1.25 million lb (566,990 kg) RSA quota. When allocating this quota to specific projects, NMFS would give priority to projects that are relevant to the NGOM. Any limited access or LAGC vessels that NMFS awards NGOM RSA compensation pounds would be required to declare into the area and fish exclusively within the NGOM management area. Any NGOM RSA harvest overages would be deducted from the following year's limited access NGOM TAC.
        Capping removals for all fishery components at the specified portion of the NGOM TAC and requiring that all NGOM trips take place exclusively in the NGOM would allow the Council and NMFS to fully understand total removals from the area. Making the limited access share of the NGOM TAC available for RSA compensation fishing would be a short-term solution to utilize a small limited access portion of the NGOM TAC with the expectation that a more formal allocation and harvest strategy would be developed in a future amendment.
        The Council has reviewed the NGOM portions of the Framework 29 proposed rule regulations as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA has been prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA consists of Framework 29 analyses of the NGOM measures, the draft IRFA, and the preamble to this proposed rule.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        This action proposes the management measures and specifications for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery in the NGOM for 2018, with 2019 default measures. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the Council's Framework 29 document and the preamble of this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
        This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with any state regulations or other federal laws.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply

        The proposed regulations would affect all vessels with limited access and LAGC scallop permits, but there is no differential effect based on whether the affected entities are small or large. Framework 29 provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that would be affected by the proposed regulations, by port and state (see ADDRESSES). Fishing year 2016 data were used for this analysis because these data are the most recent complete data set for a fishing year. There were 313 vessels that obtained full-time limited access permits in 2016, including 250 dredge, 52 small-dredge, and 11 scallop trawl permits. In the same year, there were also 34 part-time limited access permits in the sea scallop fishery. No vessels were issued occasional scallop permits. NMFS issued 225 LAGC IFQ permits in 2016, and 125 of these vessels actively fished for scallops that year. The remaining permit holders likely leased out scallop IFQ allocations with their permits in Confirmation of Permit History. In 2016, there were 27 NGOM vessels that actively fished.
        For RFA purposes, NMFS defines a small business in shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11 million annually (see 50 CFR 200.2). Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those impacted by this proposed rule. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities with various personal and business affiliations. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity,” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis.
        On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership dataset is based on the calendar year 2016 permits and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2014 through 2016. Matching the potentially impacted 2016 fishing year permits described above (limited access permits and LAGC IFQ permits) to calendar year 2016 ownership data results in 161 distinct ownership entities for the limited access fleet and 115 distinct ownership entities for the LAGC IFQ fleet. Of these, and based on the Small Business Administration guidelines, 154 of the limited access distinct ownership entities and 113 of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as small. The remaining seven of the limited access and two of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as large entities. The number of distinct small business entities with NGOM permits and active NGOM vessels were 27 in 2016 permits.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The Council considered three alternatives for setting a TAC in the NGOM: Alternative 1 (No Action, 95,000 lb (43,091 kg) TAC and no changes to management), Alternative 2 (Set NGOM TAC using exploitable biomass projections for 2018 and 2019, cap removals for all fishery components, and apply limited access share of TAC toward RSA compensation fishing), and Alternative 3 (Set NGOM TAC at 0 lb (0 kg)). Under the Council's preferred alternative, Alternative 2, there were two options for setting the TAC and each of these options had two sub-options for splitting the TAC between the limited access and the LAGC fleets. Option 1 (setting that TAC based on F = 0.15) included these two sub-options to split the TAC: Sub-option 1 (allocating the first 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) to LAGC fleet and the remaining TAC is split equally), and sub-option 2 (first 95,000 lb (43,091 kg) to LAGC fleet and the remaining TAC is split 25(LAGC)/75(limited access)). These two sub-options are described in Table 2. Under these sub-options scallop revenues and net revenues of the small business entities for the NGOM vessels would increase relative to No Action levels ranging from 19 percent to 27 percent. However, the preferred alternative (Alternative 2, Option 2, Sub-Option 1) would result in the highest economic benefits for this fishery with an estimated increase in net revenues by 42 percent compared to both Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 3 (Set NGOM TAC at 0 lb (0 kg)).

          Table 2—Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 2 for NGOM Scallop Fishery
          [2018 Fishing Year]

            Option 1 (F = 0.15)
            Option 2 (F = 0.18)—Preferred

              Split Sub-Option 1 (70,000 lb (31,751 kg) then 50/50) Preferred

            LA scallop pounds
            47500 lb (21546 kg)
            65000 lb (29,484 kg)

            LAGC scallop pounds
            117500 lb (53297 kg)
            135000 lb (61,235 kg)

            Total Pounds
            165000 lb (74843 kg)
            200000 lb (90,718 kg)

            Net revenue (in 2017 Mill. $)
            1.13
            1.29

            Net Revenue under No Action (Alternative 1, in 2017 Mill. $)
            0.91
            0.91

            Percent Change in net revenue per vessel and per business entity
            24 percent
            42 percent

              Split Sub-Option 2 (95,000 lb (43,091 kg) then 25/75)

            LA scallop pounds
            52,500 lb (23,814 kg)
            78,750 lb (35,720 kg)

            LAGC scallop pounds
            112,500 lb (51,029 kg)
            121,250 lb (54,998 kg)

            Total Pounds
            16,5000 lb (74,843 kg)
            200,000 lb (90,718 kg)

            Estimated LA RSA value
            $643,125
            $964,687.5

            Estimated LAGC scallop revenue
            $1,378,125
            $1,485,313

            net revenue ( 2017 Mill. $)
            1.08
            1.16

            Net Revenue under No Action (Alternative 1, in 2017 Mill. $))
            0.91
            0.91

            Percent Change in net revenue
            19 percent
            27 percent

        The economic impacts of the preferred NGOM alternative on the limited access vessels could range, however, from low negative to neutral. In both 2016 and 2017, limited access vessels were active in the NGOM management area until it closed when the LAGC component was projected to have reached its TAC. Approximately 67 limited access vessels operated within the NGOM management area in 2017 while operating under DAS. Depending on the scallop resource productivity in the open areas, the cap on limited access landings from the NGOM and the requirement that limited access share would be harvested as RSA compensation fishing could have some marginally low negative impacts on the limited access fishery due to effort displacement to other areas which may not be as productive as the NGOM scallop fishery.

          List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: February 13, 2018.
          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 NORTHEAST UNITED STATES

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

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

          Subpart A—General Provisions

        2. In § 648.10, revise paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(2) introductory text, and (f)(4)(i) to read as follows:

          § 648.10
          VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators.

          (f) Atlantic sea scallop vessel VMS notification requirements. Less than 1 hour prior to leaving port, the owner or authorized representative of a scallop vessel that is required to use VMS as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must notify the Regional Administrator by transmitting the appropriate VMS code that the vessel will be participating in the scallop DAS program, Area Access Program, LAGC scallop fishery, fishing in the Northern Gulf of Maine management area, or will be fishing outside of the scallop fishery under the requirements of its other Federal permits, or that the vessel will be steaming to another location prior to commencing its fishing trip by transmitting a “declared out of fishery” VMS code. If the owner or authorized representative of a scallop vessel declares out of the fishery for the steaming portion of the trip, the vessel cannot possess, retain, or land scallops, or fish for any other fish. Prior to commencing the fishing trip following a “declared out of fishery” trip, the owner or authorized representative must notify the Regional Administrator by transmitting the appropriate VMS code, before first crossing the VMS Demarcation Line, that the vessel will be participating in the scallop DAS program, Area Access Program, or LAGC scallop fishery. VMS codes and instructions are available from the Regional Administrator upon request.

          (2) NGOM scallop fishery. A NGOM scallop vessel is deemed to be fishing in Federal waters of the NGOM management area and will have its landings applied against the LAGC portion of the NGOM management area TAC, specified in § 648.62(b)(1), unless:

          (4) Catch reports. (i) The owner or operator of a limited access or LAGC scallop vessel with an IFQ permit that fishes for, possesses, or retains scallops, and is not fishing under a NE Multispecies DAS or sector allocation, must submit reports through the VMS, in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Regional Administrator, for each day fished, including open area trips, access area trips as described in § 648.59(b)(9), Northern Gulf of Maine RSA trips, and trips accompanied by a NMFS-approved observer. The reports must be submitted for each day (beginning at 0000 hr and ending at 2400 hr) and not later than 0900 hr of the following day. Such reports must include the following information:
          (A) VTR serial number;
          (B) Date fish were caught;
          (C) Total pounds of scallop meats kept;
          (D) Total pounds of all fish kept.

        3. In § 648.14:
        a. Revise paragraphs (i)(1)(iii)(A)(1)(ii) and (iv), and (i)(1)(viii)(A) and (B);
        b. Add paragraph (i)(2)(iii)(E); and
        c. Revise paragraphs (i)(3)(iii)(C) and(D).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (i) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (A) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board a limited access scallop permit and is properly declared into the scallop DAS, Area Access program, or the NGOM management area.

            (iv) The scallops were harvested by a vessel that has been issued and carries on board an NGOM or IFQ scallop permit, and is properly declared into the NGOM scallop management area, and the LAGC portion of the NGOM TAC specified in § 648.62 has not been harvested.

          (viii) Scallop research. (A) Fail to comply with any of the provisions specified in § 648.56 or the conditions of a letter of authorization issued under § 648.56.
          (B) Fish for scallops in, or possess or land scallops from the NGOM, unless allocated NGOM RSA allocation as described in § 648.56(d) and fishing on a scallop research set aside compensation trip.

          (2) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (E) Fish for, possess, or land scallops from the NGOM, unless on a scallop RSA compensation trip and allocated NGOM RSA allocation as described in § 648.56(d).

          (3) * * *
          (iii) * * *

          (C) Declare into the NGOM scallop management area after the effective date of a notification published in the Federal Register stating that the LAGC portion of the NGOM scallop management area TAC has been harvested as specified in § 648.62, unless the vessel is fishing exclusively in state waters, declared a state-waters only NGOM trip, and is participating in an approved state waters exemption program as specified in § 648.54, or unless the vessel is participating in the scallop RSA program as specified in § 648.56.

          (D) Fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the NGOM scallop management area after the effective date of a notification published in the Federal Register that the LAGC portion of the NGOM scallop management area TAC has been harvested, as specified in § 648.62, unless the vessel possesses or lands scallops that were harvested south of 42°20′ N lat., the vessel is transiting the NGOM scallop management area, and the vessel's fishing gear is properly stowed and not available for immediate use in accordance with § 648.2 or unless the vessel is fishing exclusively in state waters, declared a state-waters only NGOM trip, and is participating in an approved state waters exemption program as specified in § 648.54, or unless the vessel is participating in the scallop RSA program as specified in § 648.56.

          Subpart D—Management Measures for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

        4. In § 648.56 revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

          § 648.56
          Scallop research.

          (c) NOAA shall make the final determination as to what proposals are approved and which vessels are authorized to take scallops in excess of possession limits, or take additional trips into Open, Access Areas, or the NGOM management area. NMFS shall provide authorization of such activities to specific vessels by letter of acknowledgement, letter of authorization, or Exempted Fishing Permit issued by the Regional Administrator, which must be kept on board the vessel.
          (d) Available RSA allocation shall be 1.25 million lb (567 mt) annually, which shall be deducted from the ABC/ACL specified in § 648.53(a) prior to setting ACLs for the limited access and LAGC fleets, as specified in § 648.53(a)(3) and (4), respectively. Approved RSA projects shall be allocated an amount of scallop pounds that can be harvested in open areas, available access areas, and the NGOM. The specific access areas that are open to RSA harvest and the amount of NGOM allocation to be landed through RSA harvest shall be specified through the framework process as identified in § 648.59(e)(1). In a year in which a framework adjustment is under review by the Council and/or NMFS, NMFS shall make RSA awards prior to approval of the framework, if practicable, based on total scallop pounds needed to fund each research project. Recipients may begin compensation fishing in open areas prior to approval of the framework, or wait until NMFS approval of the framework to begin compensation fishing within approved access areas.

        5. In § 648.62:
        a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4), (b), (c), and (d); and
        b. Add paragraph (a)(5).
        The addition and revisions to read as follows:

          § 648.62
          Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Management Program.
          (a) * * *
          (2) Scallop landings by vessels issued NGOM permits shall be deducted from the LAGC portion of the NGOM scallop total allowable catch when vessels fished all or part of a trip in the Federal waters portion of the NGOM. If a vessel with a NGOM scallop permit fishes exclusively in state waters within the NGOM, scallop landings from those trips will not be deducted from the Federal NGOM quota.
          (3) Scallop landings by all vessels issued LAGC IFQ scallop permits and fishing in the NGOM scallop management area shall be deducted from the LAGC portion of the NGOM scallop total allowable catch specified in the specifications or framework adjustment processes defined in § 648.55. Scallop landings by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM scallop management area shall be deducted from their respective scallop IFQs. Landings by incidental catch scallop vessels shall not be deducted from the NGOM total allowable catch specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
          (4) A vessel issued a NGOM or LAGC IFQ scallop permit that fishes in the NGOM may fish for, possess, or retain up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) of shucked or 25 bu (8.81 hL) of in-shell scallops, and may possess up to 50 bu (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line. A vessel issued an incidental catch general category scallop permit that fishes in the NGOM may fish for, possess, or retain only up to 40 lb of shucked or 5 U.S. bu (1.76 hL) of in-shell scallops, and may possess up to 10 bu (3.52 hL) of in-shell scallops seaward of the VMS Demarcation Line.
          (5) Scallop landings by all vessels issued scallop permits and fishing in the NGOM under the scallop RSA program (as specified in § 648.56) shall be deducted from the limited access portion of the NGOM scallop total allowable catch.
          (b) Total allowable catch. The total allowable catch for the NGOM scallop management area shall be specified through the framework adjustment process. The total allowable catch for the NGOM scallop management area shall be based on the Federal portion of the scallop resource in the NGOM. The total allowable catch shall be determined by historical landings until additional information on the NGOM scallop resource is available, for example through an NGOM resource survey and assessment. The ABC/ACL as defined in § 648.53(a) shall not include the total allowable catch for the NGOM scallop management area, and landings from the NGOM scallop management area shall not be counted against the ABC/ACL defined in § 648.53(a). The total allowable catch shall be divided between the limited access and the LAGC fleets.
          (1) NGOM annual hard TACs. The LAGC and the limited access portions of the annual hard TAC for the NGOM 2018 and 2019 fishing years are as follows:

              Fleet
              2018
              lb
              kg
              2019 (default)

              lb
              kg

              LAGC
              135,000
              61,235
              102,500
              46,493

              Limited access
              65,000
              29,484
              32,500
              14,742

              Total
              200,000
              90,718
              135,000
              61,235

          (2) Unless a vessel has fished for scallops outside of the NGOM scallop management area and is transiting the NGOM scallop management area with all fishing gear stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, no vessel issued an LAGC or limited access scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2) may possess, retain, or land scallops in the NGOM scallop management area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the Federal Register that the vessel's respective portion(s) of the NGOM scallop total allowable catch in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) has been reached, unless the vessel is participating in the scallop RSA program as specified in § 648.56, has been allocated NGOM RSA pounds, and the limited access portion of the NGOM TAC has not been reached. Once the NGOM hard TAC is reached, a vessel issued a NGOM permit may no longer declare a state-only NGOM scallop trip and fish for scallops exclusively in state waters within the NGOM, unless participating in the state waters exemption program as specified in § 648.54. A vessel that has not been issued a Federal scallop permit that fishes exclusively in state waters is not subject to the closure of the NGOM scallop management area.
          (3) If either the LAGC or the limited access portion of the annual NGOM TAC is exceeded, the amount of NGOM scallop landings in excess of the portion of the TAC specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be deducted from the respective portion(s) of the NGOM TAC which has been exceeded for the subsequent fishing year, as soon as practicable, once scallop landings data for the NGOM management area is available.
          (c) VMS requirements. Except scallop vessels issued a limited access scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(i) that have declared a NGOM trip under the scallop RSA program, a vessel issued a scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2) that intends to fish for scallops in the NGOM scallop management area or fishes for, possesses, or lands scallops in or from the NGOM scallop management area, must declare a NGOM scallop management area trip and report scallop catch through the vessel's VMS unit, as required in § 648.10. If the vessel has a NGOM permit, the vessel must declare either a Federal NGOM trip or a state-waters NGOM trip. If a vessel intends to fish any part of a NGOM trip in Federal NGOM waters, it may not declare into the state water NGOM fishery.
          (d) Gear restrictions. Except scallop vessels issued a limited access scallop permit pursuant to § 648.4(a)(2)(i) that have properly declared a NGOM trip under the scallop RSA program, the combined dredge width in use by, or in possession on board, LAGC scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM scallop management area may not exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m), measured at the widest point in the bail of the dredge.

      [FR Doc. 2018-03319 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
        13 CFR Part 124
        Tribal Consultations for Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments (RIN 3245-AG94)

          AGENCY:
          U.S. Small Business Administration.

          ACTION:
          Notice of tribal consultation meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that it is holding tribal consultation meetings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Anchorage, Alaska, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma concerning the proposed revisions to the 8(a) Business Development (BD) program regulations. Testimony presented at these tribal consultations will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration when the Agency deliberates on approaches to changes in the regulations pertaining to the 8(a) BD program.

          DATES:
          The Tribal Consultation meeting dates are as follows:
          1. Tuesday, December 10, 2019, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (CST), Minneapolis, Minnesota. The pre-registration deadline for this Tribal Consultation meeting is December 6, 2019.
          2. Wednesday, January 8, 2020, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (AKST), Anchorage, Alaska. The pre-registration deadline for this Tribal Consultation meeting is January 2, 2020.
          3. Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (MST), Albuquerque, New Mexico. The pre-registration deadline for this Tribal Consultation meeting is January 7, 2020.
          4. Thursday, January 16, 2020, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (CST), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The pre-registration deadline for this Tribal Consultation meeting is January 9, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          1. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota will be held at the SBA Minnesota District Office, Training Center, 330 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
          2. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Anchorage, Alaska will be held at the Z.J. Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, AK 99503.
          3. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico will be held at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th Street NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104.
          4. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will be held at the Francis Tuttle Technology Center, Corporate Training Center Building, 12777 North Rockwell Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73142.

          5. Send pre-registration requests to attend and/or testify to Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; Chequita.Carter@sba.gov; or Facsimile to (202) 481-2177.
          6. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG94, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): To Brenda Fernandez, Office of Procurement Policy and Liaison, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; or Brenda.Fernandez@sba.gov.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, please submit the comments to Brenda Fernandez and highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will make a final determination as to whether the comments will be published or not.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Chequita Carter, Program Assistant for SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, at Chequita.Carter@sba.gov or (202) 205-6680 or by facsimile to (202) 481-2177.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        On November 8, 2019 (84 FR 60846), SBA issued a proposed rule contemplating substantive changes to the regulations governing the 8(a) BD program (13 CFR 124), publicly available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-11-08/pdf/2019-23141.pdf. The proposed rule would consolidate the All Small Mentor Protégé Program and the 8(a) Mentor Protégé Program into one program to eliminate confusion and remove duplicative functions within SBA. This proposed rule would also eliminate the requirement that 8(a) Participants seeking to be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract as a joint venture must submit the joint venture agreement to SBA for review and approval prior to contract award. Additionally, this rule proposes to make several changes to the 8(a) BD program regulations to eliminate confusion or reduce unnecessary or excessive burdens on 8(a) applicants and Participants owned and controlled by tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and Community Development Corporations (CDCs). Among other things, such changes would eliminate the prior approval requirement for changes of ownership involving the insertion or removal of a wholly-owned business entity between the tribe/ANC/CDC and the Participant, simplify the rules pertaining to a tribe/ANC/NHO/CDC owning more than one Participant in the 8(a) BD program, clarify the 8(a) BD program admission requirements governing how a tribally-owned applicant may demonstrate that it possesses the necessary potential for success, revise the rules regarding excessive withdrawals in the context of pro-rata distributions to non-disadvantaged minority owners of entity-owned 8(a) Participants, and authorize an appeal process under which a Participant could challenge an SBA-initiated change to its primary industry classification. SBA is seeking comments and input on the various approaches and changes identified in the proposed rule.
        II. Tribal Consultation Meeting
        The purpose of these tribal consultation meetings is to conform to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Tribal Consultations; to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss their views on the issues; and for SBA to obtain the views of SBA's stakeholders on proposed approaches to the 8(a) BD program regulations. SBA considers tribal consultation meetings a valuable component of its deliberations and believes that these tribal consultation meetings will allow for constructive dialogue with the Tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Tribal Elders, elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives, and principals of tribally-owned and ANC-owned firms participating in the 8(a) BD program.
        The format of these tribal consultation meetings will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. Testimony received at these tribal consultations will guide SBA's review process and may potentially develop new proposals. SBA requests that the comments focus on SBA's proposed rulemaking relating to the 8(a) BD program, general issues as they pertain to the 8(a) BD regulations, or the unique concerns of the Tribal or native communities. SBA requests that commenters do not raise issues pertaining to other SBA small business programs. Presenters are encouraged to provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony. Electronic or digitized copies are encouraged.
        Each tribal consultation meeting will be held for one day. The meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m. (CST); the meeting in Anchorage, Alaska will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. (AKST), with a break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.; the meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m. (MST); and the meeting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m. (CST). SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.
        III. Registration

        SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities or principal of a tribally-owned or ANC-owned 8(a) firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Registration requests should be received by SBA no later than: December 6, 2019 for the consultation meeting in Minneapolis; January 2, 2020 for the consultation meeting in Anchorage; January 7, 2020 for the consultation meeting in Albuquerque; and January 9, 2020 for the consultation meeting in Oklahoma City. Please submit registration requests in writing to Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs at Chequita.Carter@sba.gov or by facsimile to (202) 481-2177. If you are interested in testifying please include the following information relating to the person testifying: Name, Organization affiliation, Address, Telephone number, Email address and Fax number. SBA will attempt to accommodate all interested parties that wish to present testimony. Based on the number of registrants it may be necessary to impose time limits to ensure that everyone who wishes to testify has the opportunity to do so. SBA will confirm in writing the registration of presenters and attendees.
        IV. Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

        For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation meeting, contact Chequita Carter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

          Authority:
           15 U.S.C. 634 and E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249.

          Shawn Pensoneau,
          Assistant Administrator for the Office of Native American Affairs.

      [FR Doc. 2019-26293 Filed 12-4-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE P