        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 130405338-4201-01]
        RIN 0648-BC84
        Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Chafing Gear Modifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The proposed action modifies the existing chafing gear regulations for midwater trawl gear. This action includes regulations that affect all trawl sectors (Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota Program, Mothership Cooperative Program, Catcher/Processor Cooperative Program, and tribal fishery) managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP).

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on April 18, 2014. During the comment period, NMFS is specifically seeking comments on the proposed method of attachment for chafing gear, including the benefits and effects relative to current minimum mesh size restrictions and prohibition on double walled codends.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0218, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0218, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736; Attn: Becky Renko.
          • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Becky Renko.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Becky Renko, 206-526-6110; (fax) 206-526-6736; Becky.Renko@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        In January 2011, NMFS implemented a trawl rationalization program, a type of catch share program, for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery's trawl fleet. The trawl rationalization program was adopted through Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP and consists of an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the shorebased trawl fleet (shoreside IFQ program) and cooperative programs for the at-sea mothership (MS coop program) and catcher/processor (CP coop program) trawl fleets. Since implementing the trawl rationalization program, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have been working to refine the program with additional regulatory requirements, referred to as trailing actions. One trailing action is the modification of the current the chafing gear requirements for all midwater trawl gear.
        Midwater trawl gear is the only type of trawl gear that harvesting vessels in the shorebased IFQ program, MS coop program, and CP coop program are allowed to use to target Pacific whiting. Midwater trawl gear may also be used by vessels in the shorebased IFQ program to target non-whiting species. The proposed action does not contemplate the use of midwater trawl gear beyond what is currently allowed by regulation.
        The proposed action is to consider modifications to the chafing gear regulations that apply to all midwater trawl gear. Chafing or chafer panels are webbing or other material attached to the codend to minimize damage to the codend netting from wear caused by the codend rubbing against the stern ramp and trawl alley during net retrieval and from contact with the ocean floor. The current chafing gear restrictions at 50 CFR § 660.130 for midwater trawl gear are: restrict chafing coverage to 50 percent or less of the codend circumference; restrict chafing coverage to the last 50 meshes of the codend; prohibit sections of chafing gear from being longer than 50 meshes; and require chafing gear to be attached outside riblines and restraining straps.
        In 2011, some Pacific Coast trawl vessel owners that use midwater gear to target Pacific whiting expressed concern that the current regulations limit chafing gear to the last 50 meshes of the codend. The vessel owners believe that this aspect of the current regulations was an error that inadvertently occurred when the regulations were revised in 2007. Prior to 2007, the regulations allowed chafing gear to cover the full length of midwater trawl codends. The 2007 regulatory revision consolidated the regulations into one section and was not intended to result in substantive changes to the regulations.
        Chafing gear measures were originally adopted in 1994 and were intended to provide vessels with greater flexibility in respect to types, size, and attachment of material used to protect the net without reducing the effectiveness of the mesh size regulation. The measures included restricting chafing coverage to 50 percent or less of the codend circumference, which was intended to leave the top half of the net bare to improve escapement of small fish. Restrictions on the length of chafing section (50 meshes in length) and requirements for attachment outside the riblines and restraining straps were intended to allow the entire length of the codend to be covered, while providing exit points for fish trapped between the codend mesh and the chafing gear.
        This proposed rule also includes minor technical revisions to related regulatory text. Section 660.11, General definitions, contains basic descriptions of small footrope, large footrope and midwater trawl gear. In-depth descriptions of these trawl gears found in § 660.130 were modified to eliminate redundancy and increase clarity.
        Chafing Modifications for Midwater Trawl Gear
        In 2011, while revisions to the chafing gear restrictions were being considered, some Pacific whiting vessel owners requested that broader changes be considered to address the current needs of the fishery. From 2003 to 2010, approximately 63 percent of the vessels that fished for Pacific whiting were also used in the Alaska groundfish fishery to target Pollock with pelagic trawl gear. The chafing requirements for midwater trawl gear used in Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries are more restrictive than the Alaska groundfish fishery requirements. Codends for midwater trawling range in cost from $10,000 to $200,000 each. To reduce operational costs for vessels operating in both regions, some vessel owners requested that the chafing gear requirements for midwater trawl gear in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery be modified to allow for greater coverage so codends currently used in the Alaska fisheries could be used in both regions.
        In November 2011, the Trawl Rationalization Regulatory Evaluation Committee (TREC) reported on trailing actions and included a recommendation that the Council consider revisions to the chafing gear regulations to conform to current fishery needs. The Council recommended moving forward with revisions for 2013. In March 2012, the TREC presented the Council with a preliminary analysis that included three alternative actions for chafing gear: No Action, Alternative 1 to eliminate all chafing gear restrictions as they apply to midwater trawl gear, and Alternative 2 to amend the midwater trawl gear restrictions to allow for greater chafing gear coverage on the codend consistent with the Alaska groundfish fishery regulations. The Council discussed the issue and indicated that it was important to move ahead with chafing gear revisions for the 2013 Pacific whiting season. The Council selected Alternative 2 as the Final Preferred Alternative to be analyzed in an Environmental Assessment (EA).

        At the Council's September 2012 meeting, NMFS informed the Council that its Sustainable Fisheries Division (SFD) had reviewed the range of alternatives and found that Alternative 1, to eliminate all chafing gear restrictions, appeared to be inconsistent with the Council's “Bycatch Mitigation Plan” and measures specified in Amendment 18 to the PCGFMP. Although implementation of trawl rationalization has reduced concerns about groundfish bycatch, the bycatch of non-groundfish species including Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species and forage fish was a concern. Section 6.6.1.2 of the PCGFMP describes the Council's bycatch mitigation relative to mesh size restrictions as follows: Regarding the “success of minimum mesh size restrictions in allowing juvenile fish to escape trawl nets, the Council also developed restrictions preventing trawlers from using a double-walled codend. Further restrictions related to this objective include prohibitions on encircling the whole of a bottom trawl net with chafing gear and restrictions on the minimum mesh size of pelagic trawl chafing gear (16 inches)”. Given the PCGFMP bycatch mitigation measures added under Amendment 18, SFD recommended narrowing the scope of the EA by removing the alternative for unrestricted use of chafing gear. SFD also requested the addition of a new alternative in the EA. The new alternative was to revise the regulations to be consistent with the midwater trawl chafing gear requirements that had been in place prior to 2007 and which represented gear in use in the fishery. The difference between the new SFD requested alternative and No Action was that the new alternative would allow chafing gear to cover the full length of a codend rather than restricting it to the last 50 meshes (No Action); all other provisions were the same. In addition, SFD requested that the Council reconsider its recommendation of a Final Preferred Alternative at the Council's November 2012 meeting following review of an analysis that included the new alternative. In response, the Council recommended removing the unrestricted alternative from the EA and adding the new SFD requested alternative with reconsideration of the new alternative at its November meeting. In addition, the Council recommended adding a variation of the new alternative consistent with a Groundfish Advisory Panel (GAP) request for unrestricted chafing section lengths and the allowance for chafing attachment to be either under or over the codend riblines.
        At the Council's November 2012 meeting, a preliminary EA was available. The EA contained three alternatives: (1) No Action, (2) Alternative 1, to amend the midwater trawl gear restrictions to allow for greater chafing gear coverage on the codend consistent with the Alaska groundfish fishery regulations, and (3) Alternative 2, to reinstate the pre-2007 regulations by allowing the full length of the codend to be covered. Two sub-options were considered for Alternative 2. Alternative 2A would eliminate the restrictions on the length of each chafing panel (50 meshes) and allow chafing gear to be attached either under or over the ribelines of the codend; and, Alternative 2B would retain the chafing panel length restrictions. Alternative 2B is the status quo gear restriction currently used in the fishery.
        During public comment members of the fishing industry spoke in favor of less restrictive chafing gear measures. However, one commenter raised concerns about potential negative impacts on ESA-listed eulachon, ecosystem prey species, and essential fish habitat (EFH). This same commenter also noted that the Alaska groundfish regulations may have fewer chafing gear restrictions for pelagic trawl gear, but indicated that the Alaska groundfish regulations do have other more restrictive regulations pertaining to the performance of midwater trawl gear that are intended to mitigate possible negative impacts on forage fish and EFH. After considering comments from the advisory bodies and the public, the Council recommended implementation of Alternative 1 with modifications recommended by the GAP (Agenda Item 1.5.b, November 2012). The GAP recommended modifying the language of Alternative 1 slightly to clarify that attaching the chafing gear inside or outside the riblines and straps should be allowed.
        Non-Whiting Midwater Trawl
        The chafing gear changes proposed by this action would apply to all midwater trawl gear regardless of the target species. Although the Council initially considered the changes in respect to the Pacific whiting fishery, at its September 2012 meeting the Council confirmed its intent for the changes to apply to all midwater trawl gear. In the 1990s, midwater trawl gear was used to target yellowtail, widow, and chilipepper rockfish. Since 2002, when several species that co-occur with the target species were declared overfished, midwater targeting for species other than Pacific whiting was eliminated or in the case of chilipepper rockfish restricted to waters seaward of the Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs). In 2012, widow rockfish was declared rebuilt. In 2013, the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for both widow rockfish and bocaccio were increased over 2012. The increased ACLs for widow rockfish and bocaccio are likely to lead to greater use of midwater trawling by vessels targeting non-whiting species.
        Midwater trawl gear is generally not designed to touch the ocean bottom, but can be effectively used off-bottom or pelagically to target groundfish species that ascend above the ocean floor. Because the proposed action provides greater flexibility for protecting the portions of the codend that are subject to wear from contact with the seafloor, an increased number of non-whiting vessels may choose to increase chafing gear coverage and use midwater trawl gear.
        Limited data are available to understand how the non-whiting midwater trawl fishery might develop and the depths, times, and areas where the fishery is likely to occur. The current shorebased trawl IFQ fishery is very different from the trip limit management structure that was in place the late 1990s. The midwater trawl fishery that emerges from the shorebased IFQ fishery could be very different from the fishery that historically occurred, as different sized midwater nets and codends may be used, and vessels may fish in different areas and at different times of the year or they may target a different array of species.
        Tribal Fishery
        The chafing gear requirements would affect the tribal fishers using midwater trawl gear to fish in their usual and accustomed fishing areas. At this time, the Makah Tribe is the only tribe that conducts a midwater trawl fishery with trips targeting Pacific whiting and targeting non-whiting. The non-whiting fishery targets yellowtail rockfish. Because the proposed measures are to liberalize the current chafing gear restrictions, vessels fishing in the tribal sector may choose to continue using their current codends or modify their gear.
        Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

        The primary environmental impacts from the allowance for greater chafing gear coverage of midwater trawl codends are the possible increase in the catch of small fish, such as forage fish, and changes in contact with EFH bottom habitat within the trawl RCAs (where bottom trawl has been prohibited since 2002, changing the baseline environment considered in previous NEPA documents on trawl gear impacts). Between 2006 and 2011, the most common forage fish species observed in the at-sea (MS and CP coops) and tribal sectors targeting Pacific whiting with midwater trawl gear were squid, American shad, jack mackerel, shortbelly rockfish, Pacific herring, Pacific mackerel, lanternfish, Pacific sardine, and a variety of smelts including eulachon. Relative to the catch of Pacific whiting, observer data shows that forage fish species make up a low proportion of the overall catch and are expected to continue at levels similar to those observed in recent years. Relative to vessels using midwater trawl gear to target non-whiting species, the change in catch of small fish is difficult to project given the lack of historical total catch (discard plus retained catch) data and because the emerging fishery may be substantially different from historical fisheries. Even with greater chafing coverage on the codend, midwater trawl nets are constructed with very large mesh in the forward sections where small fish may escape capture. The incidental catch of non-groundfish species will continue to be monitored (all trawl vessels are required to carry at least one groundfish observer) and catch will be evaluated on an annual basis.
        Midwater trawls, also called pelagic or off-bottom trawls, are trawls where the doors may be in contact with the seabed (although they usually are not), while the footrope generally remains suspended above the seafloor, but may contact the bottom on occasion. Midwater trawls are generally towed above the ocean floor, although they may be used near the bottom. When fishing close to the bottom, the footropes of pelagic trawls can cause benthic animals to be separated from the bottom. Because of the large mesh in the forward sections of the net, most bottom animals would likely fall through the mesh and immediately be returned to the ocean floor. Sessile organisms that create structural habitat may be uprooted or pass under the footropes of midwater trawls towed close to the bottom, while those organisms that are more mobile or attached to light substrates may pass over the footrope with little damage. The unprotected footrope on midwater trawls effectively precludes the use of the nets on rough or hard substrates, meaning that they are not expected to affect the more complex habitats that occur on those substrates.
        Although the trawl RCAs were intended to minimize interactions between trawl vessels and overfished rockfish species, the trawl RCAs have effectively removed groundfish bottom trawling from a large portion of the EEZ since 2002. Because the RCAs have been closed to bottom trawling for over 10 years, the seafloor habitats have likely recovered considerably from pre-RCA years. In other words, it was necessary for the analysis in the EA to consider the effects of the proposed action on a recovered EFH habitat. Although the boundaries of the RCAs have varied between years, north of 40°10′ N. latitude the RCAs have continuously restricted much of the bottom trawling in waters between 75 and 200 fm. The proposed action would allow increased chafing coverage for all midwater trawl gear. With increased intensity from vessels targeting whiting plus non-whiting vessels, it is expected that more vessels will be making “occasional” contact with the benthic organisms and habitat than has been seen with the midwater fishery targeting Pacific whiting. Similarly, effort may increase in EFH conservation areas where only midwater trawling is allowed, and where bottom trawling has been prohibited since 2005.
        Double-walled codends
        Regulations at § 660.130(b)(1) specifically prohibit the use of double-walled codends. A double-walled codend is a codend constructed of two walls (layers) of webbing. To prevent chafing gear from being used to create the effect of a double-walled codend, NMFS is considering clarifying the prohibition relative to chafing gear in the final regulations.
        Classification
        NMFS has made a preliminary determination that the proposed action is consistent with PCGFMP, the MSA, and other applicable law. In making its final determination, NMFS will take into account the complete record, including the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.

        An EA was prepared for this action. The EA includes socio-economic information that was used to prepare the RIR and IRFA. The EA is available on the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/. This action also announces a public comment period on the EA.
        Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was 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. 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 the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a summary of the IRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a) follows: The Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS are proposing to liberalize current midwater trawl chafing gear regulations. In revising these regulations, the Council and NMFS have reviewed the differences of how the regulations should be interpreted and enforced and current industry practices. NMFS and the Council have also reviewed the current status of species being harvested and similar regulations for Alaska fisheries. With the recent implementation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish trawl rationalization program, NMFS and the Council took into account the increased potential to target rebuilt rockfish species with midwater gear. In proposing these regulations, NMFS and Council also considered the effects upon essential fish habitat, protected and ESA listed species, the harvest of small fish (groundfish and non-groundfish including forage and juvenile fish), and the effects of other conservation and management measures contained in the PCGFMP. NMFS and the Council also considered the economic effects of various chafing gear alternatives, particularly upon harvesting vessels.
        Fishermen use chafing gear to protect their trawl nets, particularly codends, from abrasion. Regulations specify the limits on the use of chafing gear panels. The main differences among the alternatives reviewed by NMFS and the Council related to how much of the circumference and length of the codend could be covered and what size of chafer panels could be used. The No Action alternative (existing regulations) would limit chafing gear to the very end of the codend (the last 50 mesh lengths) and to 50 percent of the codend's circumference via a single panel. Under Alternative 1 (Council Preferred Alternative), fishermen would have the option of covering up to 100 percent of the length of the codend and up to approximately 75 percent of the codend's circumference through the use of a single panel or multiple panels. Alternative 2A differs from Alternative 1 by limiting coverage to 50 percent of the codend circumference. Fishermen would have the option of covering up to 100 percent of the length of the codend and up to 50 percent of the codend's circumference with a single panel or multiple panels.

        Alternative 2B (Status Quo) differs from Alternative 1 in circumference coverage and from Alternative 2A in panel size. Under Alternative 2B, fishermen would have the option of covering up to 50 percent of the length of the codend and up to 50 percent of the codend's circumference; however, no single panel could cover more than 50 meshes of the codend. For example, to cover the length of a 500 mesh codend, 10 panels would be required. This alternative is labeled the “Status Quo Alternative” as it reflects the midwater chafing gear restrictions that were in effect during the 2006 season. According to the EA, “Up until 2011, the current regulations were interpreted and enforced in a manner that allowed fishers to cover the entire length of their codends using a series of 50-mesh panels, provided the panels did not exceed 50 percent of the codend circumference and the terminal end of each panel was unattached to allow small fish to escape. Recently, these regulations have been reinterpreted as allowing the use of only a single 50-mesh panel (see Section 1.4 of the EA for a complete history). This reinterpretation has not yet been enforced because it would entail a sudden and unexpected change in regulatory enforcement and require industry to incur expenses while deliberations are underway on whether to realign the regulations with standing policy or change the policy.” The Council did consider eliminating all chafing gear restrictions. The Council rejected this option because it could have allowed for up to 100 percent chafing gear coverage of the net, including the main body and the codend, which could be damaging to biota escaping the net and would likely be in conflict with the PCGFMP's Amendment 18 bycatch mitigation program.
        This proposed rule would affect those vessels that use midwater trawl gear in Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. Annual midwater whiting revenues were about $47 million in both 2011 and 2012 and non-whiting midwater trawl revenues averaged about $500,000 during this period. Nine catcher processors, 19 mothership catcher vessels, and 27 shoreside vessels participated in these fisheries during 2012 and 2013. Three different vessels operated in the non-tribal non-whiting shoreside midwater fishery—three in 2012 and one in 2013. The tribal fleet consists of 4-5 tribal whiting vessels of which 2-3 per year also fish in the Alaska groundfish fisheries. Five tribal midwater vessels operate in the tribal yellowtail rockfish fishery. These vessels do not participate in the Alaska groundfish fishery. As part of the permitting processes for 2014, NMFS asked non-tribal vessel owners to assess whether they are small businesses based on following criteria: A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $19.0 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Tribal vessels are considered small businesses. After taking into account vessels that fish in multiple midwater fisheries and affiliations, there are 28 midwater businesses, 22 of which are small businesses.
        The costs to replace a midwater net including its codend are as high as $400,000. Codends for midwater trawling range in cost from $10,000 to $200,000 each. Uses of chafing gear can double the life of a net. The number of tows, tow size, and other features of the vessel and its operations affect the life of a net. With chafing gear covering the side and bottom panels of a midwater codend, nets can be used for 5 to 15 years or longer if vessel owners periodically replace the chafer panels. The EA assessed changes in costs and revenues and by fishery (tribal, non-tribal, whiting, and pelagic). Expected differences in net costs between whiting and pelagic fisheries are likely to be small; therefore, the EA used the costs associated with the Pacific whiting fishery to analyze the alternatives. Codends used for the pelagic rockfish fishery may be the same size or smaller, but are unlikely to be larger than the codends used for whiting. The useful life of a net used just for pelagic rockfish may be longer than a net used for Pacific whiting, because the volume of fish handled by a single codend will likely be smaller, on average. For this reason, the costs of whiting codends are used as a proxy, but should be considered an upper bound on the cost differences that might be expected for the midwater pelagic rockfish fishery.
        Adoption of any alternative other than the No-Action alternative will result in increased codend useful life because of greater protection from onboard abrasion sources and some wear reduction on those occasions when seafloor contact occurs. Under the No Action alternative, vessel owners will likely have to modify the chafing gear they use so that the gear is compliant. As a result, their nets will have the least amount of protection and thus have to be replaced more often. Currently, fishermen are using gear compliant with Alternative 2B, and so there would be no additional costs associated with this alternative. The gear currently used in the fishery (compliant with Alternative 2B) would also be compliant with the other action alternatives. The other alternatives also would not necessarily require additional expenditures on gear.
        Alternative 1 is the Council's Final Preferred Alternative (FPA). Alternative 1 allows fishermen more flexibility as up to 75% of the cod-end's circumference could be covered, comports with the chafing gear currently used by the majority of the fleet in both Pacific Coast and Alaska fisheries, and provides the best protection for expensive codends. The EA states: “Fishers that only participate in the Pacific Coast whiting fishery would have a one-time cost of $5,000 to $10,000 to bring their codends into compliance. For fishers that fish in Alaska and the Pacific Coast fishery they would likely either obtain an additional codend for use in the Pacific Coast fishery or incur an annual chafer replacement cost of between $5,000 and $10,000 to limit their coverage to the terminal 50 net meshes. Data in the EA shows that 62 percent of Pacific Coast whiting vessels also fished off Alaska between 2004 and 2010. These along with most other whiting vessels likely have codend chafing gear on their codends that is noncompliant with Pacific Coast whiting fishery regulations, as they were recently reinterpreted. The increased codend replacement cost under the PFMC Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) could be as high at $9,500 per year with no chafer replacement after about 10 years to extend codend useful life or $7,321 per year with chafer replacement after about 10 years of use. The replacement cost under the other two action alternatives would be expected to be higher, but very close to Alternative 1. This is because of lower amount of chafer coverage provided under those alternatives (50 percent of codend circumference) compared to Alternative 1 (up to 75 percent of codend circumference).” For perspective, the EA assessed the costs of the No-Action Alternative relative to Pacific whiting revenues and found them to be about 2 percent of the 2011 average ex-vessel value in the shoreside fishery, about 1 percent of that value for the mothership sector catcher vessels and about 1 percent of the that value for catcher processors. (Note that these revenues exclude revenues from other Pacific Coast and Alaska fisheries. Inclusion of such revenues would lower these percentages.)

        Increased chafing gear may potentially increase the catch of small or undersized fish. The EA finds under the trawl catch share program, vessels have substantial incentive to avoid the catch of small, unmarketable groundfish for which quota is required. For each pound of these fish caught, fishermen must use a pound of quota, forgoing their opportunity to use that quota to cover catch for which they can get paid. The effect of catching small fish which must be covered with quota is the reduction of vessel revenue. On this basis, regardless of the amount and continuity of chafing gear allowed on a codend, the incentive of fishermen is to configure the gear to avoid the catch of target fish of small size. Thus, they may not use the maximum amount of chafing gear, minimum mesh size, etc. to the degree allowed under any particular alternative. Liberalizing the chafing gear regulations increases the flexibility fishermen have in configuring their gear and may allow fishermen to develop other means for avoiding small size fish. A review of various discussions in the EA suggests that processors and fishing communities will not be negatively impacted by implementation of Alternatives 1, 2A, or 2B. The No-Action alternative will impose costs on the fishery, reduce vessel profits and may have a small but likely negligible effect on communities. Increased small fish landings may have a small negligible effect on processors.
        Based on the discussion above, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would revise existing regulations to conform to current industry chafing gear practices while increasing the flexibility of vessel owners to make chafing gear modifications according to their own individual operations and needs. There are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and that minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. For transparency purposes, NMFS has prepared this IRFA. Through the rulemaking process associated with this action, we are requesting comments on this conclusion.
        This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
        Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. The proposed regulations, which have a direct effect on the tribes, were deemed by the Council as “necessary or appropriate” to implement the PCGFMP as amended.
        NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the PCGFMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern California, southern California). These biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the PCGFMP is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006 concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected species. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
        On January 22, 2013, NMFS requested the reinitiation of the biological opinion for listed salmonids to address changes in the fishery, including the trawl rationalization program and the emerging midwater trawl fishery. The consultation will not be completed prior to publication of this proposed rule to modify chafing gear regulations for the Pacific whiting fishery. NMFS has considered the likely impacts on listed salmonids for the period of time between the proposed rule and, if appropriate, final rule and the completion of the reinitiated consultation relative to sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA. On December 18, 2013, NMFS determined that ongoing fishing under the PCGFMP, assuming that the proposed chafing gear modifications are implemented in early 2014, prior to the completion of the consultation would not be likely to jeopardize listed salmonids or result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any necessary reasonable and prudent alternatives.
        On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions. With this rulemaking, an informal consultation on eulachon was initiated on January 21, 2013. NMFS considered whether the 2012 opinion should be reconsidered for eulachon in light of new information from the 2011 fishery and the proposed chafing gear modifications and determined that information about the eulachon bycatch in 2011 and chafing gear regulations did not change the anticipated extent of effects of the action, or provide any other basis to reinitiate the December 7, 2012 biological opinion. Therefore, the December 7, 2012 biological opinion meets the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402 and no further consultation is required at this time.
        On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.

        This proposed rule would not alter the effects on marine mammals over what has already been considered for the fishery. West Coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other West Coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. On February 27, 2012, NMFS published notice that the incidental taking of Steller sea lions in the West Coast groundfish fisheries is addressed in NMFS' December 29, 2010 Negligible Impact Determination (NID) and this fishery has been added to the list of fisheries authorized to take Steller sea lions (77 FR 11493, February 27, 2012). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for a period of three years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553, September 4, 2013).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

          Dated: March 13, 2014.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

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

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.130, paragraphs (b)(2-)(4) and the introductory text of paragraph (c) are revised as follows:

          § 660.130
          Trawl fishery—management measures.

          (b) * * *
          (2) Mesh size. Groundfish trawl gear, including chafing gear, must meet the minimum mesh size requirements in this paragraph. Mesh size requirements apply throughout the net. Minimum trawl mesh sizes are: Bottom trawl, 4.5 inches (11.4 cm); midwater trawl, 3.0 inches (7.6 cm). Minimum trawl mesh size requirements are met if a 20-guage stainless steel wedge, less one thickness of the metal wedge, can be passed with only thumb pressure through at least 16 of 20 sets of two meshes each of wet mesh.
          (3) Bottom trawl gear.—(i) Large footrope trawl gear. Lines or ropes that run parallel to the footrope may not be augmented with material encircling or tied along their length such that they have a diameter larger than 19 inches (48 cm). For enforcement purposes, the footrope will be measured in a straight line from the outside edge to the opposite outside edge at the widest part on any individual part, including any individual disk, roller, bobbin, or any other device.
          (ii) Small footrope trawl gear. Lines or ropes that run parallel to the footrope may not be augmented with material encircling or tied along their length such that they have a diameter larger than 8 inches (20 cm). For enforcement purposes, the footrope will be measured in a straight line from the outside edge to the opposite outside edge at the widest part on any individual part, including any individual disk, roller, bobbin, or any other device.
          (A) Selective flatfish trawl gear. Selective flatfish trawl gear is a type of small footrope trawl gear. The selective flatfish trawl net must be a two-seamed net with no more than two riblines, excluding the codend. The breastline may not be longer than 3 ft (0.92 m) in length. There may be no floats along the center third of the headrope or attached to the top panel except on the riblines. The footrope must be less than 105 ft (32.26 m) in length. The headrope must be not less than 30 percent longer than the footrope. The headrope shall be measured along the length of the headrope from the outside edge to the opposite outside edge. An explanatory diagram of a selective flatfish trawl net is provided as Figure 1 of part 660, subpart D.
          (B) [Reserved]
          (iii) Chafing gear restrictions for bottom trawl gear. Chafing gear may encircle no more than 50 percent of the net's circumference and may be in one or more sections. Chafing gear may be used only on the last 50 meshes, measured from the terminal (closed) end of the codend. Only the front edge (edge closest to the open end of the codend) and sides of each section of chafing gear may be attached to the codend; except at the corners, the terminal edge (edge closest to the closed end of the codend) of each section of chafing gear must not be attached to the net. Chafing gear must be attached outside any riblines and restraining straps.
          (4) Midwater (pelagic or off-bottom) trawl gear. Midwater trawl gear must have unprotected footropes at the trawl mouth, and must not have rollers, bobbins, tires, wheels, rubber discs, or any similar device anywhere on any part of the net. The footrope of midwater gear may not be enlarged by encircling it with chains or by any other means. Ropes or lines running parallel to the footrope of midwater trawl gear must be bare and may not be suspended with chains or any other materials. Sweep lines, including the bottom leg of the bridle, must be bare. For at least 20 ft (6.15 m) immediately behind the footrope or headrope, bare ropes or mesh of 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum mesh size must completely encircle the net.
          (i) Chafing gear restrictions for midwater trawl gear. Chafing gear may cover the bottom and sides of the codend in either one or more sections. Only the front edge (edge closest to the open end of the codend) and sides of each section of chafing gear may be attached to the codend; except at the corners, the terminal edge (edge closest to the closed end of the codend) of each section of chafing gear must not be attached to the net. Chafing gear is not permitted on the top codend panel except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section.
          (ii) Chafing gear exception for midwater trawl gear. A band of mesh (a “skirt”) may encircle the net under or over transfer cables, lifting or splitting straps (chokers), riblines, and restraining straps, but must be the same mesh size and coincide knot-to-knot with the net to which it is attached and be no wider than 16 meshes.
          (c) Restrictions by limited entry trawl gear type. Management measures may vary depending on the type of trawl gear (i.e., large footrope, small footrope, selective flatfish, or midwater trawl gear) used and/or on board a vessel during a fishing trip, cumulative limit period, and the area fished. Trawl nets may be used on and off the seabed. For some species or species groups, Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) of this subpart provide trip limits that are specific to different types of trawl gear: Large footrope, small footrope (including selective flatfish), selective flatfish, midwater, and multiple types. If Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) of this subpart provide gear specific limits for a particular species or species group, it is unlawful to take and retain, possess or land that species or species group with limited entry trawl gears other than those listed. The following restrictions are in addition to the prohibitions at § 660.112(a)(5).

      [FR Doc. 2014-06058 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 150817722-6304-01]
        RIN 0648-BF10
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Archival Tag Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS is proposing to revise the regulations that currently require persons surgically implanting archival tags in Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) or externally affixing archival tags to such species to obtain written authorization from NMFS and that require fishermen to report their catches of Atlantic HMS with such tags to NMFS. Archival tags are tags that record scientific information about the migratory behavior of a fish and include tags that are surgically implanted in a fish and tags that are externally affixed, such as pop-up satellite (PSAT) and smart position and temperature tags (SPOT). Specifically, this rule would remove the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization from NMFS to implant or affix an archival tag but would continue to allow persons who catch a fish with a surgically implanted archival tag to retain the fish while requiring them to return the tag to the person indicated on the tag or to NMFS. The regulation would no longer require the person retaining the fish to submit to NMFS a landing report or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Any persons who land an Atlantic HMS with an externally affixed archival tag would be encouraged to follow the instructions on the tag to return the tag to the appropriate research entity or to NMFS. This action could affect any researchers wishing to place archival tags on Atlantic HMS and any fishermen who might catch such a tagged fish.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by May 16, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0017, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0017, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, Chief, Atlantic HMS Management Division at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Larry Redd, Craig Cockrell, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Atlantic HMS are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations.
        “Archival tags” are defined at § 635.2 as “a device that is implanted or affixed to a fish to electronically record scientific information about the migratory behavior of that fish.” Scientists use such tags because they offer a powerful tool for tracking the movements, geolocation, and behavior of individual tunas, shark, swordfish, or billfishes. Data recovery from some archival tags, particularly those that are surgically implanted into the fish, requires that fish be re-caught. Other archival tags, such as PSAT and SPOT, which are externally affixed to the fish, are able to transmit the information remotely and do not require the fish to be re-caught nor do researchers expect the tags to be returned, as generally no additional data is gained from their return. Data from archival tags are used to ascertain HMS life history information such as migratory patterns and spawning site fidelity.

        The current regulations under 50 CFR 635.33 regarding archival tags have three parts. First, the regulation requires that any person seeking to affix or implant an archival tag into Atlantic HMS submit an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) or scientific research permit (SRP) with details about the research. The applications ask for details concerning the research objectives, the type and number of tags used, the species and approximate size of the tagged fish, and the location and method of capture of the tagged fish. Second, if a fisherman catches an HMS with an archival tag, the fisherman may land the HMS, regardless of the other regulatory requirements for that fish (e.g., size limit, season, etc.), if the fisherman complies with the third part of the regulations. The third and last part, called a “landing report,” requires fishermen landing an HMS with an archival tag to contact NMFS at the time or prior to the time of landing, furnish all requested information, and either make the fish available for inspection or return the tag to NMFS. The information provided by Atlantic HMS fishermen in a landings report could include the archival tag itself, location of capture, and the captured fish.
        These regulations were implemented in the late 1990s at a time when archival tag technology was new, most of the archival tags had to be surgically implanted into the fish, and the mortality associated with surgically implanting such tags was unknown. Archival tags have been in use for almost 20 years and the mortality associated with the activity, whether it is surgically implanting the tag or affixing it externally to the fish, is now known to be negligible.

        NMFS has issued authorizations to only two researchers for the surgical implantation of an archival tag in the last 5 years. Those researchers have placed a small number of surgically implanted archival tags only in bluefin tuna, and generally only in those fish that measure less than 40 inches curved fork length; in larger fish, the researchers prefer to affix external archival tags. Given the limited battery and data storage capacity of archival tags, NMFS expects that there are few continuously functioning implanted archival tags currently in any Atlantic HMS. Researchers have communicated to NMFS that implanted archival tag recovery has decreased over the last 4 years. Presently, PSAT, SPOT, and other externally-affixed archival tags are more commonly used and, as previously mentioned, this is perhaps in part because the data recovery does not depend on re-catching the fish and extricating the tag. Furthermore, while the information that could be provided in the landings report such as location of landing and length of Atlantic HMS may be helpful in assisting scientists, NMFS rarely hears of any archival tagged fish being recaptured. A few times a year, a fisherman may call NMFS to ask where to return a tag (most often these calls are about non-archival tags) they obtained from an Atlantic HMS in their possession. If a fisherman is indeed calling about returning an archival tag, any information collected about the fish is given directly to the scientists or entities noted on the tag and not necessarily to NMFS. Given that scientists continue to place externally-affixed archival tags and are not notifying NMFS that the lack of enforcement of the landings report is resulting in a loss of needed scientific data, NMFS assumes that both scientists and fishermen would not object to the removal of the landing report requirement, but invites comments on this provision.

        NMFS is considering revisions to the regulatory requirements because the original conservation and management concern about affixing tags to highly migratory species (i.e., the potential for high mortality) is now commonly accepted as non-problematic. The goal of this proposed rule is to reduce administrative and regulatory burden given the outdated conservation concern, while maintaining appropriate conservation and management regulatory requirements.
        NMFS, in one non-preferred alternative, considered removing all authorization and reporting requirements in the regulations regarding archival tags. Under this alternative, researchers would no longer need to apply for authorization to implant or affix archival tags to Atlantic HMS, and fishermen who catch an Atlantic HMS with an archival tag would no longer be required to make a landing report or make the fish available to a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Additionally, under this alternative, in order to land an HMS with any type of archival tag, fishermen would need to meet the other regulatory requirements applicable to that fish. Under this alternative, the return of any archival tag by a fisherman who retains a tagged Atlantic HMS to NMFS or the tag's originating researcher would be voluntary. For surgically implanted tags, any information collected by the tag would be lost unless the tag is voluntarily returned to either NMFS or the originating researcher. Externally affixed archival tags, such as PSAT and SPOT, are able to remotely transmit their data, making the information collected by the tag available to researchers whether the tag is returned to them or not. However, data about the landings and ultimate disposition of the fish would potentially be lost if the fisherman did not contact NMFS or the researcher. Thus, while this non-preferred alternative would reduce the administrative cost for researchers and for fishermen who catch a fish with any type of archival tag, removing the regulatory incentive to return surgically implanted tags could result in the loss of valuable life history and biological data, the loss of any physical tags currently in the field, and a loss of investment for researchers with such tags currently in the field. Removing the regulatory incentive to contact NMFS or the researcher could also potentially result in a loss of data including data about the landing and ultimate disposition of the fish, although as previously discussed, such reporting for externally affixed tags typically does not currently occur under the regulations.
        Data collected from returned surgically-implanted tags are important to the tagging program. Without the regulatory requirement to return surgically implanted tags, the scientific contributions and value of surgically implanted archival tagging programs to Atlantic HMS management and conservation may not be realized. Further, uncertainty about tag and data recovery could dissuade the future use of surgically implanted tags.
        NMFS' preferred alternative would modify all parts of the regulation. Specifically, regarding the first part of the regulation, the alternative would remove the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization from NMFS to implant or affix an archival tag. Regarding the second and third parts of the regulations, the preferred alternative would remove the landings report requirement while maintaining the regulatory incentive that Atlantic HMS caught with a surgically implanted archival tag could be retained, regardless of the other regulations, on the condition that the surgically implanted tag is returned to either the originating researcher or to NMFS. The regulation would no longer require the person retaining the fish to submit a landing report to NMFS or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Rather, anyone catching a fish that could not otherwise be landed, but that has a surgically-implanted archival tag, can land the fish if the fisherman returns the tag to the originating researcher or NMFS. In all other cases, NMFS would encourage the fisherman to return the tag and any information requested directly to the scientist or entity noted on the tag itself. As described above, NMFS believes fishermen already work directly with scientists when returning tags.
        NMFS prefers this alternative because it maintains appropriate management and conservation requirements while eliminating certain administrative burdens to make the archival tagging process more efficient. This alternative would reduce any time and delay cost to researchers associated with the applying for a permit to place tags on Atlantic HMS. It would not change the effort or cost to fishermen who catch an Atlantic HMS with a surgically implanted archival tag, although the cost associated with returning the tag to the researcher is minimal.
        Additionally, the preferred alternative would offer more certainty that, for those rare surgically-implanted tags, recollection and data recovery would take place by maintaining regulatory incentives for the return of implanted tags. This would afford some assurance to researchers that current or future archival tag research activity with surgically implanted tags would not operate at a loss in investment due to discarded tags and would continue to contribute to the collection of Atlantic HMS life history and biological data. For all the reasons above, NMFS prefers this alternative.
        Request for Comments
        NMFS is requesting comments on the proposed action, which would remove the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization to implant or affix archival tags, to continue to require fishermen who land a fish with a surgically implanted archival tag to return the tag to the researcher or NMFS, to encourage fishermen who land a fish with an externally affixed archival tag to return the tag to the researcher or NMFS, and to remove the landing report requirement.

        Additionally, at the September 2015 HMS Advisory Panel meeting in Silver Spring, MD, NMFS received a request to prohibit the retention of any Atlantic HMS caught with an externally affixed archival or electronic tag. The Advisory Panel member who suggested this change noted that archival tags are expensive and that the tagged live fish in the wild allows scientists to collect biological data and other information that cannot be collected by other means. Given this request, NMFS is requesting comments on whether fishermen who catch a fish with an externally affixed archival tag, such as a PSAT or SPOT, should be required to release the fish even if the fish is otherwise legal to land (e.g., meets the minimum size restrictions and caught with appropriate gear). While this proposed rule focuses on the more limited issue of easing the regulatory burden associated with regulations that have over time become outdated because of changes in tagging technology, we are interested in public comments on the Advisory Panel member's request, as a preliminary first step in exploring future related responsive action through separate rulemaking, as appropriate.

        Public Hearings
        Public hearings on this proposed rule are not currently scheduled. If you would like to request a public hearing, please contact Larry Redd, Craig Cockrell, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed action is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule to revise Atlantic HMS archival tag management measures, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
        As described above, this proposed rule would modify the regulations so that researchers would no longer need to obtain written authorization from NMFS before implanting or affixing archival tags. Thus, this proposed rule would reduce any time and delay costs to researchers because they would not need to apply for a permit to place tags on Atlantic HMS. Also, the proposed rule would no longer require the person retaining the fish to submit a landing report to NMFS or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Given that scientists continue to place externally-affixed archival tags and are not notifying NMFS that the lack of enforcement of the landings report is resulting in a loss of needed scientific data, NMFS assumes that both scientists and fishermen would not object to the removal of the landing report requirement but are requesting comments on this provision. Fishermen would be relieved of the obligation to file a landings report with NMFS if they caught and retained an HMS with an externally affixed archival tag and thus would have less regulatory obligation and delay in bringing the fish to market. The cost to fisherman associated with returning the tag to the researcher are minimal and, for surgically implanted tags in recent years, uncommon, particularly since NMFS has issued authorizations to only two researchers for the surgical implantation of an archival tag in the last 5 years. However, if a fish with a surgically implanted archival tag were caught, this proposed rule would offer some certainty that tag recollection and data recovery would take place by maintaining the regulatory incentive for the return of implanted tags to NMFS or the originating research.

        For the last five years, NMFS has issued an average of 12 permits for externally affixing archival tags (e.g., pop-up satellite archival tags and smart position and temperature tags), and in the same time frame, NMFS has issued authorizations to only 2 researchers for the surgical implantation of an archival tag. Therefore, NMFS estimates that this rule would apply to approximately 14 research entities. The rule would also apply to any fisherman who caught a fish that has a surgically implanted archival tag. At this time, NMFS does not know how many fishermen might encounter this situation but, because NMFS has issued permits to only two researchers in the last five years that would allow for the surgical implantation of archival tags and those researchers have surgically implanted only a limited number of archival tags, NMFS estimates minimal fishermen would be affected—perhaps less than five per year. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements. Rather, this rule would relieve approximately 14 research entities from the need to apply for a permit to place archival tags on Atlantic HMS. For the reasons above, the archival tag management measures proposed in this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: April 8, 2016.
          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 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

        1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. Revise § 635.33 to read as follows:

          § 635.33
          Archival tags.
          (a) Landing an HMS with a surgically implanted archival tag. Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, persons may catch, possess, retain, and land an Atlantic HMS in which an archival tag has been surgically implanted, provided such persons return the tag to the research entity indicated on the tag or to NMFS at an address designated by NMFS and report the fish as required in § 635.5.
          (b) Quota monitoring. If an Atlantic HMS landed under the authority of paragraph (a) of this section is subject to a quota, the fish will be counted against the applicable quota for the species consistent with the fishing gear and activity which resulted in the catch. In the event such fishing gear or activity is otherwise prohibited under applicable provisions of this part, the fish shall be counted against the reserve or research quota established for that species, as appropriate.

        3. In § 635.71, revise paragraph (a)(20) to read as follows

          § 635.71
          Prohibitions.

          (a) * * *
          (20) Fail to return a surgically implanted archival tag of a retained Atlantic HMS to NMFS or the research entity and report such retention, as specified in § 635.33.

      [FR Doc. 2016-08535 Filed 4-13-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.071128763-7773-01]
        RIN 0648-AW33
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing to implement new management measures for the monkfish fishery recommended in Framework Adjustment 5 (Framework 5) to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which has been submitted jointly by the New England (NEFMC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This action would implement revised biological reference points in the FMP to be consistent with the recommendations resulting from the most recent stock assessment for this fishery (Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group (DPWG, July 2007)), and implement revised management measures to ensure that the monkfish management program succeeds in keeping landings within the target total allowable catch (TAC) levels.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on March 25, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0648-AW33, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Allison McHale.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Monkfish Framework 5.”

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

          Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), including the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), prepared for Framework 5 are available upon request from Paul Howard, Executive Director, NEFMC, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA, 01950. The document is also available online at www.nefmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison McHale, Fishery Policy Analyst, e-mail Allison.McHale@noaa.gov, phone (978) 281-9103, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the Councils, with the NEFMC having the administrative lead. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina, and is divided into two management units: The Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA).

        In July 2007, the DPWG completed and accepted a new monkfish assessment. The results of this assessment indicate that neither stock is overfished, overfishing is no longer occurring, and both stocks are rebuilt based on a new modeling approach and newly recommended biological reference points. In addition to the fact that this assessment was the first to use a new analytical model, the July 2007 assessment report emphasizes the high degree of uncertainty in the analyses due to the dependence on assumptions about natural mortality, growth rates, and other model inputs. The report concluded that the data-poor nature of this species and the significant uncertainty in assessing the stocks should be considered when developing management measures. Framework 5 is needed to implement the revised biological reference points recommended by the DPWG and would make other modifications to the regulations to ensure that the management program succeeds in keeping landings within the target TACs implemented in Framework Adjustment 4 (72 FR 53942; September 21, 2007). The management measures contained in Framework 5 are described in detail in the following paragraphs.
        Proposed Framework 5 Management Measures
        1. Revision to Biological Reference Points

        This action would revise the biological reference points contained in the FMP to be consistent with those recommended in the July 2007 assessment report. In that report, the DPWG recommended that Btarget for both management areas be set equivalent to the average of the total biomass from 1980 through 2006. This would establish a Btarget of 92,200 mt for the NFMA and 122,500 mt for the SFMA. In addition, the DPWG recommended that Bthreshold for both management areas be set equivalent to the lowest value of total biomass from 1980 through 2006. This would establish a Bthreshold of 65,200 mt for the NFMA and 96,400 mt for the SFMA. The most recent estimate of biomass for each management area (B2006) is 118,700 mt for the NFMA and 135,500 mt for the SFMA. Therefore, under the revised biological reference points contained in Framework 5, both monkfish stocks would officially no longer be considered overfished (B 2006 above Bthreshold), and would be rebuilt (B2006 above Btarget).
        2. Reduction in Carryover Days-at-Sea (DAS)
        This action would reduce the number of unused monkfish DAS that a limited access monkfish vessel is allowed to carry over from one fishing year into the next from 10 to 4 DAS. Under this management measure, the carryover DAS allowance would represent 13 percent of the total annual DAS allocated to monkfish vessels (31 DAS) and 17 percent of the DAS allowed in the SFMA (23 DAS).
        Carryover DAS are intended to enhance safety at sea by allowing a vessel, at the end of a fishing year, to avoid the predicament of using or losing DAS in the event of bad weather or mechanical problems. However, the use of carryover DAS contributed to a substantial overage (60 percent) in the target TAC for the SFMA during FY 2006, when vessels in this area were only allocated 12 DAS for the fishing year. During that fishing year, carryover DAS represented over an 80-percent increase above a limited access monkfish vessel's base allocation of monkfish DAS. Therefore, the Councils are recommending that carryover DAS be reduced to reflect an amount that is more commensurate to a vessel's base DAS allocation to help ensure that the target TACs are not exceeded.
        3. Revision to DAS Accounting Provision for Gillnet Vessels
        This action would change the manner in which DAS are counted for monkfish gillnet vessels. The FMP currently states that monkfish gillnet vessels are charged actual time fished on trips less than 3 hours or greater than 15 hours in duration, but are charged a minimum of 15 hours for trips from 3 to 15 hours in duration. The intent of this regulation was to adjust gillnet effort to be more equivalent to trawl effort, but allow vessels that run into bad weather or experience mechanical difficulties at the beginning of a trip to return to port and only be charged actual time at sea (i.e., trips less than 3 hours in duration). However, as monkfish DAS have been reduced in recent years, some vessels have begun to exploit this 3-hour window and use it to catch and land monkfish. As a result, an allocation of 23 monkfish DAS, for example, would normally allow a vessel to take approximately 36 15-hour trips. If that vessel exploited the 3-hour provision, the number of potential trips could increase to as many as 184. It appears that only a few vessels are currently exploiting this provision, but there is potential for increased usage, which then increases the probability that the target TACs will be exceeded. As a result, the Councils are recommending that the 3-hour provision be eliminated, requiring all monkfish gillnet trips of less than 15 hours in duration to be charged 15 hours.
        This action would also add a sentence to the section of the regulations concerning the monkfish gillnet accounting rules, found at § 648.92 (b)(8)(v), to clarify that a monkfish gillnet vessel fishing under a joint monkfish and NE multispecies DAS, that is declared as a trip gillnet vessel under the NE Multispecies FMP, must remove its gillnet gear from the water prior to calling out of the DAS program. The language contained in this section was recently clarified in a letter from the Regional Administrator to limited access monkfish permit holders, dated August 13, 2007.
        4. Revision to the Incidental Catch Limit in the SFMA
        This action would revise the monkfish incidental catch limit applicable to large-mesh vessels fishing in the Southern New England Regulated Mesh Area (SNE RMA), as defined under the Northeast (NE) multispecies regulations, east of 72°30′ W long., but not under a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, or vessels fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization (LOA) in the SNE RMA east of 74°00′ W long., to be 5 percent (tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight per day, up to 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight per trip. The Councils are recommending this change to the incidental catch limit in response to reports that vessels fishing for skate as bait in the SNE RMA, using mesh larger than the multispecies minimum mesh size (i.e., large mesh), are targeting monkfish using the existing incidental catch limit; which is 5 percent (tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board with no limit on the amount of monkfish that the vessel can land. This behavior could undermine the FMP's ability to prevent overfishing. The landings cap recommended by the Councils in this action is equivalent to the incidental catch limit applicable to vessels not fishing under a DAS in the SNE RMA with small-mesh, hook gear, or dredge gear.
        5. Revision to Monkfish LOA Requirement
        This action would eliminate the requirement to obtain a Monkfish LOA to fish under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA for vessels using a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Monkfish vessels using the interactive voice response (IVR) call-in system would still be required to obtain a Monkfish LOA. The Councils are considering this action because requiring an LOA was determined to be burdensome and unnecessary, given that VMS screens were recently revised to enable limited access monkfish vessels to declare the management area in which they are fishing when declaring a monkfish DAS. In addition, the VMS system enables NMFS to monitor where these vessels are fishing. Conversely, although vessels using the IVR call-in system can now declare the management area in which they are fishing through this system, NMFS cannot monitor where these vessels are fishing in the same manner as VMS vessels. Therefore, the Councils are recommending that the Monkfish LOA requirement be retained for vessels using the IVR call-in system.
        Technical Corrections to Monkfish FMP Regulations

        Two corrections to the regulations implementing the Monkfish FMP are included in this proposed rule. The first correction would remove a duplicate paragraph concerning the impact of leasing NE multispecies DAS on a vessel's monkfish DAS allocation (§ 648.92(b)(2)(iii)). This paragraph should have been removed in the final rule implementing Framework 4. The second set of corrections would correct the cross-references to the regulations implementing the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP concerning accrual of DAS and the Good Samaritan credit found at § 648.92(b)(3) and (4). It appears that the final rule implementing Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (69 FR 35215; June 23, 2004) revised § 648.53, thereby inadvertently impacting these cross-references in the monkfish regulations.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared for Framework 5, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of the discussion in the preamble and this section, and the analysis of impacts in Framework 5. 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 and in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule. A copy of this analysis is available from the NEFMC (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows:
        The primary reason for this action is to adopt the revisions to the biological reference points as recommended by the DPWG. However, additional measures were included to address comments from the Regional Administrator and the public that were raised during the development and implementation of Framework 4. As a result, three additional measures aimed at reducing the potential for monkfish landings to exceed the TACs were added to Framework 5. In addition, a measure to eliminate the need for a Monkfish LOA to fish for monkfish in the NFMA for vessels with VMS was included to reduce the administrative burden on vessel operators.
        The regulations implementing the FMP, found at 50 CFR part 648, subpart F, authorize the Council to adjust management measures as needed to achieve FMP goals. The objective of this action is to achieve the goals of the FMP by using the best scientific information available by adopting new biological reference points, to reduce the probability of monkfish landings exceeding the target TACs by reducing unanticipated opportunities for additional landings, and to reduce the administrative burden on vessels. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with the goals of the FMP and its implementing regulations.
        All of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the Small Business Administration size standards for small fishing businesses ($4.0 million in gross sales). Therefore, there are no differential impacts between large and small vessels. As of November 30, 2007, there were 765 limited access monkfish permit holders and 2,142 vessels holding an open access Category E permit. In FY 2006, there were 616 limited access permits holders that participated in the monkfish fishery based on vessel trip report (VTR) records. During the same period, 574 Category E permit holders reported landing monkish. Based on VTR information from FY 2006 (the most recent FY for which complete information is available) this action would affect up to 194 limited access monkfish vessels that would like to carry over more than 4 monkfish DAS; 101 limited access monkfish gillnet vessels landing monkfish on trips less than 3 hours in duration; 21 vessels using large mesh (and not on a DAS) or under a Skate Bait LOA in the SNE RMA and landing monkfish above the proposed 50 lb (23 kg) per day, up to 150 lb (68 kg) per trip incidental catch limit; and 105 vessels with a VMS that fish in the NFMA.
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        Economic Impacts of Proposed Framework 5 Measures
        1. Revision to Biomass Reference Points

        This measure would modify the existing biomass reference points (Bthreshold, Btarget) for monkfish, consistent with the results of the most recent stock assessment. The proposed revision to the biological reference points does not immediately affect any vessels because it does not change any management measures or otherwise modify vessel level aspects of the management program.
        2. Reduction in Carryover DAS
        This measure would reduce the number of unused monkfish DAS that a limited access monkfish vessel is allowed to carry over from one fishing year into the next from 10 to 4 DAS. Reducing the number of unused DAS that can be carried forward into the next fishing year to 4 DAS would reduce the economic opportunities for those vessels that would like to carry forward more DAS. In FY 2006, 186 vessels used an average of between 8.4 and 9.3 DAS, depending on management area fished, in addition to their allocated DAS used, while 8 vessels did not have carryover DAS available. An additional 46 vessels used only carryover DAS, suggesting they were not constrained by available DAS. Thus, based on FY 2006 data, approximately 194 vessels may have economic opportunities reduced by the proposed reduction in carryover DAS. A caveat with this information is that carryover DAS are used prior to allocated DAS, making it difficult to fully assess the impact of carryover DAS.
        When permit holders are unconstrained by their base allocation of monkfish DAS, there is no economic value associated with carryover DAS. In FY 2006, 240 permit holders used monkfish DAS, of which 5 permit holders fished only in the SFMA and used more than 23 DAS (base allocation plus carryover), the amount allowed for use in the SFMA during FY 2007. For permit holders that fished only in the NFMA, or both in the NFMA and SFMA, during FY 2006, 15 had total DAS usage above the 31 monkfish DAS allocated to these vessels during FY 2007. In general, this analysis suggests that 20 vessels would fully utilize their current DAS allocation, and so could have value for carryover DAS. However, the results for the NFMA should be viewed with caution since recent revisions to the monkfish regulations may require higher monkfish DAS usage in the NFMA. As a result, more permit holders may be constrained by the FY 2007 DAS allocation, and so have an economic value for carryover DAS.

        While a permit holder may associate economic value with carryover DAS, this information does not provide guidance on how many carryover DAS a permit holder would value, or the value they would place on a carryover DAS. Additionally, other measures in Framework 5 (e.g. elimination of 3-hour DAS use) would require higher DAS use for some permit holders, particularly in the SFMA. Combined, the information suggests that while negative economic impacts would be anticipated for Alternative 2 (4 carryover DAS) and Alternative 1 (6 carryover DAS) relative to Alternative 3 (no action), the number of affected permit holders would be small.
        3. Revision to DAS Accounting Provision for Gillnet Vessels
        The proposed action would require that all monkfish gillnet vessels be charged a minimum of 15 hours for each trip, even on trips less than 3 hours in duration. In FY 2006, 101 gillnet vessels had DAS charges of 3 hours (0.13 DAS) or less on 447 trips. The estimated total revenue generated by these trips was $891,229. A portion of this revenue would be lost as a result of this action since vessels may not have sufficient monkfish DAS available to convert all 3-hour trips to 15-hour trips (i.e., DAS allocation is constraining). It was estimated that fewer than five vessels would fall into this category. However, it is difficult to estimate the portion of total revenue lost, since it is not known how vessels would modify their fishing behavior to adjust for the elimination of the 3-hour provision. In general, the level of economic impact will depend on future DAS allocations and the degree to which these allocations are constraining on limited access monkfish vessels.
        4. Revision to the Incidental Catch Limit in the SFMA
        This measure would revise the monkfish incidental catch limit applicable to large-mesh vessels fishing in the SNE RMA, but not under a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, or vessels fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization (LOA) in the SNE RMA east of 74°00′ W long., to be 5 percent (tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight per day, up to 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight per trip. The proposed action would affect vessels fishing with large mesh in the SNE RMA east of 72°30′W long., and vessels fishing under a Skate Bait LOA anywhere in the SNE RMA. Approximately 12 vessels met these criteria in FY 2006. Only trips that exceed the proposed incidental landings limit of 50 lb (23 kg) of monkfish (tail weight) per day absent, or 150 lb (68 kg) of monkfish (tail weight) per trip, would see a reduction in trip revenues, and thus net revenues. Based on FY 2006 VTR information, three trips taken by three vessels would be affected with average lost revenues of $588 per vessel.
        5. Revision to Monkfish LOA Requirement
        This measure would eliminate the requirement to obtain a Monkfish LOA to fish under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA for vessels using VMS. This action would reduce the administrative burden for those vessels that have VMS and fish in the NFMA at some time during the fishing year, including vessels with a monkfish incidental catch permit (i.e. Category E). According to VTR data, in FY 2006, 322 vessels fished only in the NFMA, with 263 of those vessels using VMS or a combination of VMS and IVR to report DAS for some species. Similarly, 282 vessels fished in both the NFMA and SFMA, 262 of which reported DAS with either only VMS or a combination of VMS and IVR. This suggests that at least 525 vessels, or 87 percent of those fishing in the NFMA, would have the capacity to utilize VMS to offset the need for a Monkfish LOA to fish in the NFMA.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: February 27, 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 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.92, paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(8)(v) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.92
          Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.
          (a) * * *
          (1) End of year carryover. With the exception of a vessel that held a Confirmation of Permit History, as described in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(J), for the entire fishing year preceding the carryover year, a limited access monkfish vessel that has unused monkfish DAS on the last day of April of any year may carry over a maximum of 4 unused monkfish DAS into the next fishing year. A vessel whose DAS have been sanctioned through enforcement proceedings shall be credited with unused DAS based on its DAS allocation minus any DAS that have been sanctioned.
          (b) * * *
          (3) Accrual of DAS. Same as § 648.53(f).
          (4) Good Samaritan credit. Same as § 648.53(g).
          (8) * * *
          (v) Method of counting DAS. A vessel fishing with gillnet gear under a monkfish DAS will accrue 15 hours monkfish DAS for all trips less than or equal to 15 hours in duration. Such vessels will accrue monkfish DAS based on actual time at sea for trips greater than 15 hours in duration. A vessel fishing with gillnet gear under only a monkfish DAS is not required to remove gillnet gear from the water upon returning to the dock and calling out of the DAS program, provided the vessel complies with the requirements and conditions of paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (v) of this section. A vessel fishing with gillnet gear under a joint monkfish and NE multispecies DAS, as required under § 648.92(b)(2)(i), that is declared as a trip gillnet vessel under the NE Multispecies FMP, must remove its gillnet gear from the water prior to calling out of the DAS program, as specified at § 648.82(j)(2).

        3. In § 648.94, paragraphs (c)(3) and (f) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.94
          Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.
          (c) * * *
          (3) Vessels fishing with large mesh and not fishing under a DAS—

          (i) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch limit (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the GOM or GB RMAs with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.80(a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(i), respectively, while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.

          (ii) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE RMA east of the MA Exemption Area boundary with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.80(b)(2)(i), while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per day or partial day, up to a maximum of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 498 lb (226 kg) whole weight per trip. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.
          (iii) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE RMA under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization, as authorized under § 648.322(b), while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per day or partial day, up to a maximum of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 498 lb (226 kg) whole weight per trip. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.
          (iv) A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE or MA RMAs west of the MA Exemption Area boundary with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.104(a)(1) while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, but not to exceed 450 lb (204 kg) tail weight or 1,494 lb (678 kg) whole weight of monkfish, unless that vessel is fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization in the SNE RMA. Such a vessel is subject to the incidental catch limit specified under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.
          (f) Area declaration requirement for a vessel fishing exclusively in the NFMA. A vessel intending to fish for, or fishing for, possessing or landing monkfish under a multispecies, scallop, or monkfish DAS under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA, must fish exclusively in the NFMA for the entire trip. In addition, a vessel fishing under a monkfish DAS must declare its intent to fish in the NFMA through the vessel's VMS unit. A vessel that does not possess a VMS unit, such as a vessel that declares DAS through the call-in system, must declare its intent to fish in the NFMA by obtaining a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator, for a period of not less than 7 days. A vessel that has not declared into the NFMA under this paragraph (f) shall be presumed to have fished in the SFMA and shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements of that area. A vessel that has declared into the NFMA may transit the SFMA, providing that it complies with the transiting and gear storage provision described in paragraph (e) of this section, and provided that it does not fish for or catch monkfish, or any other fish, in the SFMA.

      [FR Doc. E8-4124 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S