        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 030701C]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Availability of Draft Biological Opinion

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of the draft biological opinion on authorization of the pelagic fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces the availability of a draft biological opinion on authorization of the pelagic fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region.

          DATES:
          The draft document is now available.

          ADDRESSES:
          For copies of the document contact Dr. Charles Karnella, NMFS, Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Charles Karnella, PIAO, at 808-973-2937.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Endangered Species Act draft biological opinion on authorization of the pelagic fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagics Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region is now available for review.  The document is available from the NMFS Southwest Region at http://swr.ucsd.edu/; hard copies are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

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

          Dated: March 7, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-6108 Filed 3-9-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 170510477-7477-01]
        RIN 0648-BG88
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Regulatory Amendment 6 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement the measures described in Regulatory Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)(FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would revise the method used to trigger the application of accountability measures (AM) for Council-managed reef fish species or species groups in the Puerto Rico exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purpose of this proposed rule is to increase the likelihood that optimum yield (OY) is achieved on a continuing basis and to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse socio-economic effects of AM-based closures.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 19, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0074” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0074, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Sarah Stephenson, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 6, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/caribbean/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Stephenson, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: sarah.stephenson@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, the reef fish fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
        Background

        The current AMs in the Puerto Rico EEZ, applicable to Council-managed reef fish species or species groups, require NMFS to reduce the length of the Federal fishing season in the fishing year following a determination that landings for a species or species group exceeded the applicable sector annual catch limit (ACL). As specified in the FMP, the landings determination is based on the applicable 3-year landings average. However, if NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season the following fishing year. The current AM-based closure is triggered and applied when the sector ACL is exceeded, even if the total ACL (i.e., combined commercial and recreational ACLs) for a species or species group was not exceeded. For all Council-managed reef fish species or species groups, the total ACL equals the annual estimate of OY and is set at a level that is considered to be sustainable for the species or species group. Therefore, the application of the current AM for Puerto Rico reef fish could translate into lost yield from the affected species or species group (if the sector ACL is exceeded, but the total ACL is not), potentially resulting in negative socio-economic impacts.

        Sector-specific data are not available for other federally managed species in the Puerto Rico EEZ (e.g., queen conch, spiny lobster) or for other federally managed species or species groups in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, so those species and species groups are not included in Regulatory Amendment 6. Therefore, Regulatory Amendment 6 and this proposed rule apply only to federally-managed reef fish species and species groups in the Puerto Rico EEZ.
        Management Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would revise the trigger for implementing AM-based fishing season reductions, for all reef fish species or species groups managed by the Council in the Puerto Rico EEZ. Specifically, an AM-based closure would be triggered only when both the applicable sector (recreational or commercial) ACL and the total ACL for a species or species group is exceeded. If both the sector ACL and the total ACL are exceeded, the AM would be applied to the sector or sectors that experienced the overage. The duration of any implemented AM-based closure would continue to be based on the extent to which the applicable sector ACL was exceeded and would be calculated and applied using the current practices and methods. However, consistent with the current regulations, if NMFS determines that either of the applicable ACLs was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season. For example, if NMFS determines that the applicable sector ACL exceedance for a species or species group is not attributable to enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, but that the total ACL exceedance is attributable to enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, NMFS will not reduce the length of the sector's fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year.

        This proposed rule to implement Regulatory Amendment 6 is expected to increase the likelihood that OY is achieved on a continuing basis and to minimize adverse socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs, while still helping to ensure that AM-based closures constrain harvest to the total ACL and prevent overfishing. Under the current AM regulations, fishing season reductions have been applied in Puerto Rico when a specific fishing sector has exceeded its sector ACL even when the total ACL (equivalent to an annual estimate of OY) for the species or species group was not reached. As described in Regulatory Amendment 6, assuming each sector harvests at a similar rate from year to year, the current AM-based fishing season reductions increase the likelihood that the total ACL for a species or species group will not be achieved in the year the closure is applied. Modifying the AM trigger for a fishing season reduction from an overage of the sector ACL to an overage of both the sector and the total ACL increases the likelihood that OY for a species or species group will be achieved on a continuing basis. Additionally, the proposed revision to the AM would result in the AM being triggered less frequently and thereby result in fewer fishing season reductions. A reduced number of fishing season reductions for a sector would be expected to result in increased socio-economic benefits to the applicable sector and the associated fishing communities. NMFS notes that the method for calculating the landings determination using the 3-year landings average for a species or species group will not change through this proposed rule.
        NMFS notes that in the codified text for this proposed rule, amendatory instruction 2 would revise the entire § 622.12. While the proposed rule only affects management in Puerto Rico Federal waters, the section as a whole is revised as a result of the proposed action to more clearly and distinctly describe the AMs and ACLs throughout the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. The proposed rule would also revise some regulatory citations within § 622.12 and § 622.491 to reflect changes made to the regulatory text as a result of this proposed rule.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
        A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the preamble. In summary, this action revises how AMs are triggered for the reef fish fishery in the Puerto Rico EEZ, to increase the likelihood that OY is achieved on a continuing basis and to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse socio-economic effects of AM-based closures in accordance with the National Standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule would directly affect recreational and commercial fishing for reef fish managed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council in Federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean off Puerto Rico. Anglers (recreational fishers), whether fishing from for-hire, private or leased vessels, are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore, estimates of the number of anglers directly affected by the rule and the impacts on them are not provided here.
        NMFS estimates there are 795 commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico and the average annual dockside revenue of these businesses is $10,000 each. For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on the average annual revenue for the 795 commercial fishing businesses, it is concluded that all of Puerto Rico's commercial fishing businesses are small. It is unknown how many of these small businesses harvest reef fish in Federal waters; however, it is possible that all 795 of these businesses may be directly affected by the proposed rule.
        This action would revise the trigger for implementing AMs for Council-managed reef fish species and species groups in the Puerto Rico EEZ. Currently, if commercial landings of a federally managed reef fish species or species group exceed the commercial ACL for that species or species group, the length of the following year's Federal fishing season for that species or species group is reduced by the amount necessary to ensure commercial landings do not again exceed the commercial ACL, even if the total ACL (the combined commercial and recreational sector ACLs) is not exceeded by combined recreational and commercial landings. That occurred in 2016, for example, when the commercial season for Snapper Unit 2 in Puerto Rico was reduced by 36 days because commercial landings of Snapper Unit 2 had exceeded the pertinent commercial ACL, even though combined commercial and recreational landings of Snapper Unit 2 were less than the total ACL (81 FR 34283, May 31, 2016).
        This action would benefit small commercial fishing businesses by reducing the potential adverse economic impact, if any, caused by a reduction in the length of the Federal commercial season required by the current AM. The action changes the trigger for the AMs, potentially reducing the number of AM-based reductions in length of the Federal commercial fishing season, and benefitting those who are negatively affected by such reductions. The actual adverse impact caused by a reduction in the length of a Federal commercial fishing season, is dependent on the extent to which commercial fishing for a species or species group occurs in Federal waters and on the ability of a commercial fishing business to change intensity of effort in anticipation of a possible reduced season in Federal waters; commercial businesses that fish for species in federal waters and are not able to change their behavior in anticipation of Federal commercial fishing season reductions are most impacted by the fishing season reductions and could see the most benefit from changing the AM trigger and reducing the potential for an AM-based fishing season reduction. However, NMFS is unable to provide estimates of the baseline adverse economic impact of shortened fishing seasons caused by the current AM without making assumptions as to the magnitudes of those factors.

        However, NMFS estimates that if the 2016 commercial season for Snapper Unit 2 had not closed early and if all additional landings of Snapper Unit 2 were from the commercial sector and from Federal waters, each small business could have landed an additional 28 lb (12.7 kg) of Snapper Unit 2, which would equate to an additional dockside value of $143 per business that year. For a small commercial fishing business that has average annual dockside revenue of $10,000, that maximum benefit would represent a 1.43 percent increase in annual revenue. Therefore, it is concluded that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq; however, small businesses are encouraged to comment on this conclusion.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Caribbean, Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico.

          Dated: September 14, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

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

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

        2. Revise § 622.12 to read as follows:

          § 622.12
           Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for Caribbean island management areas/Caribbean EEZ.
          (a) Puerto Rico management area. See Appendix E of this part for specification of the Puerto Rico management area.
          (1) Queen conch. See § 622.491 regarding seasonal and area closure provisions and ACL closure provisions applicable to queen conch.
          (i) Commercial ACL. For the EEZ only, 0 lb (0 kg), round weight.
          (ii) Recreational ACL. For the EEZ only, 0 lb (0 kg), round weight.
          (2) Reef fish. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP. With the exceptions of goliath grouper, Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for the Puerto Rico management area. As described in the FMP, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any fishing season reduction required under (a)(2)(i) or (ii) will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year.
          (i) Commercial sector. If commercial landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the applicable species or species group commercial ACL, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and the combined commercial and recreational landings have exceeded the applicable combined commercial and recreational sector ACL (total ACL), as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species groups for the commercial sector that year by the amount necessary to ensure that commercial landings do not exceed the applicable commercial ACL for the species or species group. If NMFS determines that either the applicable commercial ACL or total ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the commercial fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. The commercial ACLs, in round weight, are as follows:
          (A) Parrotfishes—52,737 lb (23,915 kg).
          (B) Snapper Unit 1—284,685 lb (129,131 kg).
          (C) Snapper Unit 2—145,916 lb (66,186 kg).
          (D) Snapper Unit 3—345,775 lb (156,841 kg).
          (E) Snapper Unit 4—373,295 lb (169,324 kg).
          (F) Groupers—177,513 lb (80,519 kg).
          (G) Angelfish—8,984 lb (4,075 kg).
          (H) Boxfish—86,115 lb (39,061 kg).
          (I) Goatfishes—17,565 lb (7,967 kg).
          (J) Grunts—182,396 lb (82,733 kg).
          (K) Wrasses—54,147 lb (24,561 kg).
          (L) Jacks—86,059 lb (39,036 kg).
          (M) Scups and porgies, combined—24,739 lb (11,221 kg).
          (N) Squirrelfish—16,663 lb (7,558 kg).
          (O) Surgeonfish—7,179 lb (3,256 kg).
          (P) Triggerfish and filefish, combined—58,475 lb (26,524 kg).
          (ii) Recreational sector. If recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the applicable species or species group recreational ACL, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, and the combined commercial and recreational landings have exceeded the applicable combined commercial and recreational sector ACL (total ACL), as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species groups for the recreational sector that year by the amount necessary to ensure that recreational landings do not exceed the applicable species or species group recreational ACL. If NMFS determines that either the applicable recreational ACL or total ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. The recreational ACLs, in round weight, are as follows:
          (A) Parrotfishes—15,263 lb (6,921 kg).
          (B) Snapper Unit 1—95,526 lb (43,330 kg).
          (C) Snapper Unit 2—34,810 lb (15,790 kg).
          (D) Snapper Unit 3—83,158 lb (37,720 kg).
          (E) Snapper Unit 4—28,509 lb (12,931 kg).
          (F) Groupers—77,213 lb (35,023 kg).
          (G) Angelfish—4,492 lb (2,038 kg).
          (H) Boxfish—4,616 lb (2,094 kg).
          (I) Goatfishes—362 lb (164 kg).
          (J) Grunts—5,028 lb (2,281 kg).
          (K) Wrasses—5,050 lb (2,291 kg).
          (L) Jacks—51,001 lb (23,134 kg).
          (M) Scups and porgies, combined—2,577 lb (1,169 kg).
          (N) Squirrelfish—3,891 lb (1,765 kg).
          (O) Surgeonfish—3,590 lb (1,628 kg).
          (P) Triggerfish and filefish, combined—21,929 lb (9,947 kg).
          (iii) Total ACLs. The total ACLs (combined commercial and recreational ACL), in round weight, are as follows:
          (A) Parrotfishes—68,000 lb (30,844 kg).
          (B) Snapper Unit 1—380,211 lb (172,461 kg).
          (C) Snapper Unit 2—180,726 lb (81,976 kg).
          (D) Snapper Unit 3—428,933 lb (194,561 kg).
          (E) Snapper Unit 4—401,804 lb (182,255 kg).
          (F) Groupers—254,726 lb (115,542 kg).
          (G) Angelfish—13,476 lb (6,113 kg).
          (H) Boxfish—90,731 lb (41,155 kg).
          (I) Goatfishes—17,927 lb (8,132 kg).
          (J) Grunts—187,424 lb (85,014 kg).
          (K) Wrasses—59,197 lb (26,851 kg).
          (L) Jacks—137,060 lb (62,169 kg).
          (M) Scups and porgies, combined—27,316 lb (kg).
          (N) Squirrelfish—20,554 lb (9,323 kg).
          (O) Surgeonfish—10,769 lb (4,885 kg).
          (P) Triggerfish and filefish, combined—80,404 lb (36,471 kg).
          (3) Spiny lobster. Landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP. The ACL is based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for the Puerto Rico management area. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the ACL, as specified in this paragraph, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for spiny lobster that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season the following fishing year. As described in the FMP, any fishing season reduction required as a result of this paragraph will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. The ACL is 327,920 lb (148,742 kg), round weight.
          (b) St. Croix management area. See Appendix E of this part for specification of the St. Croix management area.
          (1) Queen conch. See § 622.491 regarding seasonal and area closure provisions and ACL closure provisions applicable to queen conch. The ACL is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg), round weight.
          (2) Reef fish. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP. With the exception of goliath grouper, Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for the St. Croix management area. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the applicable ACL for a species or species group, as specified in this paragraph, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. As described in the FMP, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any fishing season reduction required as a result of this paragraph will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. The ACLs, in round weight, are as follows:
          (i) Parrotfishes—240,000 lb (108,863 kg).
          (ii) Snappers—102,946 lb (46,696 kg).
          (iii) Groupers—30,435 lb (13,805 kg).
          (iv) Angelfish—305 lb (138 kg).
          (v) Boxfish—8,433 lb (3,825 kg).
          (vi) Goatfishes—3,766 lb (1,708 kg).
          (vii) Grunts—36,881 lb (16,729 kg).
          (viii) Wrasses—7 lb (3 kg).
          (ix) Jacks—15,489 lb (7,076 kg).
          (x) Scups and porgies, combined—4,638 lb (2,104 kg).
          (xi) Squirrelfish—121 lb (55 kg).
          (xii) Surgeonfish—33,603 lb (15,242 kg).
          (xiii) Triggerfish and filefish, combined—24,980 lb (11,331 kg).
          (3) Spiny lobster. Landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP. The ACL is based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for the St. Croix management area. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the ACL, as specified in this paragraph, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the following fishing year. As described in the FMP, any fishing season reduction required as a result of this paragraph will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. The ACL is 107,307 lb (48,674 kg), round weight.
          (c) St. Thomas/St. John management area. See Appendix E of this part for specification of the St. Thomas/St. John management area.
          (1) Queen conch. See § 622.491 regarding seasonal and area closure provisions and ACL closure provisions applicable to queen conch. The ACL is 0 lb (0 kg), round weight, for the EEZ only.
          (2) Reef fish. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP. With the exception of goliath grouper, Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for St. Thomas/St. John management area. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the applicable ACL for a species or species group, as specified in this paragraph, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. As described in the FMP, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any fishing season reduction required as a result of this paragraph will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. The ACLs, in round weight, are as follows:
          (i) Parrotfishes—42,500 lb (19,278 kg).
          (ii) Snappers—133,775 lb (60,679 kg).
          (iii) Groupers—51,849 lb (23,518 kg).
          (iv) Angelfish—7,897 lb (3,582 kg).
          (v) Boxfish—27,880 lb (12,646 kg).
          (vi) Goatfishes—320 lb (145 kg).
          (vii) Grunts—37,617 lb (17,063 kg).
          (viii) Wrasses—585 lb (265 kg).
          (ix) Jacks—52,907 lb (23,998 kg).
          (x) Scups and porgies, combined—21,819 lb (9,897 kg).
          (xi) Squirrelfish—4,241 lb (1,924 kg).
          (xii) Surgeonfish—29,249 lb (13,267 kg).
          (xiii) Triggerfish and filefish, combined—74,447 lb (33,769 kg).
          (3) Spiny lobster. Landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP. The ACL is based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for the St. Thomas/St. John management area. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the ACL, as specified in this paragraph, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the following fishing year. As described in the FMP, any fishing season reduction required as a result of this paragraph will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. The ACL is 104,199 lb (47,264 kg), round weight.
          (d) Caribbean EEZ. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMPs. The ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings, throughout the Caribbean EEZ. If landings from the Caribbean EEZ for tilefish and aquarium trade species, as estimated by the SRD, have exceeded the applicable ACL, as specified in this paragraph, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species groups that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. If NMFS determines the applicable ACL was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the following fishing year. As described in the FMPs, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any fishing season reduction required as a result of this paragraph will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. The ACLs, in round weight, are as follows:
          (1) Tilefish—14,642 lb (6,641 kg).
          (2) Aquarium trade species—8,155 lb (3,699 kg).
          (e) Closure provisions. (1) Restrictions applicable after a Puerto Rico closure.

          (i) Restrictions applicable after a Puerto Rico commercial closure for reef fish species or species groups. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the commercial sector for species or species groups included in the notification is closed and such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be purchased or sold. Harvest or possession of such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits unless the recreational sector for the species or species group is closed and the restrictions specified in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section apply.
          (ii) Restrictions applicable after a Puerto Rico recreational closure for reef fish species or species groups. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the recreational sector for species or species groups included in the notification is closed and the recreational bag and possession limits for such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area are zero. If the seasons for both the commercial and recreational sectors for such species or species groups are closed, the restrictions specified in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section apply.
          (iii) Restrictions applicable when both Puerto Rico commercial and Puerto Rico recreational sectors for reef fish species or species groups are closed. If the seasons for both the commercial and recreational sectors for a species or species group are closed, such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area are zero.
          (iv) Restrictions applicable after a spiny lobster closure in Puerto Rico. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, both the commercial and recreational sectors are closed. Spiny lobster in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for spiny lobster in or from the Puerto Rico management area are zero.
          (2) Restrictions applicable after a St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John, or Caribbean EEZ closure. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section, such species or species groups in or from the applicable management area of the Caribbean EEZ may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for such species or species groups in or from the applicable management area of the Caribbean EEZ are zero.

        2. In § 622.491, revise the first sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 622.491
           Seasonal and area closures.

          (b) Pursuant to the procedures and criteria established in the FMP for Queen Conch Resources in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, when the ACL, as specified in § 622.12(b)(1), is reached or projected to be reached, the Regional Administrator will close the Caribbean EEZ to the harvest and possession of queen conch, in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank, east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, by filing a notification of closure with the Office of the Federal Register. * * *

      [FR Doc. 2017-19927 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 90-day finding on a petition to delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii to determine if delisting the species is warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on November 30, 2005. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information must be submitted to the Service by January 30, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species to Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 92011; by facsimile to 760/431-9618; or by electronic mail to “FW1PMV@fws.gov”. Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: 90-Day Finding on Peirson's Milk-Vetch Delisting Petition” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 760-431-9440. Please note that the e-mail address “FW1PMV@fws.gov” will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period. See also the “Public Information Solicited”' section for more information on submitting comments. The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Bartel, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-9618.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Information Solicited

        When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that a delisting action may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. Based on results of the status review, we will make a 12-month finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on the Peirson's milk-vetch. We request any additional data, references, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of Peirson's milk-vetch. Of particular interest is information pertaining to the factors the Service uses to determine if a species is threatened or endangered: (1) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or human-caused factors affecting its continued existence. In addition, we request data and information regarding the items identified in the “Summary of Threats Analysis” section.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Service make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding is based on information contained in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the finding. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species.
        In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and otherwise available in our files at the time of the petition review, and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific or commercial information” threshold.

        Our 90-day finding considers whether the petitioners have stated a reasonable case that delisting may be warranted. Thus, our finding expresses no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the species should be delisted. We reach a conclusion on that issue only after a thorough review of the taxon's status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 more months, we will perform a rigorous, critical analysis of the best available commercial and scientific information. We will ensure that the data used to make our determination as to the status of the species (i.e., our 12-month finding) is consistent with the Act and the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3504(d)(1) and 3516). Upon completion, our 12-month finding will be published promptly in the Federal Register.

          Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) was listed as threatened on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596). At the time of listing, the primary threat to the milk-vetch was the destruction of individuals and dune habitat from off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and associated recreational development. On October 25, 2001, we received a petition to delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii dated October 24, 2001, from David P. Hubbard, Ted J. Griswold, and Philip J. Giacinti, Jr. of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, that was prepared for the American Sand Association (ASA), the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (ASA 2001). On September 5, 2003, we announced an initial petition finding in the Federal Register that the petition presented substantial information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted (68 FR 52784). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we completed a status review of the best available scientific and commercial information on the species, and published our 12-month finding on June 4, 2004 (69 FR 31523). We determined that the petitioned action was not warranted at that time. This determination met deadline requirements established by a court-approved settlement agreement (ASA et. al. v. USFWS and Gale Norton, Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Civ. No. 03-315L LAB).
        On July 8, 2005, we received a petition to delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) that was prepared for the American Sand Association, the Off-Road Business Association, the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, and the American Motorcycle Association District 37 (ASA 2005). The new petition claims that according to four years of additional data collection, “the Peirson's milk-vetch is even more abundant than was reported in ASA, et al.'s original petition, and that the plant's population and reproductive capacity are so stable and strong as to warrant delisting.”
        This petition and its associated documents also include claims and information previously addressed in our 90-day and 12-month findings on the previous petition to delist Peirson's milk-vetch. Those claims that are not substantially different from those addressed in our previous findings or that are not supported by additional information will not be addressed in this 90-day finding. However, all available information, including information provided by the petitioners in supplements to the petition dated September 8, 2005 and October 4, 2005, will be considered in our status review and 12-month finding.
        Species Information
        Species Description

          Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii is an erect to spreading, herbaceous, short-lived perennial in the Fabaceae (Pea family) (Barneby 1959, 1964). Plants may reach 8 to 27 inches (in) (20 to 70 centimeters (cm)) in height and develop taproots (Barneby 1964) that penetrate to the deeper, moister sand. According to Phillips and Kennedy (2003), plants largely die back to a root crown in the summer. The stems and leaves are covered with fine, silky appressed hairs. The leaflets, which may fall off in response to drought, are small and widely spaced, giving the plants a brushy appearance. This taxon is unusual in that the terminal leaflet is continuous with the rachis rather than articulated with it. The purple flowers are arranged in 10- to 17-flowered axillary racemes.
        Taxonomy

        The taxonomic status of Peirson's milk-vetch was discussed in the final listing rule (63 FR 53596). Although Peirson's milk-vetch was originally described at the species rank, it is currently recognized as a variety as Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. There are two other currently recognized varieties of this species, but these are restricted to Mexico.
        Two other Astragalus taxa occur in the Algodones Dunes region. They are Astragalus lentiginosus var. borreganus, which is easily distinguished by its conspicuously broad leaflets, and Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii, which is easily distinguished by its smaller stature and shorter banner petals.
        Range and Distribution

          Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii is reported from northeastern Baja California, Mexico (Barneby 1959, 1964; WESTEC 1977; Spellenberg 1993), and has been verified in the Gran Desierto of Sonora, Mexico (Felger 2000). In the United States, this plant is restricted to about 53,000 acres (ac) (21,500 hectares (ha)) in a narrow band of the central portion of the Algodones Dunes of eastern Imperial County, California, which are among the largest sand dune fields in North America. The Algodones Dunes are often referred to as the Imperial Sand Dunes. Nearly all of the lands in the Algodones Dunes are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA). However, the State of California and private parties own small inholdings in the dune area. Approximately 21,836 ac (8,837 ha) of the 185,000-ac (74,867-ha) ISDRA have been designated as critical habitat for A. m. var. peirsonii (69 FR 47330).
        Life History

          Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii has variously been considered an annual or perennial (Munz 1932, 1974; Barneby 1959, 1964; Spellenberg 1993; Willoughby 2001). Willoughby (2001) states that A. m. var. peirsonii is apparently a short-lived perennial, so its response to the amount of rainfall in the growing seasons is predictable. Documented persistence of individuals from one growing season to the next also attests to the perennial nature of A. m. var. peirsonii (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, 2003, 2004). Although Romspert and Burk (1979) found inflorescences present from December through at least April, plants are reportedly in flower from as early as mid-November through May (Barneby 1964; Porter in litt. 2003; Phillips and Kennedy 2002). The plants are self-incompatible, requiring cross-pollination. The primary pollinator is a digger bee (Habropoda pallida) (Porter 2005).
        Based on current understanding of the species' life history, sufficient rain in conjunction with cooler-than-average fall weather appears to trigger germination events. Seedlings may be present in suitable habitat throughout the dunes, especially during above-normal precipitation years. In drier years, plant numbers decrease as individuals die and are not replaced by new seedlings. The long-term survival of the species likely depends on the production of viable seeds in the wetter years, the continual replenishment of the seed bank, and the persistence of the seed bank. The seed bank allows the species to persist until appropriate conditions for germination, growth, and reproduction occur. Large annual fluctuations in the numbers of plants present have been consistently found (Phillips and Kennedy 2005; Willoughby 2004, 2005).

        The relative contribution of first year plants of Peirson's milk-vetch to the seed bank and survival of the taxon is not fully understood. Available data (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, 2004, 2005) and previous research (Romspert and Burk 1979) suggest that older age classes produce substantially more seeds than first-year plants and that, therefore, the older persisting plants (i.e., those plants that survive for more than one growing season) may be individually important for depositing more seeds into the seed bank.

        In desert plants, the majority of seedlings may die at the onset of the drier season as noted by previous reports. Phillips and Kennedy (2002) reported that 26 percent of the plants recorded in Spring 2001 counts survived to late 2001. These authors (Phillips and Kennedy 2003) also report the nearly complete loss of the 2003 seedling cohort of Peirson's milk-vetch. Pavlik and Barbour (1988) studied the establishment and survivorship pattern of Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans, another dune endemic plant, and recorded a complete failure of the 1984-1985 seedling cohort. These authors also reported that 54 percent of the 1985-1986 cohort of seedlings survived. However, none of these plants reached reproductive maturity that year.
        Seed Biology

        The fruits of Peirson's milk-vetch are 0.8 to 1.4 in (2 to 3.5 cm) long, one-chambered, hollow, and inflated. Peirson's milk-vetch fruits contain 11 to 16 large flattened black seeds. The seeds, among the largest seeds of any Astragalus in North America (Barneby 1964), average less than 0.1 ounces (oz) (15 milligrams (mg)) each in weight and are up to 0.2 in (4.7 millimeters (mm)) in length (Bowers 1996). Seeds are either dispersed locally when they fall from partly opened fruits on the parent plant, or more widely when they are released from fruits blown across the sand after falling from the parent plant. Seeds require no pre-germination treatment to induce germination, but show increased germination success when scarified (outer cover is broken). Porter (2005) reported about 9.1 percent of scarified seeds germinated while only 5.3 percent of unscarified seeds germinated. In germination trials conducted by Romspert and Burk (1979), 92 percent or more seeds germinated within 29 days at temperatures of 77 °F (25 °C) or less, and no seeds germinated at temperatures of 86 °F (30 °C) or higher. This indicates that seeds on the dunes may likely germinate in the cooler months of the year. Porter (in litt. 2002) identified that the primary dormancy mechanism in Peirson's milk-vetch is the impermeability of the seed coat to water and demonstrated little loss of viability in seeds stored for three years. This mechanism is consistent with characteristics of other species that have seed banks (Given 1994). Dispersed seeds that do not germinate during the subsequent growing season become part of the seed bank (Given 1994).

        In a given year, an annual or short-lived species can fluctuate between large numbers of plants to few or even no plants. Many species, and Peirson's milk-vetch may be one of them, have periodic “rescue” episodes from the seed bank where large flushes appear when germination conditions are suitable (Elzinga et al. 1998). To the extent that plants are precluded from adding seeds to the seed bank because the plants are eliminated entirely or their reproductive output is reduced by summer drought, herbivory, and OHV impacts, these individuals cannot be expected to contribute to the seed bank and/or long-term survival of Peirson's milk-vetch. Development of a seed bank and associated dormancy allows plant species to grow, flower, and set seed in years with most favorable conditions (Given 1994). When measuring seed bank dynamics to determine the viability and productivity of a seed bank, among the factors necessary to consider are estimation of the rate of seed mortality and aging, the amount of seed removed by predators, and the variability in germination events (Elzinga et al. 1998).
        Threats Analysis
        When considering an action for listing, delisting, or reclassifying a species, we are required to determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five listing factors as described at 50 CFR 424.11. These factors are given as: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. In making this finding, we evaluated whether or not the petition and associated documents and other information available to us present substantial information that delisting Peirson's milk-vetch may be warranted. Our evaluation, based on information provided in the petition and available in our files, is presented below.
        The petitioners provided us with four reports completed since our 2004 12-month finding (69 FR 31523). These new reports include the work by BLM (Willoughby 2004, 2005) and reports by Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005).
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        Demography of Peirson's Milk-Vetch
        The petition restates claims made in the October 2001 petition that (1) the original listing was made without a plant count and (2) the original listing relied on field studies that BLM has since indicated were biased. As noted above in the Background section, we will not be addressing in this 90-day finding those claims that are not substantially different from those addressed in our previous findings or are not supported by additional information.

        The petition states that its point is “to demonstrate, through four years of additional data collection, that the Peirson's milk-vetch is even more abundant than was reported in ASA et al.'s original petition, and that the plant's population and reproductive capacity are so stable and strong as to warrant delisting” (ASA 2005 p. 5). The petitioners suggest that (1) the addition of several years of monitoring data by BLM (Willoughby 2004, 2005) and Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) indicate that Peirson's milk-vetch has a “large and stable population” (ASA 2005 p. 46) and (2) new data gathered by Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) on Peirson's milk-vetch reproductive strategy indicate that the plant has the capacity to produce large numbers of seeds to restock the seed bank.
        Using, in particular, the results of the monitoring by BLM (Willoughby 2004, 2005) and Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005), the petitioners state that the “anticipated threats to the Peirson's milk-vetch and its habitat have not materialized” (ASA 2005 p. 47). Instead, they state that threats to its “continuous existence are negligible” (ASA 2005 p. 48).
        Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use
        A primary threat that led to the listing of the Peirson's milk-vetch in 1998 was the destruction of individuals and habitat from OHV use and associated recreational development (63 FR 53596). The current petition (ASA 2005) and associated new documents provide information that bears on the impact of OHV activity on Peirson's milk-vetch. Monitoring studies conducted by BLM (Willoughby 2004, 2005) provide updated information on Peirson's milk-vetch abundance classes, use of a new monitoring protocol, estimates of density and population, and OHV impacts. Studies conducted by Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) provide information on germination events and their timing, survivorship, seed bank, estimates of density and population size, OHV impacts, and additional surveys for Peirson's milk-vetch.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Other Information in Our Files

        Willoughby (2004) summarizes multiple years of monitoring of Peirson's milk-vetch and Helianthus niveus ssp. tephrodes (Algodones Dunes Sunflower) in the Algodones Dunes. For each transect used in previous BLM surveys, Willoughby (2004) included number of plants tallied, sums of abundance class values, and number of cells occupied. Willoughby (2004) reports that there is essentially no difference in the number of cells per transect occupied by Peirson's milk-vetch in areas opened or closed to OHV use. Willoughby (2004) noted that part of the area surveyed and considered as “open area” was, in fact, closed to OHV use during 2001 and 2002. The report concludes that the populations of Peirson's milk-vetch fluctuate with rainfall but there was no difference between open and closed areas. Willoughby (2005) estimated that there were 286,374 Peirson's milk-vetch plants with plant density estimated to be 13.5 plants per ha (33.3 ac). Willoughby (2005) included estimates of numbers of the total plants that were flowering adults in 2004 and seedling survival for seedlings found in spring 2004 until September 2004.
        Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) provide information on survivorship, germination, seed bank, and population estimates of Peirson's milk-vetch based on counts at their study sites. They report actual plant counts of 77,922 individuals in March 2005 and 66,931 individuals in April 2005 at 25 sample sites. Within 56 ha (138 ac) of potential habitat, Phillips and Kennedy (2005) estimate an approximate minimum population of 173,328 plants in March 2005 and 142,243 plants in April 2005. They describe finding approximately 30 seedlings in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park (an area outside of Algodones Dunes).

        To summarize, the petitioners have presented new information on the demography of Peirson's milk-vetch. Some of this information may be relevant to the potential impacts of OHV activities on the plant and its habitat. They support their arguments that Peirson's milk-vetch is healthy and stable and that OHV impacts are minimal with information from four reports (Willoughby 2004, 2005 and Phillips and Kennedy 2004, 2005) that were not available at the time of the previous 12-month finding (69 FR 31523). We find that these documents present substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted and that they justify further detailed analysis in a 12-month finding. Additional information in our files includes a study on the biology of Peirson's milk-vetch (Porter 2005) and a Service study on plant densities in the Algodones Dunes (Service 2005b). All of these materials will be included in the species status review as part of the 12-month finding.

        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        This petition (ASA 2005) does not present any information regarding this factor as a threat to Peirson's milk-vetch nor did we identify any threats relative to Factor B in our previous 12-month finding (69 FR 31523). If new information becomes available in public comments, we will analyze it in our 12-month finding.
        C. Disease or Predation
        The petition (ASA 2005) states that Peirson's milk-vetch is largely free of threats from disease or predation. This is the same statement made in the original (ASA 2001) petition. We addressed the impact of seed-eating beetles (Bruchidae) on the seeds and evidence of rodent and insect herbivory in our previous 12-month finding (69 FR 31523). In 2004, BLM recorded numbers and distribution of plants with damage. Damage that was not from OHV impacts was attributed principally to insects (Willoughby 2005).
        We identified potential additive Factor C threats in our previous 12-month finding (69 FR 31523), but the current petition does not identify threats in this category. Therefore, the petition does not present substantial information related to Factor C. However, our new 12-month finding will consider Factor C threats.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        This petition (ASA 2005) and the previous petition (ASA 2001) both state that Peirson's milk-vetch has received adequate protection from BLM since 1977. The claim in the current petition that BLM has adequately protected Peirson's milk-vetch does not appear to constitute substantial information in and of itself because the petitioners' discussion of the issue was brief. However, the issue may be clarified by further analysis in a 12-month finding, which would also consider the Service's biological opinion, signed January 25, 2005, for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreational Area Management Plan (Plan) (Service 2005a). We will analyze the Plan and the biological opinion as part of the 12-month finding.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence
        This petition (ASA 2005) and the earlier petition (ASA 2001) both state that there are no other natural or manmade threats to Peirson's milk-vetch. We discussed threats from purposeful impacts to Peirson's milk-vetch by OHVs, rangewide natural threats during years when the numbers of individuals is very low, and the role of pollinators in our previous 12-month finding (69 FR 31523).
        We identified Factor E threats in our previous 12-month finding (69 FR 31523), but the current petition does not identify threats in this category. Therefore, the petition does not present substantial information related to Factor E. However, the information presented by the petition may affect our analysis of the existence and relative magnitude of the identified Factor E threats and our new 12-month finding will consider these threats in light of the new information.
        Summary of Threats Analysis
        The petitioners have presented new information regarding the ecology and demography of Peirson's milk-vetch at the Algodones Dunes. Phillips and Kennedy (2004) include new information on seedling growth, documentation of a late winter germination in 2004, and a count of seedlings in 2004. Phillips and Kennedy (2005) provide new information on plant densities in three study areas, population estimates for those areas, results of a new survey area, and indicate that Peirson's milk-vetch “colonies” are increasing in three different areas open to OHV use. Willoughby (2004, 2005) includes new information regarding population trends of Peirson's milk-vetch plants in the Algodones Dunes, abundance class differences for 2002, number of occupied cells per transect, seedling survival, OHV impacts, and the use of a new monitoring protocol for special status plants, including Peirson's milk-vetch, in the Algodones Dunes. These reports constitute substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted and thus justify further detailed analysis in a status review and 12-month finding.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition and associated documents and other information available in our files. Based on this review, and the reasons discussed above, we find that the petition and information in our files present substantial information that delisting of Peirson's milk-vetch may be warranted.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: November 17, 2005.
          Richard E. Sayers, Jr.,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-23407 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No.000629197-0197-01; I.D. 032900A]
        RIN 0648-AN06
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Billfish Size Limits; Monitoring of Recreational Landings; Post-Release Mortality

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS is requesting comments on options for rulemaking to reduce United States recreational landings of Atlantic blue marlin (BUM) to comply with recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). NMFS also requests comments on options to improve the monitoring of recreationally landed billfish and swordfish. In addition, NMFS is seeking comments on prohibiting retention of Atlantic billfish onboard any U.S.-flagged vessels that have been issued a commercial fishing permit for any Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS). Finally, NMFS requests comment on the use of circle hooks or other gear modifications to reduce mortality of released fish, and on the allowance of exemptions to the minimum size for those anglers seeking fly rod/light tackle records from certifying organizations.

          DATES:
          Written comments on this ANPR must be received on or before September 25, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this ANPR should be mailed to, and copies of documents supporting this action may be obtained from, the Highly Migratory Species Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Buck Sutter or Jill Stevenson, 727-570-5447, fax: 727-570-5656; or Christopher Rogers, 301-713-2347, fax: 301-713-1917 or visit our website at www.nmfs.gov/sfa/hmspg.html.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Atlantic HMS are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish (Atlantic Billfish FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). The FMPs are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) at 50 CFR part 635. In addition, billfish, swordfish (SWO), and tunas are managed throughout the Atlantic Ocean by ICCAT, to which the United States is a contracting party. The Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility, under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), to implement ICCAT recommendations.
        Stock assessments for BUM and Atlantic white marlin (WHM) indicate that biomass of these species has been below a level associated with maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for about three decades under both total Atlantic and north Atlantic stock scenarios. Consequently, the Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) for ICCAT consider both BUM and WHM in the Atlantic Ocean as over-exploited. The SCRS similarly consider North Atlantic SWO as over-exploited. The September 1997 NMFS report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries listed BUM, WHM, and North Atlantic SWO as overfished.
        In 1997, ICCAT recommended a reduction of Atlantic BUM and WHM landings by at least 25 percent from 1996 levels, starting in 1998, to be accomplished by 1999, thereby reducing mortality levels of billfish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean. A 1998 ICCAT recommendation continued the requirement for a reduced level of marlin landings through 2000. Also, a 1999 ICCAT recommendation requires the United States to reduce landings (recreational and commercial) of north Atlantic swordfish consistent with a 10-year stock rebuilding program. A history of the past actions that NMFS has taken to address ICCAT recommendations and to satisfy the objectives of the Atlantic Billfish FMP and the HMS FMP follows:
        Billfish Minimum Sizes
        During the 1998 recreational billfish fishing season, NMFS issued an interim rule (63 FR 14030, March 24, 1998) to increase the size limit for BUM from 86 inches (218 cm) to 96 inches (244 cm) lower jaw-fork length (LJFL), and for WHM from 63 inches (160 cm) to 66 inches (168 cm) LJFL. The intent of the interim rule was to reduce U.S. landings by the required 25 percent within the 2-year time frame required. Size limits established in the interim rule were based on the best available information at the time. Subsequent data indicated that the minimum size limit for WHM was sufficient; however, the minimum size for BUM may not have been adequate to achieve the required 25-percent reduction. Therefore, the size limit for BUM was further increased to 99 inches (251 cm) LJFL through a September 29, 1998, interim rule (63 FR 51859).
        In April 1999, NMFS published Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP (Amendment 1). In that document, NMFS indicated that minimum size limits would be the primary fishery management strategy to control recreational billfish landings in compliance with the 1997 and 1998 ICCAT marlin recommendations. The final rule implementing Amendment 1 (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999) included minimum sizes of 99 inches (251 cm) LJFL for BUM and 66 inches (168 cm) LJFL for WHM. It was projected that the increased minimum sizes would reduce recreational landings, by weight, by over 32 percent for BUM and by 42 percent for WHM. However, Amendment 1 noted that NMFS would implement further changes in minimum size limits through proposed and final rules if monitoring of landings indicated that current minimum size limits were insufficient to avoid exceeding BUM and/or WHM landing targets, as outlined in the framework provisions of the FMP amendment.
        Compilation of preliminary 1999 recreational landings of BUM and WHM has recently been completed by the NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEC). While the compliance with the reduction in landings should be based on fishing year landings for 1999 (June 1 to May 31), as outlined in Amendment 1, these data are not yet available. NMFS is proceeding with a cross-year comparison based on calendar year 1999 pending availability of complete data for the 1999 fishing year. This will ensure that necessary measures are implemented in a timely fashion to demonstrate NMFS' efforts to comply with the international management recommendations.
        A total of 157 billfish tournaments submitted reports to NMFS for fishing activities during 1999 (Table 1). Although numbers of BUM landed during 1999 (N=173) were reduced 20 percent from 1996 levels (N=217), compliance with ICCAT recommendations requires a 25-percent reduction in weight of marlin landed, not the number of fish. Despite the increased minimum size and the reduced number of BUM landed, harvest declined only 3.6 percent by weight due to increased average weights of landed fish. Conversely, WHM landings were reduced by nearly 58 percent, by weight, from 1996 levels.

          Table 1. Reported Tournament Landings of BUM and WHM for 1996 (116 tournaments) and 1999 (157 tournaments)

            Species
            Year
            Number Landed
            Estimated Landings (mt)

            Target Landings (mt)
            Actual Reduction from 1996

            Blue Marlin
            1996
            217
            33.2

            1999
            173
            32.0
            24.9
            3.6 percent

            White Marlin
            1996
            72
            1.95

            1999
            36
            0.82
            1.5
            57.9 percent

        Reducing Post-Release Mortality
        Preliminary evidence from the NMFS SEC indicates that the use of circle hooks reduces bleeding and injury in catch-and-release recreational billfish fisheries when used with live and dead bait. Reducing physical damage from the recreational hooking event would likely increase post-release survival rates. NMFS' SEC staff have been engaged in outreach programs to encourage the voluntary use of circle hooks. Further, reducing incidental mortalities associated with capture and release will enhance other management actions directed toward rebuilding of overfished stocks.
        Landings Monitoring
        Amendment 1 and the HMS FMP established new requirements for registration of, and reporting by, tournaments scoring billfish, swordfish, tunas and sharks. Consequently, the number of billfish tournaments that reported in 1999 (N=157) was greater than those that reported in 1996 (N=116). Registration of shark and tuna tournaments is also improving in response to the new regulations. While landings reporting for HMS tournaments is becoming more comprehensive, a significant amount of recreational fishing effort for Atlantic HMS occurs outside the tournament context. Also, after a lengthy period of relatively low activity, the recreational SWO fishery has re-emerged as a nighttime fishery over the last few years along the East Coast. In 1999, NMFS committed to counting recreationally caught north Atlantic SWO against the incidental catch quota in the HMS FMP.
        Monitoring HMS recreational fisheries outside tournaments can be a challenge due to the nature of these fisheries (i.e., fewer boats fishing offshore than inshore and success rates may be lower for large pelagics than for inshore species), the timing of landings (e.g., late-day returns from offshore trips), and the wide geographic range of landings (i.e., Texas to Maine and the Caribbean). Trips landing large pelagic fish, such as SWO, BUM, WHM, and sailfish are intercepted relatively infrequently within the scope of NMFS' current recreational statistical programs (Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey and Large Pelagics Survey), thus the precision of recreational landings estimates is a matter of concern.
        Billfish Retention by Commercial Vessels
        Since the Atlantic Billfish FMP and implementing regulations were issued in 1988, retention of billfish in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone has been limited to persons in the recreational fishery, and sale of billfish from the management unit has been prohibited. This significant element of the Atlantic Billfish FMP (i.e., no commercial fishery) was preserved in Amendment 1 upon consideration of input from the Billfish Advisory Panel. The original FMP regulations were drafted under the presumption that no gear other than rod and reel would be used in the recreational fishery and that rod-and-reel gear would not be used in a commercial fishery that would take billfish.
        Since that time, NMFS has consolidated billfish regulations with those issued for other Atlantic HMS, and NMFS has received comment that vessels issued permits in the commercial tuna, swordfish, or shark fisheries, even though using rod-and-reel gear, should be prohibited from retaining billfish. Although billfish taken by persons aboard these vessels cannot be lawfully sold, there is a concern that billfish are targeted from such commercial vessels or that incidental catch, if retained, could illegally enter into commerce.
        Potential Management Alternatives
        If additional management measures are deemed necessary to reduce landings, enhance survival of recreational releases, and improve monitoring of landings BUM, WHM, and SWO associated with U.S. fishing activities in order to meet the ICCAT recommendations and to satisfy the objectives of the HMS FMP and Amendment 1, the following alternatives and others may be considered:
        (1) Increase the minimum size limit for BUM from the current 99 inch (251 cm) LJFL minimum size. Projected reductions in landings associated with a range of increased minimum size limits are provided in Table 2.

          Table 2. Projected BUM Landings Reductions for a Given Increase in Minimum Size

            Minimum Size (LJFL)
            Projected Reduction from 1996 Landings

            102 inches (259 cm)
            43 percent by weight

            104 inches (264 cm)
            51 percent by weight

            106 inches (269 cm)
            62 percent by weight

            108 inches (274 cm)
            72 percent by weight

            110 inches (279 cm)
            79 percent by weight

        (2) Establish a mandatory catch-and-release format for all Atlantic billfish tournaments. The 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP included a “no-kill” tournament alternative in the management options considered. Although it was ultimately rejected as being overly restrictive at the time, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council strongly recommended that all tournaments adopt the no-kill format. Many tournaments have adopted strategies to reduce or eliminate landings, including offering prizes for released fish; of the 157 billfish tournaments that registered during 1999, 76 (48 percent) reported that they were “release-only” events. However, the remaining tournaments are responsible for blue marlin landings during 1999 (Table 1) that are in excess of the levels necessary for compliance with the ICCAT recommendation.
        (3) Require the use of circle hooks for recreational fisheries targeting billfish and swordfish with live or dead bait to reduce post-release mortality, thereby enhancing rebuilding efforts of overfished billfish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean.
        (4) Require that a landing tag be affixed to all recreationally landed billfish and SWO. Information supplied by a landing tag program could provide NMFS with improved catch data for HMS landings outside the tournament context and could help monitor recreational landings against U.S. catch quota levels.
        (5) Prohibit retention of billfish aboard all vessels issued a commercial HMS permit to facilitate enforcement of the no-sale regulation and, to the extent incidental catch can be released alive, to reduce billfish mortality. However, such an expanded prohibition could restrict certain vessels from occasionally landing billfish as part of the recreational fishery due to part-time status as commercial vessels.
        Request for Comments
        NMFS requests comments on whether additional measures are needed to meet the ICCAT recommendations and to satisfy the objectives of the HMS FMP and Amendment 1. If additional measures are needed, NMFS also solicits comments on the potential management alternatives discussed earlier, or other management alternatives.

        Implementation of Amendment 1 and the HMS FMP resulted in increased minimum sizes for BUM, WHM, and sailfish and the first-time implementation of minimum sizes in the recreational fishery for sharks. NMFS has received comments from a recreational fishing organization as well as individual anglers regarding their desire to allow exceptions to the minimum size regulations when anglers are using fly gear or light tackle, or when a line class record for a species is currently below the minimum size. Therefore, NMFS also solicits comments on the feasibility of implementing these exceptions, including the impact on ICCAT compliance, and the various options for implementation. The latter could include issuance of an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to anglers who wish to fish with a fly rod or light tackle. The authorization by the EFP could be subject to the angler obtaining recognition from a certifying organization (e.g., International Game Fish Association) that the landed fish established a record. Other options include limiting such exemptions to fishing tournaments or issuing anglers a notice of violation, which could be dismissed if the record certification is issued by a recognized association.
        Comments received on this ANPR will assist NMFS in determining the options for rulemaking to implement the requirements of international agreements and other relevant laws.
        Classification
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated: August 2, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-20162 Filed 8-8-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [Docket No. 060420106-6106-01; I.D. 041706B]
        RIN 0648-AU44
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources; Economic Data Reports

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues a proposed rule that would change the economic data report (EDR) submission deadline from May 1 to June 28. This action is necessary to provide adequate time for crab harvesters and processors participating in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program to submit accurate and complete data on an EDR for the previous fishing year and permit enough time for issuance of crab permits for the current year. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by May 17, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: 0648-AU44-PR-CRABEDR@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: IERS. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from NMFS Alaska Region at the above address, from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/index/analyses/analyses.asp, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska Region at the above address, and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008 or patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) includes a comprehensive economic data collection program to aid the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS assess the success of the CR Program and develop amendments to the CR Program. An EDR contains cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data. These data are collected annually from the crab harvesting and processing sectors, including owners and lessees of catcher vessels, catcher/processors, and owners and operators of shoreside and floating processors. The data are used to study the economic impacts of the CR Program on harvesters, processors, and communities. Data submission is mandatory.
        An EDR is required for historical data and annual data for each of four categories of participant in the CR fisheries: catcher vessel, catcher/processor, stationary floating crab processor, and shoreside crab processor. This rule would apply only to the annual EDRs.
        This action would not add reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The number of small-entity respondents is anticipated to decrease dramatically compared with the current fishery. This decrease is due to the consolidation of BSAI crab operations from initial quota allocation, fleet reduction of 25 vessels in the BSAI crab buyback program, and from the opportunity to form cooperatives. Most of the EDR historical data were collected during this first year of the CR Program as a one-time submission. After the submission of historical data, small entities continuing to participate in the crab fisheries are required to submit an annual EDR. The number of crab harvesting entities that continue to meet SBA criteria for being small entities is anticipated to be greatly reduced over the pre-quota fisheries.
        Need for Action
        NMFS originally chose May 1 as the EDR submission deadline because NMFS estimated that data records would be readily available after the April 15 income tax filing deadline. However, several individuals have reported that a May 1 deadline for annual EDRs does not allow enough time for preparers to match EDR data to comprehensive and accurate financial documentation, such as financial statements and tax returns. When preparers request tax extensions, tax returns and statements are seldom complete by May 1. Even if taxes were submitted by April 15, EDR preparers have only two weeks to gather tax forms from preparers, complete the EDRs, and file them by May 1. This short period leaves little time to complete EDR data entry fields and could adversely affect the quality of data reported on EDRs.
        Providing additional time to file EDRs should not delay issuance of annual quota share permits. Timely submission of a completed annual EDR is a condition to receiving an annual quota share permit from the NMFS Restricted Access Management Program office (RAM). The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission reports names of those with completed EDRs filings to RAM shortly after the EDR filing deadline. RAM will issue annual quota share permits approximately one month after the EDR filing deadline.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of this document. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows:
        The EDRs require data from fishing operations that are small entities as identified by the Small Business Administration (SBA). This action would apply to 311 entities, consisting of 275 catcher vessels, 12 catcher/processors, 20 shoreside processors, 4 stationary floating crab processors. This action would also apply to 6 Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups. Approximately 238 small entities own crab harvesting vessels or crab catcher/processors. Eight processors qualify as small entities. Each of the six CDQ groups is a small entity.
        This action would not add reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The number of small-entity respondents is anticipated to decrease dramatically compared with the current fishery. This decrease is due to the consolidation of BSAI crab operations from initial quota allocation, fleet reduction of 25 vessels in the BSAI crab buyback program, and from the opportunity to form cooperatives. Most of the EDR historical data were collected during this first year of the CR Program as a one-time submission. After the submission of historical data, small entities continuing to participate in the crab fisheries are required to submit an annual EDR. The number of crab harvesting entities that continue to meet SBA criteria for being small entities is anticipated to be greatly reduced over the pre-quota fisheries.

        This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-0518. Public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to average 7.5 hours for annual catcher vessel EDR; 12.5 hours for annual catcher/processor EDR; 10 hours for annual stationary floating crab processor EDR; and 10 hours for annual shoreside processor EDR. Response time estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal regulations.
        This action does not have any adverse impacts on regulated small entities.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680
          Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 26, 2006.
          William T. Hogarth
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862.

          § 680.6
          [Amended]
          2. In the table below, for each of the paragraphs shown in the “Location” column, remove the phrase indicated in the “Remove” column and replace it with the phrase indicated in the “Add” column for the number of times indicated in the “Frequency per paragraph” column.

              Location
              Remove
              Add
              Frequency per paragraph

              § 680.6 paragraphs (b)(1), (d)(1), (f)(1), and (h)(1)
              May 1
              June 28
              2

      [FR Doc. E6-6614 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S