        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        [Docket No. 120806311-3213-01]
        RIN 0648-BC25
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

          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 implement Amendment 42 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP). If approved, these regulations would revise the annual economic data reports (EDRs) currently required of participants in the Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) fisheries. The EDRs include cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS use to study the economic impacts of the CR Program on harvesters, processors, and affected communities. This proposed action is necessary to eliminate redundant reporting requirements, standardize reporting across participants, and reduce participants' costs associated with the data collection. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than April 22, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2012-0111, by any one of the following methods.
          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0111 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “submit a comment” icon on that line.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, telephone number) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (PDF) formats only.

          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 at the above address and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 42, the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA), and the categorical exclusion prepared for this action—as well as the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the CR Program—may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The environmental impacts of the CR Program were analyzed in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Fisheries Final EIS. Due to the nature of this action, it is not predicted to have additional impacts beyond those identified in the EIS. Therefore, NMFS determined that this proposed action was categorically excluded from the need to prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karen Palmigiano, 907-586-7228 or karen.palmigiano@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP on November 19, 2004. NMFS published final regulations implementing the Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) in 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). Regulations implementing the FMP, including the CR Program, are located at 50 CFR part 680.
        Background
        The CR Program is a limited-access system that allocates crab managed under the FMP among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Each year, the quota share (QS) issued to a person yields an amount of individual fishing quota (IFQ), which is a permit providing an exclusive harvesting privilege for a specific amount of raw crab pounds, in a specific crab fishery, in a given season. The size of each annual IFQ allocation is based on the amount of QS held by a person in relation to the total QS pool in a crab fishery. For example, a person holding QS equaling 1 percent of the QS pool in a crab fishery would receive IFQ to harvest 1 percent of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) in that crab fishery.
        As part of the CR Program, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented a comprehensive economic data collection program. The CR Program requires participants to complete an annual economic data report (EDR) based on harvesting and processing activities for that fishing season. The Council and NMFS use the EDR to assess the success of the CR Program and develop amendments to the FMP necessary to mitigate any unintended consequences of the CR Program. An annual EDR is currently required for four categories of participants in the CR Program fisheries: catcher vessels, catcher/processors, shoreside processors, and stationary floating crab processors.
        The information collected in the EDR is intended to provide comprehensive data to assist the Council and analysts in understanding the costs and benefits of the CR Program on harvesters' and processors' crab operations. Specifically, the Council and analysts use the data to examine changes in usage of the crab, excess harvesting and processing capacity, economic returns, variable costs and revenues, economic efficiency, and the stability of harvesters, processors and coastal communities. Data submission is mandatory (see regulations at § 680.6(a)). The EDR Program is administered by NMFS through contracts with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). NMFS collects fees from CR Program participants to recover the costs of administering the EDR (see regulations at § 680.44 for cost recovery fee collection under the CR Program). Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS collect fees necessary to recover the actual costs directly related to data collection of limited access privilege programs, such as the CR Program.
        Need for Action
        Since the beginning of the CR Program, EDRs containing cost, revenue, ownership, and employment data have been collected by NMFS annually from the harvesting and processing sectors. This comprehensive approach to collecting data was implemented because the data collection programs in place at the time the CR Program began did not collect employment, cost, and sales information necessary to adequately examine how processing plants and vessels were being affected by the implementation of the CR Program. Collection of these data could help the Council understand the economic performance of crab fishermen, determine how this performance has changed after rationalization, and assess what aspects of these changes are specifically attributable to crab rationalization.
        Beginning in 2007, NMFS, the Council, the PSMFC, and industry participants initiated a multi-year review of the quality of data collected through the EDRs. Overall, this review process concluded that roughly one-third of the data collected through the annual EDRs are of high quality, one-third have quality limitations that could limit their utility and these concerns would require analysts to adjust their analytical methods and interpretations to accommodate these concerns, and one-third of the data were deemed not reliable for use in analysis. Additional detail on the EDR data quality review process is provided in Appendix C of the RIR/IRFA and is not repeated here.
        In 2010, the Council initiated an analysis to modify the EDR based on the results of its data quality review process and public comment received during the Council's 5-year review of the CR Program. As part of this analysis, the Council considered input from a Center for Independent Experts review of the data collection program that was completed in October 2011 (see Section 2.4.3 of the RIR/IRFA for additional detail). In February 2012, the Council recommended Amendment 42 to the FMP to modify the EDR. This proposed rule would implement the Council's recommended changes to the EDR under Amendment 42. The proposed modifications to the current EDRs are presented in the RIR/IRFA for this action (see Section 2.2. of the RIR/IRFA) and summarized below.

        Following the Council's recommendation of Amendment 42, additional industry outreach and Council review of the proposed EDR revisions was carried out to ensure that the revisions were compatible with industry recordkeeping procedures and consistent with the intent of the Council recommendations. In October 2012, the Council reviewed the three proposed EDR forms developed for this action and the draft Paperwork Reduction Act submission. The Council expressed its support that NMFS go forward with this proposed rule.
        The first concern identified by the Council with the current EDRs is inaccurate and inconsistently reported data. For example, the current processor EDRs require the reporting of labor information for each crab fishery, including average processing positions, which is intended to provide analysts with information concerning the normal processing staff for a processor. However, the Council and NMFS determined the reported average processing positions do not provide an accurate estimate of the number of staff used, as staff may be reassigned to non-crab tasks with changing plant needs. In some cases, a plant may switch from one production line to two lines, with large changes in the number of staff. Since instructions provide no reporting directions for these circumstances, reporting may be inconsistent across processors. Therefore, the Council suggested removing this data-reporting requirement, as inaccurately or inconsistently reported data limits its usefulness in analysis.
        In addition to data quality limitations, several elements of the data collected under the CR Program are currently collected under other data collection programs. For example, the requirement for catcher vessels to report their fishing activity, including fish ticket numbers, days fishing, and days transiting and offloading, by crab fishery are also collected by the State of Alaska. The Council and NMFS agree these elements are useful for examining operational efficiencies; however, each of these elements is individually available through other data collection sources. Further information on the uses and possible shortcomings of each data element can be found in Section 2.5 and Appendix C of the RIR/IRFA.
        In some cases, data collected through the EDR does not duplicate data collected under other collection programs, and so the EDR data provides the Council and NMFS with additional information. However, in the majority of cases, the data collected in the EDRs are already collected under other programs. As a result, submitters must submit the same data more than once, and analysts are required to analyze two separate sets of data for the same variables.

        Finally, the cost to industry, both directly through data submission and indirectly through cost recovery funding of program administration, exceeds the estimates of administering and complying with the EDR that NMFS provided in the initial analysis of the CR Program (see ADDRESSES). NMFS' administrative costs associated with the current EDRs result from the production and distribution of data collection forms, processing of completed forms, data entry, data verification, and data management. These costs are then passed onto CR Program participants annually through the cost recovery fee system.
        Since the EDR Program's inception, NMFS' associated administrative costs and fees have decreased. NOAA continues to work with the Council and PSFMC to streamline the data collection and reduce reporting errors. NMFS expects these continuing efforts and the revisions to the EDR proposed in this action to decrease costs further.
        For several reasons, the cost of reporting associated with the current crab EDRs is more than what NMFS originally estimated when the EDR program was developed. First, vessel owners and processors are required to consult both annual fishing (i.e., days fishing, days traveling, and days processing) and financial (i.e., landings by share type, sales by species, and fuel costs) records, which often do not follow the same format. Initial estimates of time required to accurately complete an EDR was 7.5 hours per vessel. In 2012, during public testimony, the Council was advised that for the current EDR the actual time required to complete the forms was approximately 45 to 50 hours. The modifications proposed by this rule would reduce duplicative reporting, as well as the time and costs required to complete an EDR.
        NMFS proposes changes to the annual crab EDRs that would result in the removal or modification of several reporting requirements. One major change would be the combination of the shoreside processor and floating processor EDR forms. There is currently a form for shoreside processor data submission and another for floating processor data submission. The forms are essentially the same, and the Council believed no information would be lost if the forms were combined into one form. As a result, there would be three separate EDR forms, rather than the current four.
        The information below summarizes the changes that are proposed to each of the three EDR forms. Each table displays the information that NMFS would continue to collect from each submitter (catcher vessels, processors, and catcher/processors). For a more comprehensive description of what information has been removed or modified from the current forms and the reasons for the modifications and deletions, please see Section 2.5 Analysis of Alternatives in the RIR/IRFA.
        Annual Catcher Vessel Crab EDR

          Table 1—Proposed Catcher Vessel Crab EDR
          [The table below lists all elements that will be collected in the proposed catcher vessel EDR]

            Deliveries and revenues
            Landings by share type (pounds) by crab fishery.

            Landings by share type (revenue) by crab fishery.

            Market-Value and Negotiated-Price transfers of quota by share type (pounds) by crab fishery.

            Market-Value and Negotiated-Price transfers of quota by share type (cost) by crab fishery.

            Crew Labor Costs
            Payments to crew by crab fishery.

            Payments to captain by crab fishery.

            Health Insurance and Retirement Benefits—available for captain and crew.

            Vessel Operating Expenses
            Food and Provisions—total cost by crab fishery.

            Bait purchased—total cost by crab fishery.

            Fuel consumed—gallons by crab fishery.

            Fuel cost, annual—gallons and cost aggregated for all fisheries.

            Labor cost—all activities aggregated across all activities.

            Tendering.

        Much of the data requested on the current annual catcher vessel Crab EDR is available through other sources (e.g., eLandings data collected by NMFS contains information on the specific quota accounts debited during a landing). Further, the quality of some data currently collected is poor and results in limited usefulness of the data for analyses (e.g., estimates of bait used are known to be inaccurate and unreliable). The Council recommended scaling back the data collection in the EDR, including eliminating the data collected in some categories so that only data that could be accurately and reliably collected would be required (See Table 1).
        The proposed catcher vessel EDR would substantially decrease the amount of data collected in comparison to the current EDR. The proposed EDR would eliminate the reporting of fishing days, transiting days, and shipyard days as these can all be obtained from other data sets. It would omit any collection of information about overall vessel activities, such as days at sea and gross revenues. The EDR would continue to collect tendering and information associated with labor costs because those data are not available through other sources and were determined to be reliable in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action (Table 1).
        The proposed catcher vessel EDR would continue the collection of revenue data, including landings by share type by crab fishery (pounds and revenue), and market-value or negotiated-price transfers of IFQ and community development quota (CDQ) received for harvest on the vessel during the calendar year, by fishery and harvest quota permit type (pounds and revenue). Data on payments to captains and crew would still be collected by fishery. Crew license and Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit numbers would also continue to be collected to facilitate analysis of demographic distribution of crew benefits. The proposed EDR would also require the reporting of vessel costs such as bait, food, and provisions purchased by crab fishery. This is slightly different from the current forms, which require submitters to include the quantity of these items used versus what is purchased. This new data on the quantity of items purchased would provide some understanding of expenditures and would be more easily reported by submitters than the quantity of items used.
        Annual Shoreside Processor/Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR

          Table 2—Proposed Annual Shoreside Processor/Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR
          [The table below lists all elements that will be collected in the combined proposed processor EDR]

            Sales to affiliates/non-affiliates by species (product/process) by crab fishery.

            Sales to affiliates/non-affiliates by species (box size and finished pounds) by crab fishery (use box size categories).

            Sales to affiliates/non-affiliates by species (revenues) by crab fishery.

            Custom processing by product/process by crab fishery (include pounds raw and pounds of product).

            Custom processing revenues by crab fishery.

            Labor
            Man-hours by crab fishery.

            Total processing labor payments by crab fishery.

            Crab processing employees by residence by crab fishery.

            Custom Processing Services Purchased
            Reporting requirement—all companies contracting custom processing must report.

            Raw pounds by crab fishery.

            Product and processes by crab fishery.

            Finished pounds by crab fishery.

            Processing fee by crab fishery.

            Crab Purchases
            Raw crab purchases by fishery (IFQ type) by crab fishery.

            Raw crab purchases by fishery (pounds) by crab fishery.

            Raw crab purchases by fishery (gross payments) by crab fishery.

            Crab Processing Costs
            Market-Value and Negotiated-Price transfers of IPQ by (pounds and monetary cost) crab fishery.

            General Plant Costs
            Foreman, managers, other employees and salaries aggregated across all fisheries.

        The proposed Annual Shoreside Processor/Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR (Processor EDR) would combine the Annual Shoreside Processor Crab EDR and the Annual Stationary Floating Processor Crab EDR into a processor EDR and would eliminate several elements from the current data collections. Most of the deleted elements represent production data, which are similar to data found within the State of Alaska's Commercial Operators Annual Report (COAR). Crab processors must submit the COAR annually and report processing and plant costs in it. The production data that is not available through other sources could be estimated by NMFS based on landings data. Therefore, the proposed exclusion of these data from the processor EDR would not affect the analysis of EDR data and may decrease the submitter's time burden required to fill in the form. See Table 2 for a description of the elements that would be retained and those that would be modified in the proposed processor EDR.
        Revenue data collected under the proposed processor EDR would remain essentially the same. These data allow analysts to distinguish crab sales to affiliated entities from sales to unaffiliated entities, which is not currently available through other data sources. However, the proposed processor EDR would not require sales data by crab size or grade. Currently, those elements appear to be inconsistently reported and do not appear to correlate with price differences to date. Packing box sizes would continue to be reported by categories. Revenues from custom processing (an arrangement under which a person processes crab on behalf of another) would be added, as that data is currently unavailable from other sources and may provide insights into the costs of processing and markets for custom services in the fisheries. Unlike the current processor EDRs, the proposed processor EDR provides for the reporting of processed output and revenue received for custom processing of CR crab performed for other crab buyers or registered crab receivers (RCR) for each CR fishery in which custom processing was provided.

        Reporting of labor data (i.e., man-hours, total processing labor payments, and crab processing employees by residence) would not change from the status quo. Custom processing services purchased would be reported with some differences from the status quo (i.e., excluding crab size and grade and box size). Crab purchases by share type would still be collected. This data is not available from other data sources.
         Annual Catcher/Processor Crab EDR

          Table 3—Proposed Annual Catcher Processor Crab EDR
          [The table below lists all elements that would be collected in the proposed catcher/processor EDR.]

            Deliveries and revenues—for operations as a catcher vessel
            Landings by share type (pounds) by crab fishery.Landings by share type (revenues) by crab fishery.

            Revenues
            Sales to affiliates/non-affiliates by species (product/process) by crab fishery.

            Sales to affiliates/non-affiliates by species (box size and finished pounds) by crab fishery (use box size categories).

            Sales to affiliates/non-affiliates by species (revenues) by crab fishery—FOB Alaska.

            Custom processing by species/product/process by crab fishery (include pounds raw and pounds of product).

            Custom processing services provided by crab fishery.

            IFQ
            Market-Value and Negotiated-Price transfers of quota by share type (pounds) by crab fishery.

            Market-Value and Negotiated-Price transfers of quota by share type (cost) by crab fishery.

            Crew
            Payments to captain by crab fishery.

            Payments to harvest crew by crab fishery (aggregated across harvesting and processing crew).

            Crew license number/CFEC permit number aggregated across all crab fisheries.

            Custom Processing Services Purchased
            Custom processing services purchased (raw pounds) by crab fishery.Custom processing services purchased (product and process) by crab fishery.

            Custom processing services purchased (finished pounds) by crab fishery.

            Custom processing services purchased (processing fee) by crab fishery.

            Crab purchases
            Raw crab purchases by fishery (IFQ type) by crab fishery.

            Raw crab purchases by fishery (pounds) by crab fishery.

            Raw crab purchases by fishery (gross payments) by crab fishery.

            Crab Costs
            Bait used (species/pounds by fishery) purchases by crab fishery.

            Bait used (species/cost by fishery) purchases by crab fishery.

            Fuel used—gallons by crab fishery (gallons only).

            Food and provisions (cost) purchases by crab fishery.

            Other crew expenses purchases by crab fishery.

            Market-Value and Negotiated-Price transfers of IPQ by (pounds and monetary cost) crab fishery.

            Vessel Costs
            Foremen, managers, other employees and salaries aggregated across all fisheries.

            Fuel—gallons and cost aggregated for all fisheries.

        Catcher/processors participate in both harvesting and processing. Therefore, the proposed catcher/processor EDR includes elements for the collection of harvesting and processing information.
        Much like the proposed Annual Catcher Vessel Crab EDR, the proposed catcher/processor EDR would eliminate the reporting of fishing data (i.e. days in the fishery, days fishing, days traveling, and days processing), as well as production information (i.e. raw crab processed, crab size and grade, and finished pounds) (Table 3). Analysts would have access to this information through other sources. A new section would be added for deliveries and revenues by share type when operating as a catcher vessel. Most catcher/processors are unlikely to operate exclusively as a catcher vessel, but in instances when a catcher/processor operates as a catcher vessel, these data could be important to understanding total catcher vessel revenues in the fishery.
        Several elements would remain, including sales by species by packing box size to affiliated entities and unaffiliated entities, custom processing revenue and production, payments to captains and crews, crew license, CFEC permit numbers and residence information, custom processing services purchased, and crab purchases by share type. All this information provides data that is not found in other data collections and is useful to analysts when assessing the CR Program (see Table 3).
        Most crab fishing and vessel costs would be omitted. Bait purchases and food and provision purchases would continue to be reported by fishery. Gear purchases (i.e. pots) would not be collected, because pot registration information together with pot pull information, which are collected through other programs, provide analysts with some insights into changes in pot usage. Fuel use would be estimated for each fishery, as well as annual fuel costs. Processing data (i.e., broker fees, repackaging costs, storage costs, and processing and packing materials) would be eliminated. In most cases, these data are not available on a fishery-by-fishery basis and, therefore, are limited in their usefulness.
        Vessel cost data (e.g., insurance premiums, repairs and maintenance, and investments) would be eliminated as much of the current data suffer from data quality limitations. Fishing and processing activities along with product revenues can be estimated with existing data from other sources, such as the eLandings System or the State's COAR report.
        Other Regulatory Changes

        This action proposes to remove the historical EDR requirements from regulations at § 680.6 because they are obsolete. The historical EDR regulations at § 680.6(a) for catcher vessels, § 680.6(c) for catcher/processors, § 680.6(e) for stationary floating crab processors, and § 680.6(g) for shoreside processors describe detailed requirements on historical data submission that are no longer necessary because the application deadline has expired and those forms have already been submitted. The historical EDR was required to be submitted by owners and leaseholders that harvested or processed crab in the BSAI CR program fisheries during 1998, 2001, and 2004. Historical EDRs were required to be submitted for the catcher vessel sector by July 11, 2005, and by June 30, 2005, for catcher/processors, stationary floating crab processors, and shoreside processors. The historical EDRs were required to be submitted only once, and the requirement was concluded upon completion of the validation audits of those EDRs in early 2007. NMFS no longer requires participants in BSAI crab fisheries during the calendar years 1998, 2001, or 2004 to complete any further reports under the § 680.6 EDR requirements.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 42, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

        An RIR was prepared to assess all cost and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and qualitative measures. Copies of the combined RIR/IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended Amendment 42 based on the benefits it will provide to the Nation, which will be derived from the updating and revision of the current EDRs. Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. Copies of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule incorporates by reference an extensive RIR/FRFA prepared for Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP that detail the impacts of the CR Program on small entities.
        The IRFA for this proposed action describes the action, why this action is being proposed, the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, the type and number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply, and the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule. It also identifies any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules and describes any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statues and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The description of the proposed action, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble and are not repeated here.
        After considerable review of the EDR Program, the Council suggested amending the EDR process so that the data collected is accurate, informative to the Council, not redundant with existing reporting requirements, and can be reported and administered at a reasonable cost. Specifically, the Council wants to limit the EDR to the collection of data that have been demonstrated, through the development of the EDR metadata, and other reviews of the data, to be accurate. The Council determined that data collection should be structured and specific elements identified, to minimize costs while maintaining accuracy and providing the greatest information value to the management decision making process.
        The EDR is required to be submitted by 74 catcher vessel owners. Based on the definition of a small entity (see section 3.1.1 of the RIR/IRFA for the full definition and discussion of what a “small entity” is), only one vessel owner would be considered a small entity. Instead, because crabs are relatively high value, the majority of harvesters join cooperatives, which allows them to pool their quota.
        Three catcher/processor owners would be required to submit catcher/processor data reporting forms under the proposed action. None of the catcher/processors are considered small entities. Nineteen shore-based or floating processors would be required to submit their EDR data. Of these nineteen, four are small entities that are controlled by community development corporations or non-profit entities, and five are estimated to be small entities because they employ fewer than 500 individuals.
        This proposed action would require all catcher vessel and catcher/processor operators to report categories of information: ex vessel revenues; market lease revenues; crew compensation; bait, food, and provision purchases; and fuel use by crab fishery. Catcher vessel and catcher/processor operators would also be required to report annual fuel and labor costs aggregated across all fisheries and identify whether the vessel operated as a tender. Processors and catcher/processors would be required to report crab purchases, custom processing services provided and purchased, crab sales revenue, and processing labor costs.
        The reporting requirement under the proposed action is substantially less than required under the current regulations. If adopted, the proposed changes would reduce the record keeping and reporting requirements substantially from the status quo, resulting in reduced administrative expenses for both small and large entities.
        Description of Significant Alternatives Considered
        The Council considered a series of alternatives and different options as it evaluated the potential to revise the annual crab EDRs, including the “no action” alternative. The RIR contains brief summaries of these alternatives. Three alternatives were defined for each of the three sectors: catcher vessels, catcher/processors, and shoreside processors and stationary floating crab processors. All alternatives collect annual reports of activity for the preceding year even though the variables are different for each sector. Three alternatives for the catcher vessel sector were considered: Alternative 1, status quo/no action; Alternative 2, which would reduce the variables collected under the status quo, including the collection of landings and revenues by share type; lease costs; crew information such as crew shares, payments, contracts, settlement sheets; purchases such as pots, fuel, vessel investments, repair, and maintenance; annual costs for insurance and fuel; and the vessel's annual gross revenues and payments; and Alternative 3, which includes further reduction of data collection from Alternative 2, including limits on data collection to deliveries, revenues, crew data, fuel use, and annual costs. Ultimately, the Council recommended Alternative 3 with slight modifications to exclude the collection of crew contracts and settlement sheets, but includes the collection of crew license or permit numbers, bait purchases by crab fishery, as well as food and provision purchases by crab fishery (See Table 1 for a full list of data to be collected in the proposed catcher vessel EDR.).

        Three alternatives for the catcher/processor sector were also considered: Alternative 1, status quo/no action; Alternative 2, a reduction of variables collected under the status quo, including the collection of landings and revenues from the vessel; custom processing; purchase data such as fuel use; vessel costs; annual gross revenues; and payments to labor; general annual data; leasing and crew information, and Alternative 3, which is a further reduction of data collected from Alternative 2, which limits data collected to leases, gallons of fuel used, IPQ lease costs, sales using box size categories, and custom processing (raw crab and pounds of product). The Council chose Alternative 3 with slight modifications to exclude the collection of crew contracts and settlement sheets, but include the collection of crew license or permit numbers, bait purchases by crab fishery, and food and provision purchases by crab fishery (See Table 2 for a full list of data to be collected in the proposed catcher/processor EDR).
        Three alternatives for the combined shoreside processor and stationary floating crab processor were considered. The Council chose to combine data collection for these two types of processors, because the data collection variables are similar. The alternatives considered were: Alternative 1, status quo/no action; Alternative 2, a reduction of variables collected under the status quo, including data collection of first and last day of processing; revenues by fishery; revenues and quantities of custom processed crab products; labor man-hours by crab fishery; costs of IPQ leases, salaries, and general plant costs; and processing information; and Alternative 3, a further reduction of data collection from Alternative 2, which limits data collection to combine data collected for crab fisheries in the aggregate for labor, IPQ lease payments, and revenue and box size information, but also requires revenues to be reported using a standard pricing for Alaska, and custom processing contracts to be reported by each company. The Council chose Alternative 3 with slight modifications to require reporting requirements on a fishery-by-fishery basis for processing man-hours, total processing labor payments, and number of employees by residence (See Table 3 for a full list of data to be collected in the proposed processor EDR).
        Additional Alternatives Considered
        The Council considered two additional alternatives but both were rejected. First, the Council considered eliminating the EDR program in its entirety. The Council elected not to advance this alternative. Instead, through this proposed action, the Council intends to improve the quality of the data collected and eliminate redundancies with other collections.
        The Council also considered eliminating the use of blind formatting, which requires that data adhere to a blind formatting requirement and that data are maintained by a third party data manager. For the crab EDRs, the third party is the PSMFC. It was the opinion of the Council, and was supported by public testimony, that the potential risk associated with the disclosure of data was greater than the perceived benefits of removing the blind formatting requirement. Therefore, PSMFC will continue to abide by all statutory and regulatory data confidentiality requirements and will only release the data to NMFS, Council staff, and any other authorized users in a blind format.
        Collection-of-Information Requirements
        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval under the original OMB Control Number 0648-0518. Public reporting burden is estimated to average 10 hours for Annual Catcher Vessel Crab EDR; 10 hours for Annual Catcher/processor Crab EDR; 10 Annual stationary floating crab processor and shoreside crab processor EDR (replacing formerly two separate EDRs); and 8 hours for Verification of Data. Combination of the shoreside processor and stationary floating processor crab EDRs would be effective with approval of this rule. Public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

        Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden statement; ways to enhance quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_Submission@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 penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

          Dated: March 14, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, 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 50 CFR part 680 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

        2. Section 680.6 is revised to read as follows:

          § 680.6
          Crab economic data report (EDR).
          (a) Requirements. (1) Any owner or leaseholder of a vessel or processing plant, or a holder of a registered crab receiver permit that harvested, processed, or custom processed, CR crab during a calendar year must submit a complete Economic Data Report (EDR) by following the instructions on the applicable EDR form.
          (2) A completed EDR or EDR certification pages must be submitted to the DCA for each calendar year on or before 1700 hours, A.l.t., July 31 of the following year.

          (3) Annual EDR forms for catcher vessels, catcher/processors, shoreside crab processors, and stationary floating crab processors are available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov or the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) Alaska Crab Rational Program Web site at www.psmfc.org/alaska_crab/, or by contacting NMFS at 1-800-304-4846.
          (b) EDR certification pages. The owner or leaseholder must submit the EDR certification pages either:
          (1) As part of the entire EDR. The owner or leaseholder must submit the completed EDR certification pages as part of the entire EDR and must attest to the accuracy and completion of the EDR by signing and dating the certification pages; or
          (2) As a separate document. The owner or leaseholder must submit the completed EDR certification pages only, and must attest that they meet the conditions exempting them from submitting the EDR, by signing and dating the certification pages.

          (c) Annual catcher vessel crab EDR—Any owner or leaseholder of a catcher vessel that landed CR crab in the previous calendar year must submit to the DCA, electronically or at the address provided on the form, a completed catcher vessel EDR for annual data for the previous calendar year.
          (d) Annual catcher/processor crab EDR—Any owner or leaseholder of a catcher/processor that harvested or processed CR crab in the previous calendar year must submit to the DCA, electronically or at the address provided on the form, a completed catcher/processor EDR for annual data for the previous calendar year.
          (e) Annual stationary floating crab processor (SFCP) and shoreside crab processor EDR—Any owner or leaseholder of an SFCP or shoreside crab processor that processed CR crab, including custom processing of CR crab performed for other crab buyers, in the previous calendar year must submit to the DCA, electronically or at the address provided on the form, a completed processor EDR for annual data for the previous calendar year.
          (f) Verification of data. (1) The DCA shall conduct verification of information with the owner or leaseholder.
          (2) The owner or leaseholder must respond to inquiries by the DCA within 20 days of the date of issuance of the inquiry.
          (3) The owner or leaseholder must provide copies of additional data to facilitate verification by the DCA. The DCA auditor may review and request copies of additional data provided by the owner or leaseholder, including but not limited to previously audited or reviewed financial statements, worksheets, tax returns, invoices, receipts, and other original documents substantiating the data.
          (g) DCA authorization. The DCA is authorized to request voluntary submission of economic data specified in this section from persons who are not required to submit an EDR under this section.

          Tables 2, 3c, 4, 5, and 6 [Removed]

        3. Remove Tables 2, 3c, 4, 5, and 6 to part 680.

      [FR Doc. 2013-06413 Filed 3-20-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 171031999-8428-01]
        RIN 0648-BH39
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 43

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Amendment 43 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would allow for the harvest of red snapper in South Atlantic Federal waters. This proposed rule would revise red snapper commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACL). The purpose of this proposed rule is to minimize adverse socio-economic effects to fishermen and fishing communities that utilize red snapper as part of the snapper-grouper fishery, while preventing overfishing from occurring and continuing to rebuild the red snapper stock.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by June 18, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0148,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0148, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
          Electronic copies of Amendment 43 may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 43 includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and fishery impact statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: frank.helies@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the FMP and includes red snapper, along with other snapper-grouper species. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        Harvest of red snapper from South Atlantic Federal waters was prohibited in 2010 through a temporary interim rule and then through Amendment 17A to the FMP when the stock was determined to be overfished and undergoing overfishing (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 15, 2009)(74 FR 63673, December 4, 2009; 75 FR 76874, December 9, 2010). Amendment 17A also implemented a 35-year red snapper rebuilding plan that began in 2010, and set the red snapper stock ACL at zero. In 2013, Amendment 28 to the FMP established a process that allowed red snapper harvest (ACL greater than zero) if total removals (landings plus dead discards) were less than the acceptable biological catch (ABC) in the previous fishing year (78 FR 44461, July 24, 2013). Using the process established through Amendment 28, limited harvest of red snapper was allowed in 2012, 2013, and 2014. However, because the estimated total removals of red snapper exceeded the ABC in 2014, 2015, and 2016, due to estimates of red snapper discards that were incidentally harvested as bycatch while targeting other species, there was no allowable harvest in 2015 and 2016. In 2017, as a result of new scientific information regarding the red snapper stock, NMFS allowed limited commercial and recreational harvest of red snapper by a temporary rule through emergency action pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (82 FR 50839, November 2, 2017).
        Status of the Stock
        The most recent stock assessment for South Atlantic red snapper, SEDAR 41 (2017), was completed in 2016 and subsequently revised in 2017. SEDAR 41 (2017) evaluated data through 2014 and determined the red snapper stock was overfished and that overfishing was occurring. The stock assessment indicated that overfishing was occurring because the estimated fishing mortality based on the average over the last three years of the assessment represented in the model (2012-2014) exceeded the maximum fishing mortality threshold. Though limited red snapper harvest was allowed in 2012-2014, a large majority of the estimated fishing mortality was attributed to very large and uncertain dead discard estimates when fishermen were targeting red snapper and species that co-occur with red snapper, such as vermilion snapper, gag, red grouper, black sea bass, gray triggerfish, greater amberjack, and scamp. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the SEDAR 41 (2017) stock assessment and indicated the estimate of recreational discards was the greatest source of uncertainty in the stock assessment. It was acknowledged in the assessment that discarding of red snapper has increased over time due to changes in minimum landing size to 20 inches (51 cm) in 1992, increases in abundance of young fish from above-average year classes in some recent years, the introduction of the moratorium in 2010 and 2011, and the small commercial catch limits and recreational bag limits in the mini-seasons for 2012 onwards. Because most of the catch is now discarded, the number of discards is dependent upon fisher recalls, and these estimates are expanded based on small sample size; thus, the quality of total fishery removals estimates is poor and uncertain, which will impact estimation of stock size and fishing mortality.

        In May 2016, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed SEDAR 41 (2017) and had an extensive discussion of the uncertainties associated with the assessment. The SSC stated that the assessment was based on the best scientific information available, but noted the assessment findings were highly uncertain regarding to what extent overfishing was occurring (i.e., the actual numerical value of the current fishing mortality estimate), and regarding the measures of discards. The SSC indicated that the most significant sources of uncertainty in the assessment include: The stock-recruitment relationship, natural mortality at age, the age structure of the unfished population, the composition and magnitude of recreational discards (where dead discards greatly outnumbered the landings during the years 2012 through 2014), and potential changes in catch per unit effort (CPUE). The SSC developed its ABC recommendations based on SEDAR 41, and the total ABC recommendation for 2018, is 53,000 red snapper.

        The projections of yield streams used in SEDAR 41 (2017) included both landings and dead discards, which were added to obtain an estimate of the total removals. The SSC divided its 53,000 fish ABC recommendation into landed fish (18,000) and discarded fish (35,000). Because of the recent closures in 2015 and 2016 in the fishery, in January 2017 the Council requested that the NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) provide red snapper projections under the assumption that all fish caught are subsequently discarded, believing that such projections would be more informative for management. The SEFSC advised the Council in February 2017 that the requested projections were not appropriate for management use because uncertainty in the assessment was already large, and the uncertainty would increase with a more complete evaluation of the effect of the upcoming changes to Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Recreational catch and effort data, including discards, are monitored through MRIP, which is transitioning from the current telephone survey design to a new mail survey design for estimating marine recreational private angler fishing effort.
        Additionally, in their February 2017 response, the SEFSC advised the Council that the uncertainty in the stock assessment inhibits the ability to set an ABC that can be effectively monitored. The SEFSC further stated in an April 2017 letter to the Council, that the use of an ABC based primarily on fishery discards for monitoring the effectiveness of management action is likely ineffective due to the high level of uncertainty in measures of discards and the change in the effort estimation methodology that will be implemented in the MRIP survey. NMFS has determined that, given the extreme uncertainty associated with the red snapper recreational discard estimates, it is not appropriate to rely on those discard estimates for the management of red snapper, and the division of the SSC's ABC recommendation of 53,000 fish into landed fish and discarded fish is unwarranted.
        The results of SEDAR 41 (2017) using data through 2014, indicated that the red snapper stock was still overfished, but was rebuilding in accordance with the rebuilding plan. NMFS sent the Council a letter on March 3, 2017, noting these results and the SEFSC's concerns regarding the substantial uncertainty in the assessment, and advising the Council that sufficient steps had been taken to address overfishing of red snapper while continuing to rebuild the stock through harvest prohibitions in 2015 and 2016.
        This determination is supported by a significant increase in stock biomass since 2010 to levels not seen since the 1970's, and the increasing abundance of older age classes (SEDAR 41 2017). Additional support for the determination comes from fishery-independent information collected through the Southeast Reef Fish Survey (SERFS) program, and the East Coast Fisheries Independent Monitoring information conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). According to the SERFS, the relative abundance (CPUE) of red snapper has increased since 2009, reaching the highest level observed in the entire time series (1990-2016) in 2016. In addition, the SERFS program notified the Council at the December 2017 meeting that red snapper relative abundance, as measured through fishery-independent monitoring, increased 18 percent from 2016 to 2017. According to the results of FWCC's study, CPUE for red snapper for hook gear (surveyed in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017) and the standardized index of abundance (surveyed from 2014-2017) was highest in 2017. The FWCC data also showed a greater number of large red snapper and a broader range of ages in recent years, which suggests rebuilding progress of the red snapper stock. Additionally, the increase in relative abundance of red snapper indicated by the fishery-independent CPUE indices has taken place despite landings during the limited seasons in 2012-2014 and despite the large number of estimated red snapper dead discards during the harvest restrictions implemented for red snapper since 2010.
        As a result of the new scientific information regarding the red snapper stock, NMFS allowed limited harvest of red snapper beginning November 2, 2017, by a final temporary rule through emergency action (82 FR 50839, November 2, 2017). The amount of harvest allowed in the temporary rule was equivalent to the amount of observed landings in the 2014 fishing season, and this proposed rule would allow the same amount of harvest annually beginning in 2018. NMFS determined that allowing the same amount of harvest as occurred in 2014 was unlikely to result in overfishing or change the red snapper rebuilding time period. NMFS has determined that Amendment 43 is based on the best scientific information available. Additionally, the ACL proposed in Amendment 43 is less than the ABC provided by the SSC from SEDAR 41, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard 1 Guidelines. See 16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(6), 50 CFR 600.310(f)(4)(i).
        Management Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule
        Based on the actions in Amendment 28, the FMP currently contains total ABCs that are then divided, with one component for landings and another for discards. By changing the process for determining the ACL for red snapper established in Amendment 28, this proposed rule would implement management measures concerning the commercial and recreational harvest, beginning in 2018. Limited commercial and recreational harvest of red snapper would be allowed by implementing a total ACL of 42,510 fish, based on the landings observed during the limited red snapper season in 2014. This ACL is less than the SSC's most recent total ABC recommendation of 53,000 red snapper, and is less than the 79,000 fish landings component of the 135,000 fish total ABC projection for 2018 in Amendment 28. Based on the current sector allocation ratio developed by the Council for red snapper of 28.07 percent commercial and 71.93 percent recreational, the total ACL is divided into a commercial ACL of 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight, and a recreational ACL of 29,656 fish. The commercial sector's ACL is set in pounds of fish because the commercial sector reports landings in weight. Therefore, weight is a more accurate representation of commercial landings. In this proposed rule, for the commercial sector, one red snapper is equivalent to 9.71 lb (4.40 kg), round weight. ACLs for the recreational sector are specified in numbers of fish, because the Council determined that numbers of fish are a more reliable estimate for that sector than specifying the ACL in weight of fish. Because surveys that estimate recreational landings collect information on numbers of fish and convert those numbers to weights using biological samples that are sometimes limited, the Council believes that there can be uncertainty in estimates of recreational landings by weight.
        Additional Proposed Changes to Codified Text not in Amendment 43

        To implement the limits on red snapper harvest described in Amendment 43, this proposed rule not only would amend the existing regulations to make the changes to the ACLs described above, but also would make other minor modifications to the existing regulations. Thus, the regulatory text of this proposed rule would implement several management measures in Amendment 43 that function as accountability measures (AMs) to constrain red snapper harvest to these ACLs. Specifically, new language in the regulatory text would set limits on commercial and recreational red snapper seasons by providing that recreational harvest begins on the second Friday in July, and that the recreational season consists of weekends only (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). Under Amendment 43 and the proposed rule's regulatory text, the length of the recreational fishing season would serve as the AM for the recreational sector. The length of the recreational red snapper season would be projected based on catch rate estimates from previous years, and the projected fishing season end-date would be announced in the Federal Register before the start of the season.
        Under Amendment 43 and the proposed rule's regulatory text, the commercial season would begin each year on the second Monday in July. If commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, then the commercial AM would close the sector for the remainder of that current fishing year. NMFS would monitor commercial landings in-season, and if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, then NMFS would file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for red snapper for the remainder of the fishing year. In 2018, if the recreational and commercial fishing seasons do not open exactly on these dates in July as described, the respective seasons would open as close to these dates as possible.
        In addition to setting sector ACLs and AMs for commercial and recreational harvest, this proposed rule would revise the temporal application of the current commercial trip limit of 75 lb (34 kg), gutted weight, and the recreational bag limit of 1 fish per person per day. In an effort to decrease regulatory discards (fish returned to the water because they are below the minimum size limit), no size limits would be implemented for either sector through this proposed rule.
        NMFS notes that current regulations contain a severe weather provision with respect to modifying the commercial and recreational sector season dates (50 CFR 622.183(b)(5)(ii)). The Regional Administrator (RA) has the authority to modify the season opening and closing dates if severe weather conditions exist. The RA would determine when severe weather conditions exist, the duration of the severe weather conditions, and which geographic areas are deemed affected by severe weather conditions. If severe weather conditions exist or if NMFS determines the commercial or recreational ACLs were not harvested and a reopening of either or both sectors in the current fishing year would be possible, the RA would file a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, and include in that notification an announcement of any change in the red snapper commercial and recreational fishing seasons. The regulatory text of this proposed rule does not alter this existing authority.
        The Council is currently developing additional amendments to the FMP that would consider other changes to red snapper management in the South Atlantic.
        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 Amendment 43, 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. NMFS expects this rule would have economic benefits because it would allow for commercial and recreational harvest of red snapper that would not otherwise be expected to occur in the absence of this action.
        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 determination follows.
        A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the preamble. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule would apply to all federally-permitted commercial vessels and recreational anglers that fish for or harvest red snapper in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. Although the proposed rule would apply to recreational anglers, including those that fish from charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels), it would not directly affect the business operations of for-hire vessels. For-hire vessels sell fishing services to recreational anglers. The proposed changes to red snapper management measures would not directly alter the services sold by these for-hire vessels. Any change in anglers' demand for these fishing services (and associated economic effects) as a result of the proposed rule would be secondary to any direct effect on anglers and, therefore, would be an indirect effect of the proposed rule. Because the effects on for-hire vessels would be indirect, they fall outside the scope of the RFA. Furthermore, for-hire captains and crew are allowed to retain red snapper under the recreational bag limit; however, they cannot sell these fish. As such, for-hire captains and crew would be directly affected only as recreational anglers. Recreational anglers who would be directly affected by this proposed rule are not considered small entities under the RFA, and are, therefore, outside the scope of this analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603. Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6) and 601(3)-(5). Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. In summary, only the impacts on commercial vessels will be discussed.
        As of July 10, 2017, there were 544 valid or renewable Federal South Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited permits and 114 valid or renewable 225-lb trip-limited permits. Each of these commercial permits is associated with an individual vessel. Data from the years of 2012 through 2016 were used for the analysis in Amendment 43, and these data provided the basis for the Council's decisions. On average, from 2012 through 2016, there were only 85 federally-permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of red snapper. Their average annual vessel-level revenue from all species for 2012 through 2016 was approximately $88,000 (2016 dollars). Because the Federal commercial red snapper seasons were very short or did not occur during 2012 through 2016, this proposed action would likely affect more vessels than just those that reported red snapper landings during that time. On average, 582 vessels reported landings of any snapper-grouper species from 2012 through 2016, and their average annual vessel-level revenue from all species was approximately $44,000 (2016 dollars). The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single one of these vessels from 2012 through 2016 was approximately $1.38 million (2016 dollars).

        For RFA purposes only, 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 engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial vessels directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard. No other small entities that would be directly affected by this action have been identified.
        Under the current regulations, because combined total commercial and recreational landings and dead discards exceeded the ABC in 2017, there would be no commercial red snapper harvest allowed in 2018. Assuming commercial and recreational red snapper dead discard rates in 2018 and subsequent years remain stable or increase (which is likely as the stock rebuilds), under the current regulations these full-year commercial red snapper harvest closures would be expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

        Amendment 43 would, however, allow for the commercial harvest of red snapper. It specifies a constant total ACL for red snapper equal to 42,510 fish. The proposed rule would set the commercial red snapper ACL at 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight and the recreational ACL would be set at 29,656 fish. The proposed rule would be expected to increase total ex-vessel revenue by a range of $545,981 (2016 dollars) to $572,901 per year relative to the status quo (i.e., no commercial harvest). Dividing the total ex-vessel revenue per year by the total number of Federal commercial snapper-grouper permit holders, results in an average annual increase in ex-vessel revenue of $830 to $871 per vessel. Dividing the total ex-vessel revenue per year by the average number of commercial vessels that reported landings of any snapper-grouper species from 2012 through 2016, results in an increase in ex-vessel revenue of $938 to $984 per vessel. This would be a 2 percent increase in average annual vessel-level revenue. The annual commercial red snapper season would be expected to increase from 0 days to a range of 105 to 176 days, which would allow commercial vessels to supplement their harvests with red snapper for a substantial part of the fishing year. The economic benefits to each vessel would be expected to vary based on individual fishing practices; however, such distributional effects cannot be quantified with available data.
        The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Red snapper, South Atlantic.

          Dated: May 11, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 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. In § 622.181, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2) and add paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

          § 622.181
          Prohibited and limited-harvest species.

          (c) * * *
          (2) Red snapper. Red snapper may only be harvested or possessed in or from the South Atlantic EEZ during the commercial and recreational seasons as specified in § 622.183(b)(5) and § 622.193(y). Any red snapper caught in the South Atlantic EEZ during a time other than the specified commercial or recreational seasons specified in § 622.193(y) must be released immediately with a minimum of harm. In addition, for a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, the prohibition on the harvest or possession of red snapper applies in the South Atlantic, regardless of where such fish are harvested or possessed, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

        3. In § 622.183, revise paragraph (b)(5)(i) to read as follows:

          § 622.183
          Area and seasonal closures.

          (b) * * *
          (5) * * *

          (i) The commercial and recreational sectors for red snapper are closed (i.e., red snapper may not be harvested or possessed, or sold or purchased) in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, except as specified in § 622.193(y). Each year, NMFS will announce the season opening dates in the Federal Register.  The commercial season will begin on the second Monday in July, unless otherwise specified. The recreational season, which consists of weekends only (Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays) begins on the second Friday in July, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season and announce the recreational fishing season end date in the Federal Register.  See § 622.193(y), for establishing the end date of the commercial fishing season.

        4. In § 622.187, revise paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:

          § 622.187
          Bag and possession limits.

          (b) * * *
          (9) Red snapper—1.

         5. In § 622.191, add paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:

          § 622.191
          Commercial trip limits.

          (a) * * *
          (9) Red snapper. Until the commercial ACL specified in § 622.193(y)(1) is reached, 75 lb (34 kg), gutted weight.

        6. In § 622.193, revise paragraph (y) to read as follows:

          § 622.193
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (y) Red snapper—(1) Commercial sector. The commercial ACL for red snapper is 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight. See § 622.183(b)(5) for details on the commercial fishing season. NMFS will monitor commercial landings during the season, and if commercial landings, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for red snapper for the remainder of the year. On and after the effective date of the closure notification, all sale or purchase of red snapper is prohibited and harvest or possession of red snapper is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits and only during such time as harvest by the recreational sector is allowed as described in § 622.183(b)(5). This bag and possession limit and the prohibition on sale/purchase apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested or possessed, i.e., in state or Federal waters.
          (2) Recreational sector. The recreational ACL for red snapper is 29,656 fish. The AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to announce the length of the recreational fishing season for the current fishing year. The length of the recreational fishing season for red snapper serves as the in-season accountability measure. See § 622.183(b)(5) for details on the recreational fishing season. On and after the effective date of the recreational closure notification, the bag and possession limits for red snapper are zero.

      [FR Doc. 2018-10510 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No.  010419099-1099-01; I.D.  040201A]
        RIN 0648-AP19
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Hawaiian Islands; Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of a control date; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This document announces that persons who enter the offshore pelagic handline fishery around the Cross Seamount, four NOAA weather buoys, and the “Bigeye Buoy” in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Hawaii, after February 15, 2001 (control date), may not be assured of continued participation in the fishery if, in the future, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepares, and NMFS approves, a program limiting entry or effort.  This control date supersedes the previous control date of July 2, 1992.  This document does not commit the Council to limiting effort or preclude the Council from using any other date for determining future participation in this fishery.  The Council may also use other criteria to limit fishing effort or participation in a limited entry program if one is developed in the future.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted by July 2, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit written comments to Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; or fax to 808-973-2941.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        At its 108th meeting, the Council established February 15, 2001, as a new control date for the offshore pelagic handline fishery around the Hawaiian Islands.  The previously established control date (July 2, 1992) is more than 8 years old and considered to be outdated (57 FR 36637, August 14, 1992).  The new control date, which supersedes the old control date, applies to the Cross Seamount, four NOAA weather buoys, and one University of Hawaii research buoy off the Hawaiian Islands (“Bigeye Buoy”).  The precise areas of application would be determined in a future rulemaking, should the Council decide to proceed with limiting entry or effort.  This action responds to concerns associated with changes to the management program governing the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery, the participants of which may switch to the offshore pelagic handline fishery resulting in the substantial and unregulated expansion of the currently small fishery.
        At present, the fishery consists of 15 to 20 Hawaii-based, small fishing vessels (<50 ft or 15.2 m) employing hook and line handline gear to target bigeye and yellowfin tuna that are seasonally abundant at the Cross Seamount and four NOAA weather buoys, located about 160 nautical miles from the islands of Hawaii.  A fifth buoy, the “Bigeye Buoy” was placed in the same vicinity approximately 2 years ago by University of Hawaii fishery researchers studying bigeye habitat.  This buoy has also been found to aggregate fish and has been utilized by Hawaii-based pelagic handline vessels.  The vessels in this fishery primarily operate from the island of Hawaii, although one or two are based on the island of Oahu.
        The Council believes that there is a risk of speculative entry into the fishery while the potential benefits and costs of limited entry alternatives and the development of a regulatory amendment to address a substantially expanded fishery are being evaluated.  The control date is designed to discourage speculative entry during this period of analysis, as well as to provide notification to new participants that their access may be restricted in the future.  The control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the offshore pelagic handline fishery.  Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in this fishery, regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date.  The Council may choose a different control date or it may choose a management regime that does not involve a control date.  Other criteria, such as documentation of commercial landings and sales, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in the fishery.  The Council may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery.

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

          Dated: May 13, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-12605  Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S