        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 070706268-7275-01]
        RIN 0648-AV21
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 7

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement Framework Adjustment 7 (Framework 7) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). Framework 7 would broaden the FMP stock status determination criteria for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, while maintaining objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the FMP stocks are overfished or approaching an overfished condition. The framework action would also establish acceptable categories of peer review for providing new or revised stock status determination criteria for the Council to use in its annual management measures for each species. This action is necessary to ensure that changes or modification to the stock status determination criteria constituting the best available peer reviewed scientific information are accessible for the management of these three species in as timely a manner as is possible. The intended effect of this action is to improve the timeliness and efficiency of incorporating the best available scientific information, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), into the management processes for the three species covered by the FMP.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on September 5, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: FSB.framework7@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Comments on FSB Framework Adjustment 7.”
          • Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov

          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on FSB Framework Adjustment 7.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135

          Copies of Framework Adjustment 7 are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The framework document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The current stock status determination criteria for these three species are found in Amendment 12 to the FMP. To modify or replace these stock status determination criteria, the Council must enact a framework adjustment or an amendment to the FMP.

        The regulations at §§ 648.100, 648.120, and 648.140 outline the respective annual management processes for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and black sea bass (Centropristas striata). Stock assessment information is updated annually as part of the management process that is used to derive annual catch limits (e.g., Total Allowable Landings (TAL)). In addition, assessments for these three stocks undergo periodic formal scientific peer review as part of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's (NEFSC) Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) and Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) process. These and other periodic formal peer reviews conducted for these stocks may result in recommendations to revise or use different stock status determination criteria as different or new approaches are applied to previously existing data, or to new, previously unexamined data. These recommendations can be incorporated into the management scheme through a framework adjustment or amendment to the FMP. Given the time necessary to develop FMP framework adjustments and amendments, it is likely that, should such new stock status determination criteria result from a formal SAW/SARC peer review, the new criteria would not be available for the Council's use for one or more annual management review cycles (i.e., a 1- to 2-yr delay).
        In addition, groups outside the NEFSC, including but not limited to the Council, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), academic institutions, and other interested parties have periodically contracted with outside parties or conducted in-house formal peer reviews of the stock status determination criteria for these species. In such instances, it has not been clear how the results of these independently conducted peer reviews should be viewed by the Council in regards to National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which specifies that management decisions shall be based upon the best scientific information available. Furthermore, there have been instances where the results of scientific peer review conducted by any of the aforementioned groups were not clear. Peer review panelists may have disagreed on results and presented a majority and minority opinion; results may have lacked specific recommendations or had insufficient clarity to utilize the information provided in the annual management process; or, in some instances, the results of a peer review may have been to reject, for management purposes, changes proposed to the existing stock status determination criteria. In such situations, the Council has been left to decide what information then constituted the best available information.
        In response, the Council has developed and submitted for review by the Secretary of Commerce, Framework 7 to the FMP. This framework, if adopted, would enact the following actions, designed to improve the time frame in which peer reviewed information can be utilized in the management process, as well as providing guidance on peer review standards and how to move forward in the management process when peer review results are not clear. The principal actions proposed by Framework 7 are to:
        1. Redefine, in more general terms, while maintaining objective and measurable criteria, the stock status determination criteria for each species;
        2. Define what constitutes an acceptable level of peer review; and
        3. Provide guidance on how the Council may engage its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to conduct additional review of information when approved peer review processes fail to provide a consensus recommendation or clear guidance for management decisions.
        These changes, proposed in Framework 7, are discussed in detail in the following sections.
        Redefined Stock Status Determination Criteria

        Framework 7 would redefine the stock status determination criteria for each of the three species in the FMP. The maximum fishing mortality rate (F) threshold for each of the species in the FMP is defined as FMaximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) (or a reasonable proxy thereof) as a function of productive capacity, and based upon the best scientific information, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2. Specifically, FMSY is the fishing mortality rate or level associated with the relevant MSY level of each stock. The maximum fishing mortality rate threshold (FMSY), or a reasonable proxy thereof, may be defined as a function of (but not limited to): total stock biomass, spawning stock biomass, or total egg production; and may include males, females, both, or combinations and ratios thereof, that provide the best measure of productive capacity for each of the species managed under the FMP. Exceeding the established fishing mortality rate threshold constitutes overfishing.

        The minimum stock size threshold for each of the species in the FMP is defined as 1/2 Biomass (B)MSY (or a reasonable proxy thereof) as a function of productive capacity, and based upon the best scientific information, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2. The minimum stock size threshold (1/2 BMSY) or a reasonable proxy may be defined as (but not limited to): total stock biomass, spawning stock biomass, or total egg production; and may include males, females, both, or combinations and ratios thereof, that provide the best measure of productive capacity for each of the species managed under the FMP. The minimum stock size threshold is the level of productive capacity associated with the relevant 1/2 BMSY level. Should the measure of productive capacity for the stock or stock complex fall below this minimum threshold, the stock or stock complex is considered overfished. The target for rebuilding is specified as BMSY (or reasonable proxy thereof) at the level of productive capacity associated with the relevant MSY level, under the same definition of productive capacity as specified for the minimum stock size threshold.

        Under Framework 7, the stock status determination criteria are proposed to be made more general by removing specific references to how minimum stock size threshold and biomass are calculated. By making the stock status determination criteria more general the results of peer reviewed best available science could be more readily adopted through the annual specification setting process. For example, in 2006, the NMFS Office of Science and Technology convened a peer review panel to provide scientific advice on the summer flounder stock. The results of this review, contained in the Summer Flounder Assessment and Biological Reference Point Update for 2006, recommended that spawning stock biomass be utilized as a means for assessing the status of the summer flounder stock. This recommendation was a change from the existing stock status definitions for summer flounder contained in Amendment 12, which use total stock biomass. If Framework 7 is approved and implemented, the Council would be able to utilize the recommendations of the 2006 summer flounder peer review in the management (i.e., specification setting) process as the best available scientific information. The existing Amendment 12 stock status determination criteria for scup and black sea bass would remain unchanged until such time that recommendations for changes or modifications are recommended by a formal peer review. For all three species, the Council would still provide specific definitions for the stock status determination criteria in documents supporting annual management measures, future framework adjustments, and amendments including, where necessary, information on changes to the definitions.
        Peer Review Standards
        While the NEFSC SAW/SARC process remains the primary process utilized in the Northeast Region to develop scientific stock assessment advice, including stock status determination criteria for federally managed species, Framework 7 proposes several additional scientific review bodies and processes that would constitute an acceptable peer review level to develop scientific stock assessment advice for the three species stock status determination criteria.
        Guidance on Unclear Scientific Advice Resulting From Peer Review
        In many formal peer reviews, the terms of reference provided in advance of the review instruct the reviewers to formulate specific responses on the adequacy of information and to provide detailed advice on how that information may be used for fishery management purposes. As such, most stock assessment peer reviews result in clear recommendations on stock status determination criteria for use in the management of these three stocks. However, there are occasional peer review results where panelists disagree and no consensus recommendation is made regarding the information. The terms of reference may not be followed and no recommendations for the suitability of the information for management purposes may be made. In such instances, it is unclear what then constitutes the best available information for management use.
        Framework 7 proposes that, when clear consensus recommendations are made by any of the acceptable peer review groups, the information is clearly the best available and may be utilized by the Council in the management process for these three species. Similarly, when the consensus results of a peer review are to reject proposed changes to the stock assessment methods or the stock status determination criteria, Framework 7 proposes that the previous information on record would still continue to constitute the best available information and should be used in the management process.
        When peer review recommendations lack consensus, are unclear, or do not make recommendations on how the information is to be used in the management process, Framework 7 proposes that the Council engage its SSC or a subset of the SSC with appropriate stock assessment expertise, to review the information provided by the peer review group. The SSC would then seek to clarify the information and provide advice to the Council to either modify, change, or retain the existing stock status determination definitions as the best available information for use in the development of management measures.
        The process of how the Council utilizes its SSC may change in the future. The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each Council's SSC to provide ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch, maximum sustained yield, achieving rebuilding targets, etc. Framework 7 does not contemplate how the Council may modify its management process to satisfy this requirement of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, as guidance for so doing is still being developed by NMFS and the Council. Framework 7 does not bring this FMP into compliance with the new Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, nor does it conflict with those requirements as it addresses a separate issue. Once appropriate guidance has been developed for complying with the new Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, the Council's standard operating procedures and/or an amendment to the FMP may be enacted to clarify how the SSC will provide scientific advice for management decisions. Framework 7 will continue to pertain to the SSC's function in clarifying peer reviews on stock status determination criteria only. Under Framework 7, the primary peer review mechanism for northeast region stock assessments will remain the established NEFSC SAW/SARC process. The Council's SSC would only be utilized in the specific instances as previously outlined within the preamble of this proposed rule (see Guidance on Unclear Scientific Advice Resulting from Peer Review section). Both such peer review processes are consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.
        The measures outlined above are the only changes proposed by the Council in Framework 7. The no action alternative examined by the Council is to maintain the status quo regarding the stock status determination criteria, which would require a framework adjustment or amendment to the FMP to effect changes to the definitions in Amendment 12, would leave the standards for peer review undefined, and would not specify how the SSC may be used to clarify ambiguous results of scientific peer reviews for these three stocks.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is an administrative framework adjustment to the FMP and is therefore categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or equivalent document under the National Environmental Policy Act.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

          This proposed rule deals only with how the best available, peer reviewed scientific information can be incorporated more quickly and efficiently into the Council's process for crafting management measures for the three species under the FMP. This is achieved by broadening the descriptions of the stock status determination criteria in the FMP so that updated and peer reviewed information can be more readily adopted for use in the management process. The proposed change is to how the stock status determination criteria are defined and does not propose any change to the existing determination criteria. Additionally, the framework identifies acceptable levels of peer review that must be satisfied before new or revised information is accepted as the best available science.
          These are administrative changes to the FMP that serve to improve the quality of data used in management decisions, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As such, the rule will not have significant direct or indirect economic impacts on small entities.

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

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

          Dated: July 31, 2007.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-15211 Filed 8-3-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-156; RM-11901; DA 21-437; FR ID 22304]
        Television Broadcasting Services Boise, Idaho

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Sinclair Boise Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), the licensee of KBOI-TV (NBC), channel 9, Boise, Idaho. The Petitioner requests the substitution of channel 20 for channel 9 at Boise, Idaho in the DTV Table of Allotments.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 28, 2021 and reply comments on or before June 14, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter, PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In support of its channel substitution request, the Petitioner states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers. Petitioner further states that KBOI-TV has received numerous complaints from viewers unable to receive that Station's over-the-air signal, despite being able to receive signals from other stations, and that its channel substitution proposal will result in more effective building penetration for indoor antenna reception. In its Amended Engineering Exhibit, the Petitioner demonstrated that while the noise limited contour of the proposed channel 20 facility does not completely encompass the licensed channel 9 contour, only 180 persons in two small loss areas are predicted to lose service from KBOI-TV. The Commission, however, considers such a loss to be de minimis.
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-156; RM-11901; DA 21-437, adopted April 16, 2021, and released April 16, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law  104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.
        Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
        See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rule
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—Radio Broadcast Service

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.

          § 73.622
          [Amended]

        2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i), amend the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Idaho by revising the entry for Boise to read as follows:

          § 73.622
          Digital television table of allotments.

          (i)  * * *

              Community
              Channel No.

              *    *    *    *    *

                Idaho

              *    *    *    *    *

              Boise
              7, 20, * 21, 39.

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. 2021-08908 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223
        [Docket No. 120328230-1019-01]
        RIN 0648-BC10
        Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp Trawling Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          We are proposing to withdraw the alternative tow time restriction and require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) rigged for fishing to use turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in their nets. The intent of this proposed rule is to reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. shrimp fisheries, and to aid in the protection and recovery of listed sea turtle populations.

          DATES:
          Written comments (see ADDRESSES) will be accepted through July 9, 2012. Public hearings on the proposed rule will be held in May and June 2012. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting dates, times, and locations.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-BC10, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Mail: Michael Barnette, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
          • Fax: 727-824-5309; Attention: Michael Barnette.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Barnette, 727-551-5794.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        All sea turtles in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles are listed as endangered. The loggerhead (Caretta caretta; Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment) and green (Chelonia mydas) turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
        Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and some are killed, as a result of numerous activities, including fishery-related trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking (harassing, injuring or killing) sea turtles is prohibited, except as identified in 50 CFR 223.206, according to the terms and conditions of a biological opinion issued under section 7 of the ESA, or according to an incidental take permit issued under section 10 of the ESA. Incidentally taking threatened sea turtles during shrimp trawling is exempted from the taking prohibition of section 9 of the ESA if the conservation measures specified in the sea turtle conservation regulations (50 CFR 223.206) are followed. The same conservation measures also apply to endangered sea turtles (50 CFR 224.104).

        The regulations require most shrimp trawlers operating in the southeastern United States to have a NMFS-approved TED installed in each net that is rigged for fishing, to allow sea turtles to escape. TEDs currently approved by NMFS include single-grid hard TEDs and hooped hard TEDs conforming to a generic description and one type of soft TED—the Parker soft TED (see 50 CFR 223.207). However, skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and vessels using wing nets currently may employ alternative tow time restrictions in lieu of TEDs, under 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(ii)(A). The alternative tow time restrictions currently limit tow times to 55 minutes from April 1 through October 31, and 75 minutes from November 1 through March 31.
        TEDs incorporate an escape opening, usually covered by a webbing flap, which allows sea turtles to escape from trawl nets. To be approved by NMFS, a TED design must be shown to be 97 percent effective in excluding sea turtles during testing based upon specific testing protocols (50 CFR 223.207(e)(1)). Most approved hard TEDs are described in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207(a)) according to generic criteria based upon certain parameters of TED design, configuration, and installation, including height and width dimensions of the TED opening through which the turtles escape.
        Over the past two years we have documented elevated sea turtle strandings in the northern Gulf of Mexico, particularly throughout the Mississippi Sound area. In the first three weeks of June 2010, over 120 sea turtle strandings were reported from Mississippi and Alabama waters, none of which exhibited any signs of external oiling to indicate effects associated with the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill event. A total of 644 sea turtle strandings were reported in 2010 from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama waters, 561 (87 percent) of which were Kemp's ridley sea turtles. During March through May of 2011, 267 sea turtle strandings were reported from Mississippi and Alabama waters alone. A total of 525 sea turtle strandings were reported in 2011 from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama waters, with the majority (455) occurring from March through July, 390 (86 percent) of which were Kemp's ridley sea turtles. These stranding numbers are significantly greater than reported in past years; Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama reported 42 and 73 total sea turtle strandings for 2008 and 2009, respectively. Strandings typically represent only a small fraction of actual mortality; therefore, these stranding events represent significant amounts of sea turtle mortality. However, it should be noted that stranding coverage has increased considerably due to the DWH oil spill event, which has increased the likelihood of observing stranded animals.
        Necropsy results indicate a significant number of stranded turtles from both the 2010 and 2011 events likely perished due to forced submergence (drowning), which is commonly associated with fishery interactions. Additionally, information from NMFS and Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) enforcement, stemming from the monitoring of Mississippi Sound skimmer trawl vessels in 2010, indicate the vessels in the skimmer trawl fleet exceed alternative tow time requirements.

        Because of the elevated strandings in 2010 and 2011, as well as issues identified within the shrimp fisheries that indicated an evaluation of alternative tow time restrictions within the skimmer trawl sector was warranted, NMFS began developing a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); a notice of availability is expected to publish in the Federal Register on May 18, 2012. The analysis included in the DEIS demonstrates that withdrawing the alternative tow time restriction and requiring all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets rigged for fishing to use TEDs in their nets would reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. shrimp fisheries and, therefore, may be a necessary and advisable action to conserve threatened sea turtle species.
        While the recent stranding events acted as a catalyst for examining sea turtle bycatch issues within the shrimp fisheries and, ultimately, this proposed rule, NMFS has previously considered a TED requirement for skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls). For example, on May 8, 2009, NMFS published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct public scoping meetings, and made available a scoping document presenting various approaches to regulating trawl fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean (74 FR 21627). The scoping document suggested using a phased approach to implement regulations to reduce sea turtle captures by requiring capture mitigation strategies (i.e., TEDs) as technology becomes available. “Phase I” would have further regulated the summer flounder and Atlantic sea scallop fisheries, as well as introduce regulations for the whelk, croaker/weakfish, and calico scallop trawl fisheries. Regulation of fisheries in “Phase II,” which included sheepshead, black drum, king whiting, porgy, southeastern U.S. shrimp (skimmer trawl and trynets), Spanish sardine, scad, ladyfish, squid, mackerel, butterfish, and Northeast multispecies (large- and small-mesh) trawl fisheries, would be evaluated for subsequent rulemaking. Finally, “Phase III” regulations would have been developed for the skate, horseshoe crab, monkfish, bluefish, spiny dogfish, and herring trawl fisheries, and any other trawl fisheries not previously identified or considered. The NOI and scoping document acknowledged, however, that the implementation sequence could shift we obtain testing results and new information about additional trawl fisheries.
        Additionally, in June 2010, NMFS prepared but never published an emergency rule in accordance with Section 4(b)(7) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)) to require TEDs for all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) rigged for fishing in Mississippi and Alabama state waters. Before the emergency rule could be implemented, however, oil from the DWH oil spill event reached nearshore areas of the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and the states closed their waters to all fishing.
        Skimmer Trawls, Pusher-Head Trawls, and Wing Nets
        Developed in the early 1980s, the skimmer trawl was intended for use in some areas primarily to catch white shrimp, which have the ability to jump over the headrope of standard trawls while being towed in shallow water. The skimmer net frame allows the net to be elevated above the water while the net is fishing, thus preventing shrimp from escaping over the top. Owing to increased shrimp catch rates, less debris and/or fish and other bycatch, and lower fuel consumption than otter trawlers, the use of skimmer nets quickly spread throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The basic components of a skimmer trawl include a frame, the net, heavy weights, skids or “shoes,” and tickler chains. The net frame is usually constructed of steel or aluminum pipe or tubing and is either L-shaped (with an additional stiff leg) or a trapezoid design. When net frames are deployed, they are aligned perpendicularly to the vessel and cocked or tilted forward and slightly upward. This position allows the net to fish better and reduces the chance of the leading edge of the skid digging into the bottom and subsequently damaging the gear. The frames are maintained in this position by two or more stays or cables to the bow. The outer leg of the frame is held in position with a “stiff leg” to the horizontal pipe and determines the maximum depth at which each net is capable of working. The skid, or “shoe,” is attached to the bottom of the outer leg, which allows the frame to ride along the bottom, rising and falling with the bottom contour. The bottom of the gear includes tickler chains and lead lines. The skimmer trawl is the most popular trawl type after the otter trawl, and is widely utilized in Louisiana waters.

        Vietnamese fishermen who moved into Louisiana in the early 1980s introduced the pusher-head trawl, also known as the “xipe” or chopstick net. The pusher-head trawl net is attached to a rigid or flexible frame similar to the wing net; however, the frame mounted on the bow of the boat is attached to a pair of skids and fished by pushing the net along the bottom.
        Wing nets (butterfly trawls or “paupiers”) were introduced in the 1950s and used on stationary platforms and on shrimp boats either under power or while anchored. A wing net consists of square metal frame which forms the mouth of the net. Webbing is attached to the frame and tapers back to a cod end. The net can be fished from a stationary platform or a pair of nets can be attached to either side of a vessel. The vessel is then anchored in tidal current or the nets are “pushed” through the water by the vessel. The contents of the wing net, as well as the contents of skimmer and pusher-head trawls, can be picked up and dumped without raising the entire net out of the water, which is necessary with an otter trawl. While wing nets, as well as pusher-head trawls, are allowable gear types in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, they are not as common as skimmer trawls. For example, while the MDMR does not differentiate gear type within their shrimp fishery, a 2008 survey of trip tickets indicated there were approximately 247 otter trawl, 56 skimmer trawl, 4 butterfly net, and 2 pusher-head trawls active in Mississippi.
        Sea Turtle Bycatch in Skimmer Trawls, Pusher-Head Trawls, and Wing Nets
        While there is available information documenting sea turtle captures in the skimmer trawl fisheries (e.g., Price and Gearheart 2011), skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets were initially allowed to use alternative tow time restrictions in lieu of TEDs under the assumption that the trawl bags were typically retrieved at intervals that would not be fatal to most sea turtles that were captured in the net. The December 2, 2002 biological opinion (NMFS 2002) noted that the tow-time authorization instead of TEDs was for fisheries that, “out of physical, practical, or economic necessity, require fishermen to limit their tow times naturally.” But information from MDMR indicates that some participants in their skimmer trawl fishery are not aware of the tow time restrictions, and violations of the tow time restrictions have occurred and still occur within the fishery.
        Moreover, tow times restrictions are difficult to enforce. Documenting a tow time violation requires enforcement personnel to be in close proximity of a skimmer trawl to monitor gear deployment and recovery, and to record the time when the codend enters the water until it is removed. Also, enforcement personnel need to remain undetected for at least 55 minutes—practically impossible at sea—or else their presence may bias a vessel captain's operational procedure. There are also concerns repeated captures may result in turtle mortality in times and areas where sea turtle abundance and skimmer trawl fishing effort is high (Sasso and Epperly 2006).
        In the DEIS, we calculated sea turtle catch per unit effort rates based on observed effort in the skimmer trawl fisheries and relative abundances of sea turtle species. These rates were multiplied by overall effort (i.e., 585,576 effort hours in the Northern Gulf of Mexico skimmer trawl fisheries and 6,576 effort hours in the North Carolina skimmer trawl fishery) to determine total sea turtle take in the skimmer trawl fisheries. The analysis resulted in a total anticipated take of 28,127 captured sea turtles in the combined skimmer trawl, pusher-head trawl, and wing net fisheries.
        If skimmer trawl vessels regularly exceed the tow time restrictions and kill incidentally captured sea turtles, requiring TEDs instead of tow times may significantly reduce sea turtle mortality by allowing them to escape the net and avoid drowning. In order to extrapolate the sea turtle capture estimates to obtain an associated mortality estimate for the skimmer trawl fisheries operating with installed TEDs, the DEIS analysis considered both the benefits of exclusion through properly installed TEDs and the effect of TED violations on sea turtle capture rates and total mortalities. This analysis was accomplished by calculating overall compliance and non-compliance rates in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic otter trawl shrimp fisheries (to serve as a proxy for the skimmer trawl fisheries, assuming TED compliance would be similar between the two gear types) based on vessel boarding data from TED inspections. Using this data, we estimate that withdrawing the alternative tow time restriction in the preferred alternative would prevent 5,515 sea turtle mortalities in the combined skimmer trawl fisheries. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that the measures proposed here are a necessary and advisable to conserve threatened sea turtle species. We have further preliminarily determined that the measures proposed here are necessary and appropriate to enforce the requirements of the ESA.
        We anticipate to make this proposed TED requirement effective by the start of the 2013 shrimping season, not later than March 15, 2013.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        We expect this proposed rule will directly affect fishermen who use skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls). This gear is only used in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina. Florida already requires vessels employing this gear to use TEDs. Among the remaining states, approximately 2,435 active vessels have been identified that use this gear (2,248 in Louisiana, 62 in Mississippi, 60 in Alabama, and 65 in North Carolina). We expect this rule, if implemented, will affect all of these vessels.
        The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4 million (North American Industry Classification System code 114112, shellfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

        We estimate the average annual revenue (2008 dollars) for vessels harvesting shrimp using skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, or wing nets (butterfly trawls) as approximately $22,500 for Louisiana vessels, $21,400 for Alabama vessels, and $2,700 for North Carolina vessels. However, fishermen, including shrimpers, commonly participate in multiple fisheries, and these results may not include revenue from non-shrimp species. Comparable information for Mississippi vessels is not available because no shrimp landings from Mississippi vessels using this gear were recorded in the comparable time period (2006-2010). Although some Mississippi vessels are expected to be actively using this gear, we do not know whether these vessels are landing their shrimp harvests in other states, selling directly to the public and not through dealers, or engaging in some other practice that has resulted in the absence of recorded landings. Based on the average revenue estimates, all commercial fishing vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule, if implemented, are for the purpose of this analysis considered to be small entities.
        If the affected entities are required to pay for their TEDs, we expect this proposed rule will result in an estimated average first-year cost of $2,120 for fishermen in Louisiana, $1,000 for fishermen in Mississippi, $2,061 for fishermen in Alabama, and $1,133 for fishermen in North Carolina. These results are based on an estimated cost of $350 per TED, the use of two TEDs per vessel, an annual maintenance cost of $300 per vessel, and an estimated 4.97 percent reduction in shrimp harvest. Based on the average annual revenue estimates provided above, these first-year costs equal approximately 9.4 percent of average annual shrimp revenue for affected entities in Louisiana, 9.6 percent in Alabama, and 42.4 percent in North Carolina. The total average effect per entity would be reduced if these fishermen also operate in other fisheries, which we expect is the case for most entities. Total revenues from all species for the affected fishermen are not known. However, the estimated average annual net revenue across all Gulf states, including revenue from all species, for operations in the inshore shrimp sector, which includes the entities described here, is negative, indicating the average vessel is operating at a loss. As a result, any increased costs or reduced revenues are expected to compound these losses. Similar information is not available for North Carolina fishermen, but this analysis assumes the average net revenue for North Carolina fishermen is comparable to that of inshore shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.
        As previously discussed, a comparable analysis for entities in Mississippi cannot be completed because we lack appropriate revenue information. As a result, the estimated effect for entities in Mississippi simply reflects the cost of the TEDs. The cost associated with TED purchase, however, may be overstated, particularly for Mississippi vessels. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) allocated funds received from oil recovery income as a result of the DWH oil spill event for Gulf of Mexico restoration efforts. In 2010, funding was made available to purchase and distribute TEDs for skimmer trawl vessels and, to date, an estimated 360 TEDs have been distributed to 180 Mississippi shrimp vessels. Therefore, we believe the majority of skimmer trawl vessels operating in Mississippi already possess TEDs.
        Because a TED is a durable device, the cost of a new TED is not an annual expense. The estimated replacement cycle for a TED is at least three years, barring net damage and TED loss. In a year in which a new TED is not purchased, the effect of this rule would be limited to TED maintenance costs and reduced shrimp harvest associated with TED use. These costs then would be approximately $1,420 for Louisiana vessels, $1,361 for Alabama vessels, and $433 for North Carolina vessels. It may also be possible to reduce shrimp losses over time through changes in fishing practices or increased experience with TED use.
        The cost of initial TED purchases would be reduced if special funding is available, similar to the NFWF funding in 2010 or a comparable project. This analysis does not assume that TEDs will be provided. If TEDs are provided, the initial and recurring expected effects of this proposed rule would be reduced to the costs of TED maintenance, replacement TEDs, and shrimp loss.
        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements beyond the requirement to use a TED when using skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls). TEDs are installed by the net dealer, so no special skills would be expected to be required of fishermen for TED installation. Some learning may be required for the maintenance and routine use of the TED. Use of TEDs, however, is common in the general shrimp fisheries and the skills required in their use are consistent with the skill set and capabilities of commercial shrimp fishermen in general. As a result, special professional skills would not be expected to be necessary.
        We considered eight alternatives, including the proposed rule and the no-action alternative, to reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. shrimp fisheries. The no-action alternative would not have changed any current management measures and was not selected because it would not to result in any reduction in the incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles.
        Two other management alternatives also considered TED use instead of the current tow time authorization for varying portions of the skimmer trawl fleets. The remaining four alternatives considered different time/area closures for the shrimp fisheries.
        The two alternatives that considered alternative tow time restrictions would have, alternatively, required TED use in lieu of tow time restrictions based on vessel length, or limited TED use either to vessels 30 feet and longer, or to those 20 feet and longer. Both alternatives would have affected fewer vessels (1,471 and 2,211 vessels, respectively) and resulted in lower adverse economic effects (by 40 percent and 9 percent, respectively) than the proposed rule. However, we did not select these alternatives because they would not sufficiently reduce the incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in general, and would also incentivize an effort shift to smaller vessels, thereby reducing the net benefits of TED use by larger vessels.
        The four alternatives that considered closures varied by geographic coverage, either the Texas-Louisiana or Louisiana-Mississippi state borders through the Alabama-Florida state border; or by duration, either March 1 through May 31 or April 1 through May 15. The expected economic effects of these alternatives would result from reduced shrimp harvests, and range from aggregates losses of approximately $50,000 to approximately $14 million. While three of these alternatives would likely result in lower adverse economic effects for affected entities than the proposed action, none of these alternatives was selected because the low fishing effort during the time periods considered means that the total reduction in the incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles would be insufficient to afford these species the necessary protection.
        The Endangered Species Act provides the statutory basis for the rule.
        Locations and Times of Public Hearings
        Public hearings will be held at the following locations:
        1. Morehead City—Crystal Coast Civic Center, 3505 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557.

        2. Larose—Larose Regional Park and Civic Center, 307 East 5th Street, Larose, LA 70373.

        3. Belle Chasse—Belle Chasse Community Center, 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037.
        4. D'Iberville—L.H. “Red” Barnett Senior Center, 10450 Lamey Bridge Road, D'Iberville, MS 39540.
        5. Bayou La Batre—Bayou La Batre Community Center, 12745 Padgett Switch Road, Bayou La Batre, AL 36509.
        The public hearing dates are:
        1. May 30, 2012, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Morehead City, NC.
        2. June 4, 2012, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Larose, LA.
        3. June 5, 2012, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Belle Chasse, LA.
        4. June 6, 2012, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Biloxi, MS.
        5. June 13, 2012, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Bayou La Batre, AL.
        References

          NMFS. 2002. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on Shrimp Trawling in the Southeastern United States, under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations and as Managed by the Fishery Management Plans for Shrimp in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. December 2, 2002.
          Price, A.B. and J.L. Gearhart. 2011. Evaluations of turtle excluder device (TED) performance in the U.S. southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico skimmer trawl fisheries. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-615, 15 pp.
          Sasso, C.R. and S.P. Epperly. 2006. Seasonal sea turtle mortality risk from forced submergence in bottom trawls. Fisheries Research 81:86-88.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
          Endangered and threatened species; Exports; Imports; Transportation.

          Dated: May 3, 2012.
          Paul N. Doremus,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
          1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:

            16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9).

            § 223.206
            [Amended]
            2. In § 223.206, paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A)(3) is removed and reserved.

      [FR Doc. 2012-11201 Filed 5-8-12; 11:15 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 216
        [Docket No. 110718394-1392-01]
        RIN 0648-BB09
        Marine Mammals; Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals; Harvest Estimates

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of Availability; Request for Comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to the regulations governing the subsistence taking of northern fur seals, this document summarizes the annual fur seal subsistence harvests on St. George and St. Paul Islands (the Pribilof Islands) for 2008 to 2010 and proposes annual estimates of fur seal subsistence needs for 2011 through 2013 on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. NMFS solicits public comments on the proposed estimates.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received at the address or fax number by August 29, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resource Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-BB09” by any of the following methods:

            Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov;

            Mail: Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resource Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 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, Attention: Ellen Sebastian.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments must be in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) file formats to be accepted.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Williams, (907) 271-5006, e-mail Michael.Williams@noaa.gov; Kaja Brix, (907) 586-7835, e-mail Kaja.Brix@noaa.gov; or Shannon Bettridge, (301) 427-8402, e-mail Shannon.Bettridge@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        An Environmental Impact Statement is available on the Internet at the following address: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/fur/eis/final0505.pdf.

        Background

        The subsistence harvest from the depleted stock of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is governed by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216, subpart F. The purpose of these regulations, published under the authority of the Fur Seal Act (FSA), 16 U.S.C. 1151, et seq., and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq., is to limit the take of fur seals to a level providing for the subsistence needs of the Pribilof residents, while restricting taking by sex, age, and season for herd conservation. To further minimize negative effects on the Pribilof Islands' fur seal population, the harvest has been limited to a 47-day season (June 23 to August 8).
        Pursuant to the regulations governing the taking of fur seals for subsistence purposes, NMFS must publish a summary of the fur seal harvest for the previous three-year period and an estimate of the number of seals expected to be taken in the subsequent three-year period to meet the subsistence needs of the Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands. Beginning in 2000, the ranges of estimated annual northern fur seal subsistence harvests have been discussed with each tribal government as part of the co-management relationship and agreement. Accurately predicting the annual subsistence needs of the Pribilof communities has been one of practical and social difficulties; the process to develop estimates of the number of fur seals required to meet subsistence needs has resulted in acceptance of the different ranges since those first established in 1986. The current upper harvest take limit of 2,500 juvenile male fur seals has been accepted every year since 1997. The lower harvest take limit of 1,945 provides a degree of flexibility the communities feel comfortable with regarding changes and unanticipated needs within the community and the environment.
        There are several factors and conditions that affect both the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals and the number of fur seals required to meet subsistence needs. The variability of the harvest occurs for many reasons. Weather conditions and availability of animals varies annually. The availability of wage earning jobs reduces the time available for community members to harvest fur seals and hunt other subsistence resources. Thus, individual community members may be unavailable to harvest fur seals during the season in certain years or have more financial resources to hunt other marine mammals in subsequent years or seasons. Several specific seasonal employment opportunities may interfere with community members' ability to harvest fur seals under the current regulations. The current timing of the northern fur seal subsistence harvest season overlaps with the local halibut fishing season, and many of the community members who participate in the harvest are also fishermen. In addition, crab fishery rationalization and a renewal of the crab harvest in the Pribilof region has provided local job opportunities that may extend into the spring hunting season for Steller sea lions. The level of Steller sea lion hunting success in the spring influences the need to take fur seals during the subsequent summer northern fur seal subsistence harvest season. Thus both Steller sea lions and northern fur seals combine to meet the subsistence needs of the local communities, with northern fur seals providing the more reliable resource of the two species, despite being available only during a 6-week harvest season.
        The communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands rely on marine mammals as a major food source and a cornerstone of their culture. The harvest of juvenile male northern fur seals has occurred for well over two hundred years and the biological implications of this harvest are reasonably well understood. Subsistence harvests under the current regulations are a small fraction of the commercial harvests that occurred during the past hundred years.
        Summary of Harvest Operations and Monitoring 2008 to 2010
        The annual harvests were conducted in the established manner and employed the standard methods required under regulations at 50 CFR 216.72. NMFS personnel, a contract veterinarian, and tribal government staff monitored the harvest and communicated to further improve the efficiency of the annual harvest and full utilization of the animals taken. Annual northern fur seal harvest reports are received from the Tribal governments of both islands and from a contract veterinarian for St. Paul.

        The reported annual male northern fur seal subsistence harvests for St. Paul for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were 328, 341, and 357, respectively (Zavadil 2008; Zavadil 2009; Zavadil et al. 2010), and for St. George for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were 170, 113, and 78, respectively (Lekanof 2008, Lekanof 2009; Merculief 2010). The number of male northern fur seals harvested on St. Paul Island from 1986 to 2010 ranged from 269 to 1704, and the number harvested on St. George Island from 1986 to 2010 ranged from 78 to 319 seals. The average number of male seals harvested during the past ten years on St. Paul and St. George Islands, respectively, has been 441 seals (range: 269 to 646) and 156 seals (range: 78 to 212) (Table 1).
        The annual upper harvest take level is 2,500 juvenile male fur seals to satisfy the subsistence requirements for both St. Paul and St. George. The current abundance estimate is about 676,416 fur seals, and the potential biological removal (PBR) level is estimated at about 14,543 animals. The upper harvest take level is significantly lower than the PBR level, and the actual harvest has not reached the lower take level of 1,945 in the past decade. The fur seal stock is designated as depleted and has been declining recently in the Pribilof Islands. The mortality from the subsistence harvest is in addition to other sources of known human-caused mortality, which are described in the annual stock assessment, and include such things as bycatch in commercial fisheries, entanglement in derelict fishing gear, illegal shooting and accidental death during research. The estimates of all sources of known human-caused mortality do not reach PBR.
        The accidental harvest of young female fur seals has occurred intermittently during the male harvest. The regulations call for termination of the annual harvest on August 8 to reduce the probability of the accidental killing of females to the lowest level practicable. Thirty-two females on St. Paul and four females on St. George have been accidentally killed since 1987. The average accidental killing of females on St. Paul and St. George Islands during the last 10 years is two and less than one, respectively.

        Under section 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, cooperative agreements were signed with St. Paul in 2000 and with St. George in 2001 for the cooperative management of subsistence uses of northern fur seals and Steller sea lions. The processes defined in the cooperative agreements have facilitated a more collaborative working relationship between NMFS and Tribal authorities. This has led to more coordinated efforts by the Tribal governments of both islands to promote full utilization of inedible seal parts for traditional arts, crafts, and other uses permitted under regulations at 50 CFR 216.73. The result has been an expanded use of these materials by the Aleut residents.

          EP29JY11.007

        Estimate of Subsistence Need for the Period 2011 to 2013
        The projected subsistence harvest estimates are given as a range, the lower end of which may be exceeded if NMFS is given notice and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, determines that the annual subsistence needs of the Pribilof Aleuts have not been satisfied. Conversely, the harvest can be terminated before the lower end of the range is reached if the annual subsistence needs of the Pribilof residents are determined to have been met or the harvest has been conducted in a wasteful manner.
        For the 3-year period, 2011 to 2013, NMFS proposes no change to the past and current ranges of 1,645-2,000 juvenile male fur seals for St. Paul Island and 300-500 juvenile male fur seals for St. George Island. Retaining these levels will provide adequate flexibility and enable adaptive management of the subsistence harvest through the co-management process within the regulations. NMFS seeks public comments on these proposed estimates.

        As described earlier in this document, if the Aleut residents of either island reach the lower end of this annual harvest estimate and have unmet subsistence needs and no indication of waste, they may request an additional number of seals to be harvested prior to August 8 up to the upper limit of the respective harvest take level. The residents of St. George and St. Paul Islands may substantiate any additional need for seals by submitting in writing the information upon which they base their decision that subsistence needs are unfulfilled. The regulations at 50 CFR 216.72(e)(1) and (3) require a suspension of the fur seal harvest for up to 48 hours once the lower end of the estimated harvest level is reached. The suspension is to last no more than 48 hours, followed either by a finding that the subsistence needs have been met or by a revised estimate of the number of seals necessary to satisfy the Aleuts' subsistence needs.
        The harvest of fur seals is anticipated to be non-wasteful and in compliance with the regulations specified at 50 CFR 216.72 which detail the restrictions and harvest methods. NMFS will continue to monitor the harvest on St. Paul Island and St. George Islands during 2011, 2012, and 2013.
        Classification
        National Environmental Policy Act
        NMFS prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating the impacts on the human environment of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals. The Final EIS, which is available on the NMFS Web site (see Electronic Access) was subjected to public review (69 FR 53915, September 3, 2004), and the comments were incorporated into the final EIS (May 2005).
        Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
        This proposed action has been determined not to be a significant rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. The proposed actions are not likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The harvest of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is for subsistence purposes only. This action directly regulates the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals by Alaska Natives in the communities of St. Paul and St. George. The estimates of subsistence need are derived based on historic harvest levels and direct consultation with the Tribal Governments from each community. NMFS has identified two small entities that may be affected by this action—the communities of St. Paul and St. George, both of which have populations less than 500.
        Estimate of Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        This action would have no adverse economic impact and may provide a net benefit for the communities of St. Paul and St. George. The estimated ranges of the subsistence needs are unlikely to restrict the number of animals taken by subsistence hunters. NMFS compared historic harvest levels on each island to the upper and lower ends of the range of the estimated subsistence need. The total annual harvests on each island has never exceeded the upper end of the proposed subsistence need ranges, and has only exceeded the lower end of the proposed ranges in 1991 on both islands and in 1993 on St. George. The regulated entities will not experience any change from the status quo since the proposed ranges are the same ranges that have been used since 1997.
        The subsistence harvest of fur seals provides a local, affordable source of fresh and frozen meat to for the communities' consumption. Fresh meat is unavailable on either St. Paul or St. George. Subsistence hunting and fishing are the primary means by which the communities meet their dietary need. No other fish and wildlife species are predictably available to replace fresh fur seal meat. Replacement of the frozen fur seal meat with livestock meat that is shipped to the islands is extremely expensive and only available when air and barge service can deliver. In addition marine mammals such as fur seals are the preferred meat resource for Aleuts and other coastal Alaska Natives.
        Explanation of the Criteria Used To Evaluate Whether the Action Would Impose “Significant Economic Impacts”
        The proposed action will not place any small entities at a disadvantage, relative to large entities or impose significant economic impacts on any small entities.
        The criteria recommended to determine the significance of the economic impacts of the action are profitability and disproportionality. The guidance states that “the concept of profitability may not be appropriate for a non-profit small organization or a small government jurisdiction”. Based on this guidance NMFS believes disproportionality is the appropriate standard given the regulated entities are small government jurisdictions. No large entities are allowed to harvest northern fur seals; therefore the regulatory allowance for the small entities on St. Paul and St. George to harvest northern fur seals does not create a disproportionate impact that would disadvantage them.
        Explanation of the Criteria Used To Evaluate Whether the Action Would Impose Impacts on a “Substantial Number” of Small Entities
        The action would not impose adverse economic impacts on any small entities. Because this action will not impose impacts on any small entities, it will not impose impacts on a substantial number of small entities. This action will have beneficial economic impacts on the directly regulated Alaska Native residents of St. Paul and St. George, and will not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed action does not require the collection of information.
        Executive Order 13132—Federalism
        This proposed action does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132 because this action does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nonetheless, NMFS worked closely with local governments in the Pribilof Islands, and these estimates of subsistence needs were prepared by the local governments in St. Paul and St. George, with assistance from NMFS officials.
        Executive Order 13175—Native Consultation

        Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the American Indian Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service in matters affecting Tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-100 (188 Stat. 452) as amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 3267), extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native corporations. NMFS has contacted the Tribal governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands and their respective local Native corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq) about setting the next three years harvest estimates and received their input.

          Dated: July 25, 2011.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-19255 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P