        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 82
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064; FRL-8683-6]
        RIN 2060-AK26
        Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances—n-Propyl Bromide in Adhesives, Coatings, and Aerosols; Notice of Data Availability

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of data availability and request for comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available to the public information related to a May 30, 2007 proposed rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The SNAP program reviews alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone-depleting substances and finds acceptable the use of alternatives that reduce the overall risk to public health and the environment. EPA proposed to list n-propyl bromide (nPB) as unacceptable for use as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-113, methyl chloroform,  and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-141b in the adhesive and aerosol solvent end uses; and acceptable subject to use conditions (limited to coatings at facilities that, as of May 30, 2007, had provided EPA with information demonstrating their ability to maintain acceptable workplace exposures) as a substitute for methyl chloroform, CFC-113, and HCFC-141b in the coatings end use. The Agency has received additional information regarding the exposure levels of n-propyl bromide found in the workplace due to use of aerosols containing n-propyl bromide, as well as information on industry practices from aerosol suppliers and from a survey of a significant number of end users. The Agency is requesting comment on these materials. We plan to consider this information, and any comments received during the comment period on this notice of data availability, in determining what future action to take on our May 2007 proposal regarding the use of n-propyl bromide in aerosols.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: A-And-R-Docket@epa.gov.
          • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064.
          • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9163; fax number (202) 343-2362; e-mail address: sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
          II. What is this action?
          III. On what information is EPA requesting comment?
          IV. Where can I get the data and comments being made available for comment?
          V. Why is EPA requesting comment on these data and comments?
          VI. What is EPA not taking comment on?
          VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments?

        I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        A. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
        Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        Send or deliver information identified as CBI only by delivery service to the following address: Margaret Sheppard, U.S. EPA, 1310 L Street,  NW., Room 1029, Washington DC 20005,  Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064.
        B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
        When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register (FR) date,  and page number).

        • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

        • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        C. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

        The specific public comments and data on which EPA is taking comment are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). The physical address for EPA's docket is discussed above in the ADDRESSES section of this action. These documents and other information concerning EPA's May 30, 2007 proposed rulemaking are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, as discussed above in the ADDRESSES section of this action. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        II. What Is This Action?
        We are requesting comment on additional information received during and after the public comment period concerning industry practices and workplace exposure levels of n-propyl bromide when it is used as an aerosol solvent. The May 30, 2007 proposed rule, 72 FR 30168, proposed to list the chemical n-propyl bromide as an unacceptable substitute for methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), CFC-113 (1,1,2-trifluoro-1,2,2-trichloroethane), and HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane) when used in aerosol solvents. EPA proposed that nPB in this end use poses unacceptable risks to human health when compared with other substitutes that are available. In addition, EPA took comment on alternate options that would find nPB acceptable subject to use conditions in aerosol solvents.
        In response to the May, 2007 proposal, EPA received public comments, which have been made available to the public through docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064. Most of these comments concerned the Agency's proposal to find nPB unacceptable in aerosols.1
           In the proposal, we stated: “EPA's greatest concern with nPB-based aerosols is that users of nPB as an aerosol solvent cannot reliably maintain exposures at sufficiently low levels to ensure that workers are protected. This finding is based on measured exposure data and model estimations indicating the likelihood of elevated concentrations associated with nPB-based aerosols given typical ventilation conditions.” (72 FR 30188)

            1 Comments were also received on the other two aspects of that proposal which concerned nPB as a substitute for methyl chloroform, CFC-113, and HCFC-141b in the adhesives and coatings end uses.

        III. On What Information Is EPA Requesting Comment?
        EPA is requesting comment on the public comments and data in the following documents in:
        Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064:
        • July 30, 2007 Comments submitted by D. Douglas Fratz, Vice President, Scientific and Technical Affairs, and Andrew R. Hackman, Manager, State Affairs Programs, Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and attachments—docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0319 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0319.1.
        • November 16, 2007 Supplemental Comments submitted by D. Douglas Fratz, Vice President, Scientific & Technical Affairs and Andrew Hackman, Manager, State Affairs Programs, CSPA and attachments—docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0327, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0327.1, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0327.2.
        • E-mail exchanges between M. Sheppard, EPA, and A. Hackman, CSPA—docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0340, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0341, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0342, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064-0344.
        IV. Where Can I Get the Data and Comments Being Made Available for Comment?

        All of the data on which we are seeking comment can be obtained through docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064 at http://www.regulations.gov. You also can find this information in hard copy through EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in the Public Reading Room at the address given in the ADDRESSES section above.
        V. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on These Data and Comments?
        We are soliciting comment on this new information to ensure that we use the best information available when we determine how to proceed on our May 2007 proposal, in which we proposed to list nPB as unacceptable in the aerosol solvent end use. The information which we are seeking comment on will be considered by EPA in determining how to proceed on our proposal and because it substantially expands data for this end use beyond the information the Agency had available at the time we issued the proposed rule, the Agency is now providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the quality, accuracy and representativeness of the information. We will consider this information, along with other data and public comments also available in the public docket, to move forward with a final rulemaking concerning nPB in the aerosol solvent end use.
        VI. What Is EPA Not Taking Comment On?
        EPA is not taking additional comment on exposure data or industry practices in end uses of adhesives and coatings. EPA is only taking on comment in the end use of aerosol solvents. Furthermore, we are only accepting comments on the quality, accuracy, and representativeness of the information and comments described in this action.
        VII. What Supporting Documentation Do I Need To Include in My Comments?
        Please provide any information or data supporting your comments, particularly information on exposure levels, the amount of nPB usage, and ventilation levels when nPB is used as an aerosol solvent.

          Dated: June 4, 2008.
          Brian McLean,
          Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.

      [FR Doc. E8-14103 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 102105A]
        RIN 0648-AT11
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 11

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 11 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review.  Amendment 11 would change the framework for the annual apportionment of the Pacific sardine harvest guideline along the U.S. Pacific coast.  The purpose of Amendment 11 is to achieve optimal utilization of the Pacific sardine resource and equitable allocation of the harvest opportunity for Pacific sardine.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 11 must be received on or before December 27, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the NOA identified by I.D. 102105A by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AT11.SWR@noaa.gov.  Include I.D. 102105 in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail:   Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA  90802.
          • Fax:  (562)980-4047
          Copies of Amendment 11, which includes an Environmental Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, are available from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034 or Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each Regional Fishery Management Council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment.  NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 11.
        Amendment 11 establishes an allocation framework that would help to achieve optimal utilization and equitable allocation between the different sectors of the Pacific sardine fishery.  The Council tasked the CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) to develop an initial range of allocation alternatives for a longer-term allocation framework.  The Subpanel adopted a range of alternatives for the allocation of Pacific sardine at their meetings in August and September 2004.  At the November 2004 meeting the Council reviewed the range of alternatives, and with some modification and additions forwarded nine alternatives to the CPS Management Team (Team) for preliminary analysis.  When adopting a range of alternatives for long-term allocation in April 2005, the Council expressed an interest in having the flexibility to revisit the proposed action in the near-term as the Pacific sardine resource and the fisheries and markets that rely on it are dynamic and difficult to predict.
        At the April 2005 Council meeting the Council adopted seven of the nine alternatives and sent those to the Team for further analysis.  Below is a summary of the seven forwarded alternatives given to the Team for analysis including both a no action alternative and a status quo alternative.  If the Council chose to take no action, the allocation framework would revert to original FMP (64 FR 69888, December 15, 1999) formula that was in place before the regulatory amendment (69 FR 8572, February 25, 2003) was implemented in 2003.  Under status quo the Council would have chosen to take action to extend the interim allocation.  The order of alternatives does not indicate rank or priority.  All alternatives (except No Action) used Point Arena, California (39° N. lat.) as the dividing line between the allocation subareas.  In order to present the alternatives in a clear and comparable fashion the descriptions for the fishing season, the initial allocation, and reallocations made at different points during the fishing season are summarized in bullet form.
        No Action:   FMP Allocation Framework
        The allocation subareas are divided at Point Piedras Blancas, California (35° 40′ N. lat.).

          Season: January 1 - December 31

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated to the Subarea A (north, which includes Monterey) and 66 percent to the Subarea B (Southern California).

          Reallocation: On October 1, remaining unharvested portion of the harvest guideline is pooled and reallocated 50 percent to Subarea A (north) and 50 percent to Subarea B (south).
        Status Quo: Interim Allocation Framework

          Season: January 1 - December 31

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 66 percent to Subarea B (south).

          Reallocation: On September 1, 20 percent of the remaining unharvested portion of the harvest guideline is reallocated to the Subarea A (north) and 80 percent to Subarea B (south).

          Second reallocation: On December 1, the remaining unharvested portion of the harvest guideline is reallocated coastwide.
        Alternative 1:  Coastwide Allocation In Two Periods

          Season: January 1 - December 31

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 50 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated coastwide.

          Reallocation: On July 1, the remaining harvest guideline (50 percent plus any unharvested portion from the initial allocation) is allocated coastwide.
        Alternative 2:  Rejected by the Council
        Alternative 3:  Coastwide Allocation In Three Periods

          Season: January 1 - December 31

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 40 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated coastwide.

          Reallocation: On July 1, 40 percent of the harvest guideline (plus any unharvested portion from the initial allocation) is allocated coastwide.

          Second reallocation: On October 1, 20 percent of the harvest guideline (plus any unharvested portion from the first reallocation) is reallocated coastwide.
        Alternative 4:  Allocation Formula Depends on the Size of the Harvest Guideline

          Season: January 1 - December 31
        (a) The coastwide harvest guideline is greater than 100,000 mt:

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 40 percent of the coastwide harvest guideline is allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 60 percent to the Subarea B (south).

          Reallocation: On September 1, the remaining unharvested portion of the harvest guideline is pooled and allocated coastwide.
        (b) The coastwide harvest guideline is less than 100,000 mt:

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 percent of the coastwide harvest guideline is allocated to Subarea A (north) and 66 percent to the Subarea B (south).

          Reallocation: On September 1, the remaining unharvested portion of the coastwide harvest guideline is pooled and 20 percent is allocated to Subarea A (north) and 80 percent to the Subarea B (south).

          Second reallocation: On November 1, any remaining unharvested portion of the harvest guideline is again pooled and reallocated coastwide.
        Alternative 5:  Rejected by the Council
        Alternative 6:  Transfer of Unused Allocations Between Subareas

          Season: January 1 - December 31

          Initial allocation (for 2006 only): On January 1, 40 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 60 percent to the Subarea B (south).

          Reallocation: On September 1, the remaining harvest guideline is pooled and allocated coastwide.
        Transfer Rules For Computing Subsequent-Year Allocations
        After the initial year (2006) these rules dictate the allocations to each subarea in each subsequent year:

          Rule 1: The transfer of a portion of the harvest guideline from one subarea to the other, for the purpose of recomputing allocation percentages for the next year, occurs if the portion of a subarea's allocation remaining uncaught at the end of the year is greater than the transfer limits described in Rule 2.

          Rule 2: If the harvest guideline is greater than 100,000 mt, the transfer amount will be equal to 10 percent of the coastwide harvest guideline for that year. When the coastwide harvest guideline is 100,000 mt or less, the transfer amount will be 5,000 mt.

          Rule 3: The transfer amount is applied to the current-year allocation for each subarea. The resulting numerical values are then converted to percentages of the current-year coastwide harvest guideline and used to determine the initial allocation for the following year.

          Rule 4: No subarea may initially be allocated more than 75 percent of the coastwide harvest guideline.

          Rule 5: The September 1 coastwide reallocation always applies.
        Alternative 7:  Equal Reallocation

          Season: January 1 December 31

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 66 percent to the Subarea B (south).

          Reallocation: On September 1, remaining harvest guideline is pooled and 50 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 50 percent to the Subarea B (south).

          Second Reallocation: On November 1, any remaining unharvested portion of the harvest guideline is again pooled and reallocated coastwide.At the June 2005 Council meeting in Foster City, CA, the Council adopted a preferred option for the allocation of Pacific sardine that creates a seasonal, coastwide allocation scheme.  This preferred alternative is a modified version of Alternative 3, which provides the following allocation formula for the non-tribal share of the harvest guideline: Coastwide Allocation In Three Periods

          Season: January 1 - December 31

          Initial allocation: On January 1, 35 percent of the harvest guideline is allocated coastwide.

          Reallocation: On July 1, 40 percent of the harvest guideline (plus any unharvested portion from the initial allocation) is allocated coastwide.

          Second reallocation: On September 15, 25 percent of the harvest guideline (plus any unharvested portion from the first reallocation) is reallocated coastwide.
        The Council also recommended a review of the allocation formula in 2008.
        Public comments on Amendment 11 must be received by December 27, 2005, to be considered by NMFS in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 11.  A proposed rule to implement Amendment 11 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval.  NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed regulation to implement Amendment 11 in the near future.

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

          Dated:  October 24, 2005.
          Ann M. Lange,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-21561 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 041203341-4341-01; I.D. 072304B]
        RIN 0648-AR86
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications, General Category Effort Controls, and Catch-and-Release Provision

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes initial 2004 fishing year specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery to set BFT quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and to set General category effort controls. NMFS also proposes to establish a catch-and-release provision for recreational and commercial BFT handgear vessels during a respective quota category closure. This action is necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS will hold public hearings to receive comments on these proposed actions.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before January 6, 2005.
          The public hearings dates are:
          1. December 27, 2004, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in Silver Spring, MD.
          2. December 28, 2004, from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Gloucester, MA.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be submitted through any of the following methods:
          • Email: 04BFTSPECS@noaa.gov.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: Brad McHale, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.
          • Fax: 978-281-9340.
          The public hearing locations are:
          1. NOAA Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          2. NOAA/NMFS Northeast Region Downstairs Conference Room, 1 Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brad McHale at (978) 281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA).
        Background
        On May 28, 1998, NMFS published in the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) that were adopted and made available to the public in April 1999.
        In November 2002, ICCAT recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of BFT for the United States in the western Atlantic management area of 1,489.6 metric tons (mt), effective beginning in 2003 and continuing in subsequent fishing years until revised by ICCAT. Also in the 2002 recommendation, ICCAT allocated 25 mt annually to account for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline fisheries directed on other species “in the vicinity of the management boundary area.” This area was defined in the 2003 BFT annual specification rulemaking process as the Northeast Distant statistical area (NED) (68 FR 56783, October 2, 2003). The TAC of 1,489.6 mt is inclusive of the annual 25 mt pelagic longline set-aside in the NED. The initial specifications within this proposed rule are published in accordance with the HMS FMP and are necessary to implement the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, as required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This proposed rule would (1) establish initial quota specifications consistent with the BFT rebuilding program as set forth in the HMS FMP by allocating the 2002 ICCAT-recommended quota for the 2004 fishing year (June 1, 2004 - May 31, 2005); (2) establish the General category effort controls, including time-period subquotas and restricted fishing days (RFDs), for the 2004 fishing season; and (3) establish a catch-and-release provision for recreational and commercial handgear vessels once their respective quota categories have been closed.

        After consideration of public comment, NMFS will issue final initial quota specifications and effort controls and publish them in the Federal Register, along with NMFS' response to those comments. The specifications and effort controls may subsequently be adjusted during the course of the fishing year, consistent with the provisions of the HMS FMP, and will be published in the Federal Register.

        NMFS acknowledges that a number of other issues regarding the domestic management of BFT have been discussed over the prior year, including a Petition for Rulemaking, at the 2003 HMS Advisory Panel (AP) meeting held in Silver Spring, MD and at public scoping hearings relating to Amendment 2 of the HMS FMP. Some of these issues have been addressed in separate rulemakings. For instance, at the end of 2003, a final rule was published (68 FR 74504, December 24, 2003) that (1) extended the General category season from December 31 to January 31, (2) established a Harpoon category end date of November 15 (or when the quota is reached, whichever comes first), (3) adjusted the Harpoon category tolerance limits for large medium BFT, and (4) adjusted the Purse seine category opening date and large medium BFT tolerance limits. Some additional issues may be addressed in Amendment 2 to the HMS FMP or in other future rulemaking. These issues may include, but are not limited to, adjustment of domestic quota allocation percentages and General category time-period subquotas and addressing concerns raised in the Petition for Rulemaking submitted by the North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries (see Notice of Receipt of Petition, 67 FR 69502, November 18, 2002).

        NMFS has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives for each of the three major issues contained in this proposed rule. The complete list of alternatives and their analysis is provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, and is not repeated here in its entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Domestic Quota Allocation
        The HMS FMP and its implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for the domestic fishing categories. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that NMFS developed over several years. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the HMS FMP for fishing years beginning June 1, 1999, to the present are as follows: General category - 47.1 percent; Harpoon category - 3.9 percent; Purse seine category - 18.6 percent; Angling category - 19.7 percent; Longline category - 8.1 percent; Trap category - 0.1 percent; and Reserve category - 2.5 percent. The 2002 ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT quota of 1,464.6 mt, not including the annual 25 mt set aside for pelagic longline vessels, would be allocated in accordance with these percentages. However, in addition to the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, quota allocations are adjusted based on overharvest or underharvest from prior fishing year's activity and on U.S. data on dead discards as they relate to the ICCAT dead discard allowance. Each of these adjustments is discussed below and then applied to the results of the above percentage shares to determine the 2004 fishing year proposed initial quota specifications.
        The 2003 Underharvest/Overharvest
        The current ICCAT BFT quota recommendation allows, and U.S. regulations require, the addition or subtraction, as appropriate, of any underharvest or overharvest in a fishing year to the following fishing year, provided that the total of the adjusted category quotas does not result in overharvest of the total annual BFT quota and remains consistent with all applicable ICCAT recommendations, including restrictions on landings of school BFT. Therefore, NMFS proposes to adjust the 2004 fishing year quota specifications for the BFT fishery to account for underharvest or overharvest in the 2003 fishing year, which in turn were adjusted due to revised information on 2002 fishing year underharvests and overharvests.

        Overall U.S. landings figures for the 2002 and 2003 fishing years are still preliminary and may be updated before the 2004 fishing year specifications are finalized. Should adjustments to the final initial 2004 BFT quota specifications be required based on final 2002 and/or 2003 BFT landing figures, NMFS will publish the adjustments in the Federal Register. For the 2003 fishing year, NMFS has preliminarily determined that General category landings were higher than the adjusted General category quota by approximately 30.8 mt; that Harpoon category landings were less than the adjusted Harpoon category quota by approximately 24.3 mt; that Longline category landings were less than the adjusted Longline category quota by approximately 27.6 mt; that 2003 Angling category landing estimates, inclusive of revised 2002 fishing year Angling category landing estimates, were in excess of the adjusted Angling category quota by approximately 440.7 mt; and that Purse seine category landings were less than the adjusted Purse seine category quota by approximately 117.0 mt. Regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(9)(i) require that Purse seine category underharvests or overharvests be subtracted from or added to each individual vessel's quota allocation, as appropriate. Based on the estimated amount of Reserve that NMFS maintains for the landing of BFT taken during ongoing scientific research projects and/or potential overharvests in certain categories, NMFS estimates that 209.8 mt of Reserve remains from the 2003 fishing year. This remaining Reserve quota will be used to partially address the Angling category overharvest. For categories with under or overharvests from the 2003 fishing year, these initial specifications will subtract the overharvest from, or add the underharvest to, that quota category for the 2004 fishing year.
        Dead Discards
        As part of the BFT rebuilding program, ICCAT recommends an allowance for dead discards. The U.S. dead discard allowance is 68 mt. The estimate for the 2003 calendar year was used as a proxy to calculate the amount to be added to, or subtracted from, the U.S. BFT landings quota for 2004. The 2003 calendar year preliminary estimate of U.S. dead discards, as reported per the longline discards calculated from logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted when observer counts in quarterly/geographic stratum exceeded logbook reports, totaled 52.4 mt. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time, and thus, are not included in this calculation. As U.S. fishing activity is estimated to have resulted in fewer dead discards than its allowance, the ICCAT recommendation and U.S. regulations state that the United States may add one half of the difference between the amount of dead discards and the allowance (i.e., 68.0 mt   52.4 mt = 15.6 mt, 15.6 mt/2 = 7.8 mt) to its total allowed landings for the following fishing year, to individual fishing categories, or to the Reserve category. NMFS proposes to allocate the 7.8 mt to the Reserve category quota to assist in covering potential overharvests from the previous fishing years.
        The 2002 calendar year preliminary dead discard estimate, as reported in pelagic longline vessel logbooks and published in 2003 Final Initial Quota Specifications (68 FR 56783, October 2, 2003), totaled 38.0 mt. This preliminary estimate has been revised using the longline discards calculated from logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted when observer counts in stratum exceeded logbook reports. The revised 2002 calendar year dead discard estimate is 41.6 mt.
        2004 Proposed Initial Quota Specifications

        In accordance with the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, the ICCAT recommendation regarding the dead discard allowance, the HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(9)(ii), NMFS proposes initial quota specifications for the 2004 fishing year as follows: General category - 659.0 mt; Harpoon category - 81.4 mt; Purse Seine category - 389.4 mt; Angling category - 65.5 mt; Longline category - 171.2 mt; and Trap category - 2.3 mt. Additionally, 36.6 mt would be allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, including providing for a late season General category fishery, or allocated to cover scientific research collection and potential overharvest in any category except the Purse seine category.
        Based on the above proposed initial specifications, the Angling category quota of 65.5 mt would be further subdivided as follows: School BFT   21.0 mt, with 8.1 mt to the northern area (north of 39°18′ N. latitude), 9.1 mt to the southern area (south of 39°18′ N. latitude), plus 3.8 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT - 42.7 mt, with 20.2 mt to the northern area and 22.5 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT - 1.8 mt, with 0.6 mt to the northern area and 1.2 mt to the southern area.
        The 2002 ICCAT recommendation includes an annual 25 mt set-aside quota to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary and referred to as the NED hereafter. This set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance to the North/South allocation percentages mentioned below. Thus, the proposed Longline category quota of 171.2 mt would be subdivided as follows: 58.2 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude and 63.8 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude, and 49.2 mt (24.2 mt from 2003 + 25.0 mt for 2004) to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. The bycatch allocation by ICCAT for pelagic longline vessels in the NED would be allocated to the Longline north subcategory. Accounting for landings under this additional quota would be maintained separately from other landings under the Longline north subcategory. Finally, regulations regarding BFT target catch requirements for pelagic longline vessels within the NED do not apply until the landings equal the available quota (§ 635.23(f)(3)). After the available quota has been landed target catch requirements at § 635.23(f)(1) will then apply.
        General Category Effort Controls
        For the last several years, NMFS has implemented General category time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the entire General category season. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding the allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring.
        The regulations implementing the HMS FMP divide the annual General category quota into three time-period subquotas as follows: 60 percent for June-August, 30 percent for September, and 10 percent for October-January. These percentages would be applied to the adjusted 2004 coastwide quota for the General category of 659.0 mt, minus 10.0 mt reserved for the New York Bight set aside fishery. Therefore, of the available 649.0 mt coastwide quota, 389.4 mt would be available in the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31, 2004; 194.7 mt would be available in the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30, 2004; and 64.9 mt would be available in the period beginning October 1, 2004 and ending January 31, 2005.
        In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also has implemented General category RFDs to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional fine scale inseason flexibility. For the 2004 fishing year, NMFS proposes a series of solid blocks of RFDs to extend the General category for as long as possible through the October through January time-period.
        Therefore, NMFS proposes that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category would be prohibited from fishing, including catch-and-release and tag-and-release, for BFT of all sizes on the following days: all Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays through January 31, 2005, inclusive, while the fishery is open. These proposed RFDs would improve distribution of fishing opportunities without increasing BFT mortality.
        Catch-and-Release Provision
        Prior to 1998, ICCAT designated quotas for BFT harvested in the western Atlantic management area as “scientific monitoring quotas.” Under this designation, after a quota category had closed, NMFS required vessels fishing for BFT to tag-and-release all BFT as a means to collect further scientific monitoring data. In 1998, ICCAT established a rebuilding plan for western Atlantic BFT and no longer referred to BFT quotas as “scientific monitoring quotas.”
        Currently, permitted recreational and commercial BFT handgear vessel owner/operators are required to tag-and-release all BFT that are caught after their respective quota categories have been closed. Therefore, vessel owner/operators are also required to obtain, possess and utilize an approved tagging kit onboard their vessel while engaged in directed BFT fishing after a closure has taken place.
        Over the last few years, NMFS has received comments from the public that vessel owner/operators are not comfortable in tagging-and-releasing BFT due to a combination of their inexperience, and concerns regarding unintentional injury and mortality of a BFT. NMFS also has concerns that the current regulations may lead to unnecessary post-release mortality associated with anglers, who are inexperienced with proper tagging techniques and may improperly place the tag on the BFT, unintentionally killing or injuring the fish. Other commenters have stated that, on occasion, substantial time delays can be experienced in obtaining an approved tagging kit, thus limiting their ability to go fishing for BFT.
        Therefore, NMFS proposes to allow vessels participating in the BFT recreational and commercial handgear fisheries to practice catch-and-release after a quota category has been closed. This proposal would also allow vessel owner/operators to tag-and-release BFT, but would not require them to do so.
        Classification
        This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this proposed rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic HMS fisheries.
        The purpose of this proposed action is to: (1) implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation regarding the BFT quota, by proposing 2004 specifications for the BFT fishery that allocates the quota among domestic fishing categories, including 25 mt of BFT quota to the Longline category, (2) implement General category effort controls, and (3) implement a catch-and-release provision for recreational and commercial BFT handgear vessels.

        NMFS has prepared a RIR and an IRFA that examine the impacts of the selected alternatives discussed previously in this rulemaking. The analysis for the IRFA assesses the impacts of the various alternatives on the vessels that participate in the BFT fisheries, all of which are considered small entities. For the quota allocation alternatives, NMFS has estimated the average impact of the alternatives on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2002 ICCAT recommendation increased the BFT quota allocation to 1,489.6 mt. This increase, in comparison to pre-2002 levels, includes 77.6 mt to be redistributed to the domestic fishing categories based on the allocation percentages established in the HMS FMP, as well as a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental catch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. In 2003, preliminary annual gross revenues from the commercial BFT fishery were approximately $11.5 million. There are approximately 10,914 vessels that are permitted to land and sell BFT under four BFT quota categories. The four quota categories and their preliminary 2003 gross revenues are General ($7,476,461), Harpoon ($772,810), Purse Seine ($2,546,236), and Incidental Longline ($635,498). Note that all dollars have been converted to 1996 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Conversion Factors for comparison purposes. The analysis for the IRFA assumes that all category vessels have similar catch and gross revenues. While this assumption may not be entirely valid, the analyses are sufficient to show the relative impact of the various preferred alternatives on vessels.
        For the allocation of BFT quota among domestic fishing categories, three alternatives were considered: no action, a preferred alternative that would allocate the ICCAT-recommended quota to domestic categories in accordance with the 2002 ICCAT recommendation and the HMS FMP, and a slight variation of the preferred alternative, that includes a 25-mt limit on the amount of quota that can accumulate from year-to-year within the pelagic longline quota set-aside in the NED.
        The no action alternative would not be consistent with the purpose and need for this action, ATCA, and the HMS FMP. It would maintain U.S. BFT quota levels at a scale and distribution similar to the 2002 fishing year and would deny fishermen additional fishing opportunities as recommended by the ICCAT, an estimated $1,000,000 in potential, additional gross revenues. The 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation specified a 1,489.6 mt total quota for the United States, a 102.6 mt increase from pre-2002 quota levels. Under ATCA, the United States is obligated to implement ICCAT-approved recommendations. The preferred alternative would increase the overall quota by 77.6 mt resulting in an approximate increase in gross revenues of $750,000, and would also create a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental harvest of BFT in the NED by pelagic longline vessels, resulting in a potential increase in gross revenues of $250,000. Unharvested quota from this set aside would be allowed to roll from one fishing year to the next. The preferred alternative is expected to have positive economic impacts for fishermen, because of the modest increase in quota. Under the slight variation of the preferred alternative, the annual specification process would limit the NED set-aside to 25 mt and would not take into account any unharvested set-aside quota from the prior fishing year. Unharvested quota would not be rolled over from the previous fishing year, nor would it be transferred or allocated to other domestic fishing categories. This alternative is also expected to have overall positive economic impacts for fishermen due to the increase in gross revenues associate with the 77.6 mt quota increase.
        For the General category effort controls, two alternatives were considered: The preferred alternative to designate RFDs according to a schedule published in the initial BFT specifications and the no action alternative (no RFDs published with the initial specifications, but implemented during the season as needed). In the past, when catch rates have been high, series of solid blocks of RFDs, the preferred alternative, has had positive economic consequences by avoiding market gluts and extending the season as late as possible. Implementing RFDs to assist a late season fishery would have positive economic impacts to those south Atlantic fishermen, but could have potentially negative economic impacts to those northern area fishermen who would have otherwise caught and sold fish earlier in the season. However, these adverse impacts would be slightly mitigated if northern area fishermen are willing to travel south late in the season. Overall, extending the season as late as possible would enhance the likelihood of increasing participation by southern area fishermen and access to the fishery over a greater range of the fish migration.
        The no action alternative, would not implement any RFDs with publication of the initial specifications but rather would use inseason management authority established in the HMS FMP to implement RFDs during the season should catch rates increase. This alternative is based on a season of low catch rates and would have positive economic consequences if slow catch rates were to persist. Overall, the season would regulate itself and fishermen could choose when to fish or not based on their own preferences. However, even with low catch rates and no RFDs, it is unlikely that there will be enough quota in the General category to sustain a late season commercial handgear fishery off south Atlantic states especially now that the General category is extended through January. Thus, if the 2004 season should be similar to the 2003 fishery, there may be negative economic impacts to fishermen in southern states unless inseason management actions (similar to those in 2003, i.e., inseason transfers) are taken to directly address these concerns and potential impacts.
        For the catch-and-release provision, NMFS considered three alternatives: No action (maintain the tag-and-release requirement once a handgear quota category has been closed), disallow all fishing for BFT once a handgear quota category has been closed, and the preferred alternative to allow vessels to catch-and-release BFT once a handgear quota category has been closed.
        Although NMFS believes that recreational HMS fisheries have a large influence on the economies of coastal communities, even when vessels are engaged in tag-and-release or catch-and-release fishing, NMFS has little current information on the costs and expenditures of anglers or the businesses that rely on them. Based on conversations with representatives of the handgear sectors of the BFT fishery, NMFS has assessed that the no action alternative would have slightly negative economic impacts. This assessment is attributed to vessel owner/operators, who are not comfortable tagging BFT, or those owner/operators who are unable to obtain a tagging kit in a timely fashion, not taking trips to pursue BFT. The second alternative would have even greater negative economic impacts by prohibiting vessels from taking trips targeting BFT after a quota is attained. The preferred alternative would have positive economic impacts on those associated with the BFT handgear fishery. This alternative, would positively impact numerous economic aspects of the BFT handgear fishery due to the willingness of more vessel owner/operators to actively take trips targeting BFT after a closure has taken place. This alternative would also allow for the tagging of BFT, but would not require owner/operators to do so.

        None of the proposed alternatives in this document would result in additional reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, or monitoring requirements for the public. This proposed rule has also been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

        NMFS prepared a draft EA for this proposed rule, and the AA has preliminarily concluded that there would be no significant impact on the human environment if this proposed rule were implemented. The EA presents analyses of the anticipated impacts of these proposed regulations and the alternatives considered. A copy of the EA and other analytical documents prepared for this proposed rule, are available from NMFS via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule contains no new collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        On September 7, 2000, NOAA Fisheries reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued June 14, 2001, concluded that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea turtle species under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction. NOAA Fisheries has implemented the reasonable and prudent alternatives required by this BiOp. This BiOp also concluded that the continued operation of the purse seine and handgear fisheries may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction. NOAA Fisheries has implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) required by this BiOp.
        Subsequently, based on the management measures in several proposed rules, a new BiOp on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was issued on June 1, 2004. The 2004 BiOp found that the continued operation of the fishery was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles. The 2004 BiOp identified RPAs necessary to avoid jeopardizing leatherbacks, and listed the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions necessary to authorize continued take as part of the revised incidental take statement. On July 6, 2004, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule (69 FR 40734) implementing additional sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality mitigation measures for all Atlantic vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard. NOAA Fisheries is implementing the other RPMs in compliance with the 2004 BiOp. On August 12, 2004, NOAA Fisheries published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 49858) to request comments on potential regulatory changes to further reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of sea turtles, as well as comments on the feasibility of framework mechanisms to address unanticipated increases in sea turtle interactions and mortalities, should they occur. NOAA Fisheries will undertake additional rulemaking and non-regulatory actions, as required, to implement any management measures that are required under the 2004 BiOp. The majority of the measures that will be implemented by this current rule are not expected to have adverse impacts. However, the 2002 ICCAT recommendation increased the BFT quota which may result in a slight increase in effort which could potentially increase the number of protected species interactions. Due to current restrictions on the BFT fishery and more specifically the pelagic longline fishery, NOAA Fisheries does not expect this slight increase in effort to alter current fishing patterns.
        The area in which this proposed action is planned has been identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for species managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the HMS Management Division of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries at NMFS. It is not anticipated that this action will have any adverse impacts to EFH and, therefore, no consultation is required.
        NMFS has determined that the list of actions in this proposed rule are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the coastal states in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean that have Federally approved coastal zone management programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The proposed rule establishing quota specifications and effort controls will be submitted to the responsible state agencies for their review under section 307 of the CZMA.-
          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics, Treaties.

          Dated: December 6, 2004.
          Rebecca J. Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

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

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

        2. In § 635.23, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(4) are revised to read as follows:

          § 635.23
          Retention limits for BFT.

          (a) * * *

          (2) On an RFD, no person aboard a vessel that has been issued a General category Atlantic Tunas permit may fish for, possess, retain, land, or sell a BFT of any size class, and catch-and-release or tag-and-release fishing for BFT under § 635.26 is not authorized from such vessel. On days other than RFDs, and when the General category is open, one large medium or giant BFT may be caught and landed from such vessel per day. NMFS will annually publish a schedule of RFDs in the Federal Register.

          (4) To provide for maximum utilization of the quota for BFT, NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range from zero (on RFDs) to a maximum of three per vessel. Such increase or decrease will be based on a review of dealer reports, daily landing trends, availability of the species on the fishing grounds, and any other relevant factors. NMFS will adjust the daily retention limit specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section by filing with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of the adjustment. Such adjustment will not be effective until at least 3 calendar days after notification is filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication, except that previously designated RFDs may be waived effective upon closure of the General category fishery so that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category may conduct catch-and-release or tag-and-release fishing for BFT under § 635.26.

        3. In § 635.26, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

          § 635.26
          Catch and release.
          (a) * * *
          (1) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this part, a person aboard a vessel issued a permit under this part, other than a person aboard a vessel permitted in the General category on a designated RFD, may fish with rod and reel or handline gear for BFT under a catch-and-release or tag-and-release program.  When fishing under a tag-and-release program, vessel owner/operators should use tags issued or approved by NMFS. If a BFT is tagged, the tag information, including information on any previously applied tag remaining on the fish, must be reported to NMFS. All BFT caught under the catch-and-release or tag-and-release programs must be returned to the sea immediately with a minimum of injury.

      [FR Doc. 04-27166 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 120510052-3174-01]
        RIN 0648-BC20
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Parrotfish Management Measures in St. Croix

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (FMP), as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would establish minimum size limits for parrotfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The intent of this proposed rule is to provide additional protection from harvest to maturing parrotfish and to assist the stock in achieving optimum yield (OY).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 10, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0009”, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0009, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Britni Tokotch, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and a regulatory impact review may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/CaribbeanReefFish.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Britni Tokotch, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone 727-824-5305; email: Britni.Tokotch@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI is managed under the FMP, which was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

        Background
        In the 2011 Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, Caribbean parrotfish were classified as undergoing overfishing. Parrotfish perform an important ecological function on U.S. Caribbean coral reefs: They graze on algae, which competes for space with a variety of coral species. This ecological role has become more relevant in the past 30 years as the longspine sea urchin, another important coral reef grazer, has declined in population throughout the Caribbean. Additionally, parrotfish are considered a cultural component of the U.S. Caribbean diet, particularly in St. Croix, where they are a targeted species.
        To maintain the viability of the parrotfish stock, an adequate number of juvenile parrotfish must achieve maturity and spawn prior to being harvested. In the absence of minimum size limits, substantial numbers of immature parrotfish will likely be harvested, eliminating the potential of those fish to reach maturity and spawn.
        Within the Caribbean reef fish fishery, the parrotfish fishery management unit is composed of 10 species: blue, midnight, rainbow, princess, queen, redfin, redtail, stoplight, striped, and redband parrotfish. Amendment 5 to the FMP (Amendment 5)(76 FR 82404, December 30, 2011), prohibited the harvest of midnight, blue, and rainbow parrotfish, and established recreational bag and possession limits for the other parrotfish species. Additionally, Amendment 5 set annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for three island management areas: Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John (USVI), and St. Croix (USVI).
        Management Measure Contained in this Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would establish minimum size limits for parrotfish species in the EEZ off St. Croix. These limits would apply to both the commercial and recreational sectors. This rule would establish a minimum size limit of 8 inches (20.3 cm), fork length, for redband parrotfish and 9 inches (22.9 cm), fork length, for all other parrotfish. The current harvest prohibition for midnight, blue, and rainbow parrotfish would remain in effect.
        The Council and NMFS are proposing a minimum size limit of 9 inches (22.9 cm) for all but one of the parrotfish species for which harvest is allowed, because this size limit best captures the range of sizes at maturity for these species. The Council and NMFS are proposing a minimum size limit of 8 inches (20.3 cm) for redband parrotfish because they are relatively smaller fish and they reach maturity at a smaller size than the other managed parrotfish species. A minimum size limit would reduce reduce mortality of smaller (generally female) parrotfish, thereby enhancing spawning biomass and the supply of gametes (especially eggs), and ultimately increasing yield-per-recruit from the stock (assuming discard mortality is low). Parrotfish discard mortality is assumed to be low because spears are the predominant gear used to harvest parrotfish and therefore the fish are individually targeted. In addition, discard mortality of parrotfish harvested by trap is expected to be low because parrotfish are harvested in relatively shallow waters, thus reducing the threat of barotrauma related mortality. A minimum size limit also reduces the likelihood of recruitment overfishing that might otherwise lead to a stock biomass level below maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, this proposed rule would set a size limit to increase the number of juvenile parrotfish that can reach sexual maturity and assist the stock in achieving OY.
        The Council chose not to establish minimum size limits for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John island management areas in the U.S. Caribbean because parrotfish harvest in those areas is substantially lower than in St. Croix. St. Croix parrotfish harvest represents 36.4 percent of the total combined St. Croix commercial ACL (all St. Croix commercial ACLs), in pounds. The recreational harvest of parrotfish in St. Croix and in St. Thomas/St. John is unknown. In Puerto Rico, parrotfish comprise 3.5 percent and 2.3 percent total combined of the Puerto Rico recreational and commercial ACLs, in pounds, respectively. In St. Thomas/St. John, parrotfish comprise 7.2 percent of the total combined commercial ACL, in pounds.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, the regulatory amendment, 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 prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, for this rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for the 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.
        The purpose of this rule is to provide protection from harvest to maturing parrotfish in the EEZ off St. Croix. The parrotfish management unit in the U.S. Caribbean is composed of multiple species. Together, these species represent an ecologically, culturally, and economically important group, particularly on the island of St. Croix where they support a targeted fishery for both the commercial and recreational sectors, in both the EEZ and territorial waters. The commercial and recreational minimum size limits are necessary for the St. Croix island management unit because without minimum size limits, substantial numbers of immature parrotfish may be harvested, thus eliminating individuals before they have a chance to reproduce.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed action. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        The rule would apply directly to licensed commercial fishermen in the Finfish Fishing Industry (NAICS 114111) and indirectly to for-hire operations in the Charter Fishing Industry (NAICS 487210) that harvest seven parrotfish species (princess, queen, redfin, redtail, redband, stoplight, and striped) within the EEZ off St. Croix, USVI.
        An estimated 142 of St. Croix's 177 small businesses in the Finfish Fishing Industry are expected to be affected by this proposed rule. None of the three small businesses in the Charter Fishing Industry are expected to be affected because for-hire fishing boats in the U.S. Caribbean tend to target pelagic species and other sport fish, not parrotfish.
        This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements. This rule would require small businesses in the Finfish Fishing Industry to measure parrotfish and discard those that are under their respective minimum size limit. Three scenarios are presented to illustrate the range of adverse economic impacts on these small businesses.

        In the first scenario, small businesses are assumed to be currently catching and landing larger parrotfish in reaction to the ACL established for parrotfish off St. Croix (76 FR 82404, December 30, 2011), and rarely, if at all, catching parrotfish less than the proposed minimum size limits. If true, the establishment of an 8 inch (20.3 cm) minimum size limit for redband parrotfish and a 9 inch (22.9 cm) minimum size limit for all other allowable parrotfish would have little to no adverse economic impact beyond the estimated $5 to $10 cost of acquiring a measuring tool and an additional small amount of time (estimated 4-5 seconds) to measure a smaller sized parrotfish.
        The second scenario assumes small businesses have not changed their catch patterns because of the St. Croix parrotfish ACL and cannot mitigate for losses of landings due to discarded and not speared undersized parrotfish. If true, the proposed implementation of parrotfish minimum size limits for St. Croix would result in an estimated annual loss of parrotfish landings between 960 lb (435 kg) and 13,920 lb (6,314 kg). If the average ex-vessel price of a parrotfish is estimated as high as $5 per pound, then annual revenue losses to all small businesses would be between $4,800 and $69,600. Added to these revenue losses would be the additional time needed to measure every parrotfish that was caught in traps, nets or lines, which would increase trip time and trip-associated costs. Also, there would be the additional time for divers to visually measure every parrotfish that could be speared, which would increase trip time and trip-associated costs. These combined losses of revenue and added time and trip costs would not be distributed equally. Because pot-and-trap fishermen have landed the greatest percent of smaller parrotfish, small businesses that use pots and traps would experience the greatest percent losses of revenues and greatest increase in fishing time and trip costs.
        A third and final scenario expects small businesses would act to mitigate for losses of commercial landings caused by the establishment of parrotfish minimum size limits in St. Croix by increasing fishing time to catch enough legally sized parrotfish, or other species, to offset pounds discarded in undersized parrotfish. It is expected that the ability of small businesses to increase their time on, or in the water, and associated costs of that time varies significantly, depending on the commercial fisher's personal and family responsibilities, including if they are engaged in full-time or part-time wage labor or not. It is unknown if such a disproportionate adverse impact on pot-and-trap fishermen could also represent a disproportionate adverse impact on St. Croix's small businesses of a specific geographic area or business size or by the ethnicity, age, or race of the owner of the business.
        The status quo alternative (no setting of a parrotfish minimum size limit) was considered but rejected by the Council because it would allow for continued harvest of juvenile parrotfish in St. Croix before they can reach sexual maturity, which increases the risk of an inferior (less productive) stock and reduced revenues from parrotfish landings in the long term.
        In summary, the proposed rule, if implemented, would likely have a significantly larger adverse economic impact on St. Croix pot-and-trap and other non-diving fishermen because a larger percentage of their historical catches are composed of smaller parrotfish. The proposed action may drive pot-and-trap and other non-diving commercial fishermen out of the parrotfish component of the reef fish fishery. Moreover, the economic impact of this rule cannot be considered in isolation. It would add to the adverse economic impacts of the recently implemented St. Croix Parrotfish ACL (76 FR 82404, December 30, 2011), which is expected to reduce non-diving fishermen's historical shares of annual landings of parrotfish.
        This proposed rule would not be expected to directly affect any other small entities.

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

          Dated: March 5, 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 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

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

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

        2. In § 622.37, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.37
          Size limits.

          (a) Caribbean reef fish: (1) Yellowtail snapper—12 inches (30.5 cm), TL.
          (2) Parrotfishes, except redband parrotfish, in the St. Croix Management Area only (as defined in Table 2 of Appendix E to Part 622)—9 inches (22.9 cm), fork length. See § 622.32(b)(1)(v) for the current prohibition on the harvest and possession of midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, or rainbow parrotfish.
          (3) Redband parrotfish, in the St. Croix Management Area only (as defined in Table 2 of Appendix E to Part 622)—8 inches (20.3 cm), fork length.

      [FR Doc. 2013-05538 Filed 3-8-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P