        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 190802-0010]
        RIN 0648-BI93
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 14

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes modifications to aspects of the commercial and recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass management program, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. NMFS proposes these management measure adjustments to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of this action is to allow for more flexibility in the management of these species.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by September 9, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0049, by either 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-2019-0049,

          • Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields
          • Enter or attach your comments.

        OR

          Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

          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).

        An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, and provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the EA are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at http://www.mafmc.org/s/SFSBSB_Framework14_EA.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        General Background

        The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N lat. (the approximate latitude of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). States manage these three species within 3 nautical miles (4.83 km) of their coasts, under the Commission's management plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The applicable species-specific Federal regulations govern vessels and individual fishermen commercially fishing in Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone, as well as vessels possessing a summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass Federal charter/party vessel permit, regardless of where they fish. This rule proposes management measures intended to provide more flexibility in the commercial and recreational fisheries for these species and includes the following modifications to the FMP:
        • Include conservation equivalency as an annual management consideration for the black sea bass recreational fishery;
        • Create a Federal waters transit zone for non-federally permitted vessels fishing in state waters around Block Island Sound; and
        • Incorporate a maximum recreational size limit in the list of potential specification measures for summer flounder and black sea bass.
        These measures, which are further explained below, are consistent with the recommendations of the Council and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board for this action.
        Proposed Management Measures
        Black Sea Bass Conservation Equivalency
        This action proposes to allow conservation equivalency for future use in the recreational black sea bass fishery based on the process currently used for summer flounder. Under conservation equivalency, the Council and Board would decide each year whether to use Federal coastwide measures or conservation equivalency to manage the recreational black sea bass fishery. Conservation equivalency would waive Federal measures so long as the states implement appropriate measures. If they agree to use conservation equivalency, they must also develop a set of non-preferred coastwide measures (minimum and/or maximum fish size limit, possession limit, and season) that would be expected to prevent harvest from exceeding the annual recreational harvest limit. The Council and Board must also recommend a suite of precautionary default measures that would apply to all recreational anglers and Federal party/charter permit holders fishing in Federal waters and landing black sea bass in states that do not develop and implement Commission-approved conservationally equivalent measures.

        If the Council and Board agree to use conservation equivalency in a given year, the Board would determine the states' management program to implement conservation equivalency for black sea bass in any given year through a separate action. After reviewing and approving the state/regional proposals, the Commission would submit a letter to us certifying that the combination of state and regional measures is expected to prevent black sea bass harvest from exceeding that year's recreational harvest limit. Based on the Commission's certification, we would be able to approve conservation equivalency and waive Federal measures for the remainder of the calendar year in favor of the state or regional conservation equivalency measures. Federally-permitted vessels and vessels fishing in Federal waters would then be subject to the regulations in the states where they land their catch. If the Commission submits a letter to us announcing that a state or states have not implemented appropriate measures, the state(s) would be required to implement precautionary default measures in state waters through the Commission, and we would similarly apply those precautionary default measures to recreational anglers and Federal party/charter permit holders landing black sea bass in applicable states. If a state or region implements measures which are not approved, the Commission would require the precautionary default measures to be enforced in that state or region and would request NMFS to apply those measures to recreational anglers and federally permitted party/charter vessels fishing in Federal waters and landing black sea bass in those states as well. Table 1 outlines the conservation equivalency timeline for management decisions, based on the current process for summer flounder. Non-preferred coastwide measures would be implemented (1) if we do not approve conservation equivalency, or (2) at the start of the next fishing year (i.e., when conservation equivalency for a given year has expired).

          Table 1—Approximate Timeline for Implementing Conservation Equivalency

              August:

            • Council recommends the recreational harvest limit to NMFS. Board takes final action on recreational harvest limit for state waters.

              October:

            • Preliminary Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) data for waves 1-4 (i.e., January-August) of the current year are available.

              November:

            • Monitoring Committee reviews MRIP data through wave 4 and recommends overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed and use of coastwide measures or conservation equivalency (including non-preferred coastwide and precautionary default measures).

              December:

            • Council/Board recommend conservation equivalency or coastwide measures for the following year. If they select conservation equivalency, they also recommend non-preferred coastwide and precautionary default measures.

            • NMFS publishes final rule announcing subsequent year's recreational harvest limit.

            If conservation equivalency is recommended
            If coastwide measures are recommended

              January:

              February/March:

            • States/regions submit conservation equivalency proposals to Commission staff.
            • Council staff submits recreational measure package to NMFS. Package includes:

            • Technical Committee evaluates proposals.
            ○ Overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed; and

              February:

            ○ Coastwide measures.

            • Board reviews and approves/disapproves proposals.

              April:

              February/March:
              • Council staff submits recreational measure package to NMFS. Package includes:
              ○ Overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed;
              ○ Non-preferred coastwide and precautionary default measures; and
              ○ Recommendation to implement conservation equivalency.

            • NMFS publishes proposed rule for recreational measures announcing the overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed and coastwide measures.
                May:

              • NMFS publishes final rule announcing overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed and approval of conservation equivalency; or coastwide measures.

              April:

            • NMFS publishes proposed rule for recreational measures announcing the overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed and the non-preferred coastwide and precautionary default measures.

            • Board submits letter to NMFS certifying that the combination of state/regional measures is not expected to result in harvest exceeding the recreational harvest limit.

              May:

            • NMFS publishes final rule announcing overall percent reduction required or liberalization allowed and coastwide measures.

        Block Island Sound Transit Zone
        This action also proposes a transit area for state-only permitted vessels fishing around Block Island to address issues when Federal and state management measures differ. The transit zone would mirror the current transit area for striped bass and allow for transit by state-only permitted commercial and party/charter vessels and private recreational anglers with summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass on board that were legally harvested in state waters (Figure 1). These vessels could transit between the Rhode Island state waters surrounding Block Island and the coastal state waters of Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, or Massachusetts while complying with the state waters measures for those species. Transit through the defined area would be allowed, provided that fishermen and harvest are compliant with all applicable state regulations, gear is stowed in accordance with Federal regulations, no fishing takes place from the vessel while in Federal waters, and the vessel is in continuous transit.
        This transit provision does not apply to federally permitted vessels. There would be no change to current Federal regulations requiring all federally permitted vessels to abide by the measures of the state(s) in which they harvest or land their catch, or the Federal waters measures, whichever are more restrictive.

          EP08AU19.028

        Inclusion of Maximum Size Limit
        Although the states are able to set a maximum size limit for fish caught in state waters, only a minimum size can be specified in the current Federal regulations. By including a maximum size, the Council could recommend both a minimum and maximum recreational size limit to allow for consideration of regular slot limits, split slot limits, and trophy fish when setting recreational measures each year. The proposed measure would only be for summer flounder and black sea bass. The Commission already has the flexibility to develop slot limits in state waters. This measure does not make any immediate adjustments to any current Federal recreational measures, but would add flexibility in specifying recreational management measures and would allow for future consideration by the Council.
        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 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The Council reviewed the proposed regulations for this action and deemed them necessary and appropriate to implement consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures. According to the commercial ownership database, 869 for-hire affiliate firms generated revenues from recreational fishing for various species during the 2015-2017 period. All of those business affiliates are categorized as small businesses. A similar affiliate database is not available for non-federally permitted vessels. As previously stated, the transit provision for Block Island Sound applies only to non-federally permitted commercial and recreational vessels. The number of commercial and recreational affiliates which are legally authorized to fish in Rhode Island state waters and do not hold Federal commercial or party/charter permits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass has not been assessed. However, based on the federally permitted recreational fishing fleet, it is expected that most, if not all, of these entities would be classified as small businesses.
        This action would include conservation equivalency as an annual management consideration for the black sea bass fishery, incorporate a maximum recreational size limit in the list of potential specifications measures for summer flounder and black sea bass, and create a Federal water transit area for non-federally permitted vessels fishing in state waters around Block Island Sound. The first two management measures are administrative in nature and make no immediate changes to the fisheries, but are expected to result in increased angler satisfaction by allowing for consistency of measures in state and Federal waters. If the Council and Board utilize these provisions when setting recreational specifciations in the future, those impacts will be evaluated. The last management measure, which would allow non-federally permitted recreational and commercial vessels to transit a defined area in Block Island Sound while complying with the state regulations for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, only applies to state-only permitted vessels and does not impact federally permitted vessels. This transit area would likely result in a slight increase in fishing activity in Rhode Island state waters around Block Island by state-only permitted commercial and recreational vessels, but landings will still be constrained by annual harvest limits.
        Because this action would either implement administrative measures or allow for a slight increase in fishing opportunities and revenues, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in this action.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 8, 2019.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.14, revise paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (o)(1) introductory text, (p)(1) introductory text, (p)(1)(i) and (v), and (p)(2) introductory text, to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (n) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) Permit requirement. Possess summer flounder in or harvested from the EEZ, either in excess of the possession limit specified in § 648.106, or before or after the time period specified in § 648.105, unless the vessel was issued a summer flounder moratorium permit and the moratorium permit is on board the vessel and has not been surrendered, revoked, or suspended. However, possession of summer flounder harvested from state waters is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.111.

          (o) * * *
          (1) All persons. Unless a vessel is participating in a research activity as described in § 648.122(e) or unless a vessel has no Federal scup permit, possesses scup caught exclusively in state waters, and is transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area in accordance with the provisions at § 648.131, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:

          (p) * * *
          (1) All persons. Unless participating in a research activity as described in § 648.142(e), it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
          (i) Permit requirement. Possess black sea bass in or harvested from the EEZ north of 35°15.3′ N lat., either in excess of the possession limit established pursuant to § 648.145, or before or after the time period established pursuant to § 648.146, unless the person is operating a vessel issued a moratorium permit under § 648.4 and the moratorium permit is on board the vessel. However, possession of black sea bass harvested from state waters is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.151.

          (v) Size limits. Fish for, possess, land, or retain black sea bass in or from the EEZ that does not comply with the minimum or maximum (as applicable) fish size specified in § 648.147.

          (2) Vessel and operator permit holders. Unless participating in a research activity as described in § 648.142(e), it is unlawful for any person owning or operating a vessel issued a black sea bass permit (including a moratorium permit) to do any of the following:

        3. In § 648.102, revise paragraphs (a)(7), and (d)(2)(ii) through (iv) to read as follows:

          § 648.102
          Summer flounder specifications.
          (a) * * *
          (7) Recreational minimum and/or maximum fish size.

          (d) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (ii) The ASMFC will review conservation equivalency proposals and determine whether or not they achieve the necessary adjustment to recreational landings. The ASMFC will provide the Regional Administrator with the individual state and/or multi-state region conservation measures for the approved state and/or multi-state region proposals and, in the case of disapproved state and/or multi-state region proposals, the precautionary default measures that should be applied to a state or region. At the request of the ASMFC, precautionary default measures would apply to federally permitted party/charter vessels and other recreational fishing vessels harvesting summer flounder in or from the EEZ when landing in a state that implements measures not approved by the ASMFC.

          (iii) After considering public comment, the Regional Administrator will publish a final rule in the Federal Register to implement either the state specific conservation equivalency measures or coastwide measures to ensure that the applicable specified target is not exceeded.

          (iv) The ASMFC may allow states assigned the precautionary default measures to resubmit revised management measures. The ASMFC will detail the procedures by which the state can develop alternate measures. The ASMFC will notify the Regional Administrator of any resubmitted state proposals approved subsequent to publication of the final rule and the Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register to notify the public.

        4. In § 648.104, revise the section heading and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

          § 648.104
           Summer flounder size requirements.

          (b) Party/charter permitted vessels and recreational fishery participants. The minimum size for summer flounder is 19 inches (48.3 cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3), and charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members, or party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members, unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalency regulations at § 648.107. If conservation equivalency is not in effect in any given year, possession of smaller (or larger, if applicable) summer flounder harvested from state waters is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.111 and abide by state regulations.

          (c) The size limits in this section apply to whole fish or to any part of a fish found in possession, e.g., fillets, except that party and charter vessels possessing valid state permits authorizing filleting at sea may possess fillets smaller than the size specified if all state requirements are met.

        5. Revise § 648.105 to read as follows:

          § 648.105
           Summer flounder recreational fishing season.
          No person may fish for summer flounder in the EEZ from May 15 through September 15 unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a commercial summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit, or unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalency measures at § 648.107. Persons aboard a commercial vessel that is not eligible for a summer flounder moratorium permit are subject to this recreational fishing season. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102. Possession of summer flounder harvested from state waters during this time is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.111 and abide by state regulations.

         6. In § 648.106, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 648.106
           Summer flounder possession restrictions.
          (a) Party/charter and recreational possession limits. No person shall possess more than four summer flounder in, or harvested from, the EEZ, per trip unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit, or unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalency measures at § 648.107. Persons aboard a commercial vessel that is not eligible for a summer flounder moratorium permit are subject to this possession limit. The owner, operator, and crew of a charter or party boat issued a summer flounder moratorium permit are subject to the possession limit when carrying passengers for hire or when carrying more than five crew members for a party boat, or more than three crew members for a charter boat. This possession limit may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102. Possession of summer flounder harvested from state waters above this possession limit is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.111 and abide by state regulations.

        7. In § 648.107, revise paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 648.107
           Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.
          (a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2019 are the conservation equivalent of the season, size limits, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

          (b) Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels registered in states and subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, size limits and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b), and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season—July 1 through August 31; minimum size—20 inches (50.8 cm); and possession limit—two fish.

        8. Add § 648.111 to read as follows:

          § 648.111
           Block Island Sound Transit Area.
          (a) Vessels not issued a Federal moratorium or party/charter permit, and recreational fishing participants fishing exclusively in state waters may transit with summer flounder harvested from state waters on board through Federal waters of the EEZ within Block Island Sound, north of a line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk Point, NY, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, RI; and west of a line connecting Point Judith Light, Point Judith, RI, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, RI. Within this area, possession of summer flounder is permitted regardless of the minimum or maximum size (as applicable), possession limit, and seasons outlined in §§ 648.104, 648.105, and 648.106, provided no fishing takes place from the vessel while in Federal waters of the EEZ, the vessel complies with state regulations, and is in continuous transit. During such transit through this area, commercial gear must be stowed in accordance with the definition of “not available for immediate use” found at § 648.2, and party/charter vessels and recreational participants must have all bait and hooks removed from fishing rods, and any summer flounder on board must be stored in a cooler or container.
          (b) The requirements of this transit zone are not necessary or applicable for recreational fishery participants during years when conservation equivalency has been adopted under § 648.107 conservation equivalency measures and recreational Federal measures are waived.

         9. In § 648.126, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 648.126
           Scup minimum fish sizes.

          (b) Party/Charter permitted vessels and recreational fishery participants. The minimum size for scup is 9 inches (22.9 cm) TL for all vessels that do not have a moratorium permit, or for party and charter vessels that are issued a moratorium permit but are fishing with passengers for hire, or carrying more than three crew members if a charter boat, or more than five crew members if a party boat. However, possession of smaller scup harvested from state waters is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.131 and abide by state regulations.

        10. Revise § 648.127 to read as follows:

          § 648.127
           Scup recreational fishing season.
          Fishermen and vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(6), may possess scup year-round, subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.128(a). The recreational fishing season may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.122. Should the recreational fishing season be modified, non-federally permitted vessels abiding by state regulations may transit with scup harvested from state waters on board through the Block Island Sound Transit Area following the provisions outlined in § 648.131.

        11. In § 648.128, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 648.128
           Scup possession restrictions.
          (a) Party/Charter and recreational possession limits. No person shall possess more than 50 scup in, or harvested from, per trip the EEZ unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a scup moratorium permit, or is issued a scup dealer permit. Persons aboard a commercial vessel that is not eligible for a scup moratorium permit are subject to this possession limit. The owner, operator, and crew of a charter or party boat issued a scup moratorium permit are subject to the possession limit when carrying passengers for hire or when carrying more than five crew members for a party boat, or more than three crew members for a charter boat. This possession limit may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.122. However, possession of scup harvested from state waters above this possession limit is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.131 and abide by state regulations.

        12. Add § 648.131 to read as follows:

          § 648.131
           Block Island Sound Transit Area.
          (a) Vessels not issued a Federal moratorium or party/charter permit, and recreational fishing participants fishing exclusively in state waters may transit with scup harvested from state waters on board through Federal waters of the EEZ within Block Island Sound, north of a line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk Point, NY, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, RI; and west of a line connecting Point Judith Light, Point Judith, RI, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, RI. Within this area, possession of scup is permitted regardless of the minimum size, possession limit, and seasons outlined in §§ 648.126, 648.127, and 648.128, provided no fishing takes place from the vessel while in Federal waters of the EEZ, the vessel complies with state regulations, and is in continuous transit. During such transit through this area, commercial gear must be stowed in accordance with the definition of “not available for immediate use” found at § 648.2, and party/charter vessels and recreational participants must have all bait and hooks removed from fishing rods, and any scup on board must be stored in a cooler or container.

        13. Revise § 648.142 to read as follows:

          § 648.142
           Black sea bass specifications.
          (a) Commercial quota, recreational landing limit, research set-aside, and other specification measures. The Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee will recommend to the Demersal Species Committee of the MAFMC and the ASMFC, through the specification process, for use in conjunction with the ACL and ACT, sector-specific research set-asides, estimates of the sector-related discards, a recreational harvest limit, a commercial quota, along with other measures, as needed, that are projected to ensure the sector-specific ACL for an upcoming year or years will not be exceeded. The following measures are to be considered by the Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee:
          (1) Research quota set from a range of 0 to 3 percent of the maximum allowed.
          (2) A commercial quota, allocated annually.
          (3) A commercial possession limit for all moratorium vessels, with the provision that these quantities be the maximum allowed to be landed within a 24-hour period (calendar day).
          (4) Commercial minimum fish size.
          (5) Minimum mesh size in the codend or throughout the net and the catch threshold that will require compliance with the minimum mesh requirement.
          (6) Escape vent size.
          (7) A recreational possession limit set after the reduction for research quota.
          (8) Recreational minimum and/or maximum fish size.
          (9) Recreational season.
          (10) Recreational state conservation equivalent and precautionary default measures utilizing possession limits, minimum fish sizes, and/or seasons set after reductions for research quota.
          (11) Restrictions on gear other than otter trawls and pots or traps.
          (12) Total allowable landings on an annual basis for a period not to exceed 3 years.
          (13) Changes, as appropriate, to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set aside programs.
          (14) Modification of the existing AM measures and ACT control rules utilized by the Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee.
          (b) Specification fishing measures. The Demersal Species Committee shall review the recommendations of the Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment, the Demersal Species Committee shall make its recommendations to the MAFMC with respect to the measures necessary to assure that the sector-specific ACLs for an upcoming fishing year or years will not be exceeded. The MAFMC shall review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and public comment, make recommendations to the Regional Administrator with respect to the measures necessary to assure that sector ACLs are not exceeded. Included in the recommendation will be supporting documents, as appropriate, concerning the environmental and economic impacts of the final rule. The Regional Administrator will review these recommendations and any recommendations of the ASMFC. After such review, the Regional Administrator will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to implement a commercial quota, a recreational harvest limit, and additional management measures for the commercial fishery.
          (c) Distribution of annual commercial quota. The black sea bass commercial quota will be allocated on a coastwide basis.
          (d) Recreational specification measures. The Demersal Species Committee shall review the recommendations of the Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment, the Demersal Species Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC and ASMFC measures that are projected to ensure the recreational ACL for an upcoming fishing year or years will not be exceeded. The MAFMC shall review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment, recommend to the Regional Administrator measures that are projected to ensure the recreational ACL for an upcoming fishing year or years will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental and economic impacts of the recommendations. The MAFMC and the ASMFC will recommend that the Regional Administrator implement either:
          (1) Coastwide measures. Annual coastwide management measures that constrain the recreational black sea bass fishery to the recreational harvest limit, or
          (2) Conservation equivalent measures. Individual states, or regions formed voluntarily by adjacent states (i.e., multi-state conservation equivalency regions), may implement different combinations of minimum and/or maximum fish sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons that achieve equivalent conservation as the coastwide measures established under paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Each state or multi-state conservation equivalency region may implement measures by mode or area only if the proportional standard error of recreational landing estimates by mode or area for that state is less than 30 percent.

          (i) After review of the recommendations, the Regional Administrator will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register as soon as possible to implement the overall percent adjustment in recreational landings required for the fishing year, and the ASMFC's recommendation concerning conservation equivalency, the precautionary default measures, and coastwide measures.
          (ii) The ASMFC will review conservation equivalency proposals and determine whether or not they achieve the necessary adjustment to recreational landings. The ASMFC will provide the Regional Administrator with the individual state and/or multi-state region conservation measures for the approved state and/or multi-state region proposals and, in the case of disapproved state and/or multi-state region proposals, the precautionary default measures that should be applied to a state or region. At the request of the ASMFC, precautionary default measures would apply to federally permitted party/charter vessels and other recreational fishing vessels harvesting summer flounder in or from the EEZ when landing in a state that implements measures not approved by the ASMFC.

          (iii) After considering public comment, the Regional Administrator will publish a final rule in the Federal Register to implement either the state specific conservation equivalency measures or coastwide measures to ensure that the applicable specified target is not exceeded.

          (iv) The ASMFC may allow states assigned the precautionary default measures to resubmit revised management measures. The ASMFC will detail the procedures by which the state can develop alternate measures. The ASMFC will notify the Regional Administrator of any resubmitted state proposals approved subsequent to publication of the final rule and the Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register to notify the public.
          (e) Research quota. See § 648.22(g).

        14. In § 648.144, revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

          § 648.144
           Black sea bass gear restrictions.
          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) Mesh sizes shall be measured pursuant to the procedure specified in § 648.108(a)(2).

        15. In § 648.145, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 648.145
           Black sea bass possession limit.
          (a) During the recreational fishing season specified at § 648.146, no person shall possess more than 15 black sea bass in, or harvested from, per trip the EEZ unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a black sea bass moratorium permit, or is issued a black sea bass dealer permit, unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalent measures at § 648.150. Persons aboard a commercial vessel that is not eligible for a black sea bass moratorium permit may not retain more than 15 black sea bass during the recreational fishing season specified at § 648.146. The owner, operator, and crew of a charter or party boat issued a black sea bass moratorium permit are subject to the possession limit when carrying passengers for hire or when carrying more than five crew members for a party boat, or more than three crew members for a charter boat. This possession limit may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142. However, possession of black sea bass harvested from state waters above this possession limit is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.151 and abide by state regulations.

        16. Revise § 648.146 to read as follows:

          § 648.146
           Black sea bass recreational fishing season.
          Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may only possess black sea bass from February 1 through February 28, May 15 through December 31, unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalent measures at § 648.150 or unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142. However, possession of black sea bass harvested from state waters outside of this season is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.151 and abide by state regulations.

        17. In § 648.147, revise the section heading and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

          § 648.147
           Black sea bass size requirements.

          (b) Party/Charter permitted vessels and recreational fishery participants. The minimum fish size for black sea bass is 12.5 inches (31.75 cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit, and for party boats holding a moratorium permit, if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members, and for charter boats holding a moratorium permit, if fishing with more than three crew members, unless otherwise specified in the conservation equivalent measures at § 648.150. However, possession of smaller black sea bass harvested from state waters is allowed for state-only permitted vessels when transiting Federal waters within the Block Island Sound Transit Area provided they follow the provisions at § 648.151 and abide by state regulations.

          (c) The size limits in this section applies to the whole fish or any part of a fish found in possession (e.g., fillets), except that party or charter vessels possessing valid state permits authorizing filleting at sea may possess fillets smaller than the size specified if skin remains on the fillet and all other state requirements are met.

          § 648.150
           [Reserved]

        18. Add and reserve § 648.150.
        19. Add § 648.151 to read as follows:

          § 648.151
           Block Island Sound Transit Zone.
          (a) Vessels not issued a Federal moratorium or party/charter permit, and recreational fishing participants fishing exclusively in state waters may transit with black sea bass harvested from state waters on board through Federal waters of the EEZ within Block Island Sound, north of a line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk Point, NY, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, RI; and west of a line connecting Point Judith Light, Point Judith, RI, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block Island, RI. Within this area, possession of black sea bass is permitted regardless of the minimum and/or maximum (as applicable) size, possession limit, and seasons outlined in §§ 648.145, 648.146, and 648.147, provided no fishing takes place from the vessel while in Federal waters of the EEZ, the vessel complies with state regulations, and is in continuous transit. During such transit through this area, commercial gear must be stowed in accordance with the definition of “not available for immediate use” found at § 648.2, and party/charter vessels and recreational participants must have all bait and hooks removed from fishing rods, and any black sea bass on board must be stored in a cooler or container.
          (b) The requirements of this transit zone are not necessary or applicable for recreational fishery participants during years when conservation equivalency has been adopted under § 648.150 conservation equivalency measures and recreational Federal measures are waived.

      [FR Doc. 2019-16980 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 100
        [Docket No. USCG-2019-0629]
        Special Local Regulation; Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade; Charlevoix, MI

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of enforcement of regulation.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Charlevoix Venetian Boat Parade on July 27, 2019, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. During the enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the Round Lake, Charlevoix, MI must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander.

          DATES:
          The regulations will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 27, 2019.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Sean Murphy, Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3223, email Sean.V.Murphy@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulation 33 CFR 100.908 for the Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade from 7 a.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 27, 2019. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. The regulated area for this event is all navigable waters of Round Lake, Charlevoix, MI. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 100.901(b), the Patrol Commander may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regatta area.

        This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.908 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via marine information broadcasts.

          Dated: July 22, 2019.
          P.S. Nelson,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.

      [FR Doc. 2019-15833 Filed 7-24-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 110114033-1032-01]
        RIN 0648-BA32
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; King and Spanish Mackerel Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of a control date.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that it is establishing a new control date to control future access to the king and Spanish mackerel components of the coastal migratory pelagics fishery operating in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. If changes to the management regime are developed and implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), a control date could be used to further limit the number of participants in the fishery. This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of the potential eligibility criteria for future access so as to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS consider whether and how access to the fishery should be controlled.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., eastern time, March 2, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA32, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: Attn: Karla Gore 727-824-5308.
          • Mail: Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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.
          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, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; toll free 1-866-SAFMC-10 or 843-571-4366; kim.iverson@safmc.net.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        At the September 2010 Council meeting, the Council recommended a new control date of September 17, 2010, for king and Spanish mackerel. The Council requested a new control date for the king and Spanish mackerel components because the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is beginning to look at latent permits which may ultimately impact the Council. A previous control date for the commercial king and Spanish mackerel components had been established on June 15, 2004 (70 FR 67985). The control date would apply to persons who are contemplating fishing for king and Spanish mackerel in the EEZ of the South Atlantic region. The Council requested that this control date be published in the Federal Register to notify fishermen that if they enter such a fishery after September 17, 2010, they may not be assured of future access if the Council and/or NMFS decide to further limit entry or impose other measures to manage this segment of the coastal migratory pelagics fishery.

        Establishment of the new control date would allow the Council to evaluate the level of participation in the king and Spanish mackerel components of the coastal migratory pelagic fishery and address any level of overcapacity. Control dates are intended to discourage speculative entry into a fishery, as new entrants entering the fishery after the control date are forewarned that they are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery.
        Establishment of this control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the coastal migratory pelagic fishery. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date. The Council may recommend a different control date or it may recommend a management regime that does not involve a control date. Other criteria, such as documentation of landings or fishing effort, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in a limited access fishery. The Council and/or NMFS also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Any action by the Council will be taken pursuant to the requirements for fishery management plan and amendment development established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the coastal migratory pelagics fishery in the South Atlantic EEZ.

          Classification:

          Executive Order 12866: This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of EO 12866.

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

          Dated: January 25, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-2129 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 140331031-4031-01]
        RIN 0648-BC77
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Amendment 3

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This rule proposes regulations to implement measures in Amendment 3 to the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan, which was developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils. The proposed management measures include implementing a research set-aside program, updating essential fish habitat definitions, allowing rollover of specifications, and eliminating the seasonal allocation of the commercial quota. These administrative measures are intended to improve the implementation of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan and provide benefits to the spiny dogfish fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the amendment, including the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the action are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The amendment is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0036, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0036, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Spiny Dogfish Amendment 3.”

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Atlantic spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) fishery is jointly managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) also manages the spiny dogfish fishery in state waters from Maine to North Carolina through an interstate fishery management plan (FMP). The Federal Spiny Dogfish FMP was implemented in 2000, when spiny dogfish were determined to be overfished. The spiny dogfish stock was declared to be successfully rebuilt in 2010, and it continues to be above its target biomass. Currently, the stock is not overfished or experiencing overfishing.
        The regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L, outline the management procedures and measures for the spiny dogfish fishery. The Councils have developed and submitted Amendment 3, which is intended to update the FMP and improve management of the spiny dogfish fishery. Specifically, the Councils have recommended: (1) Adding an option for allocation of a small percentage (up to 3 percent) of the commercial quota for use in the Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program; (2) updating the definitions of essential fish habitat (EFH) for all life stages of spiny dogfish; (3) maintaining existing annual management measures until replaced via rulemaking (i.e., specifications rollover); and (4) eliminating the seasonal allocation of the commercial quota in order to minimize conflicts with spiny dogfish fishing operations that occur in both state and Federal waters. These proposed management measures are described in more detail below.
        Research Set-Aside (RSA)

        A number of FMPs include an RSA program, in which a percentage of the quota is set aside to fund research. In Amendment 3, the Councils are proposing to allow up to 3 percent of the spiny dogfish commercial quota to be set aside as RSA quota. The revenues generated by those landings would be used for scientific research aimed at improving our understanding of the spiny dogfish stock and its related fisheries, consistent with the Councils' research priorities. For example, the spiny dogfish commercial quota for fishing year 2014 is currently specified at 41.784 million lb (18,953 mt). Based upon the funds requested through the RSA Federal Funding Opportunity announcement (refer to: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/ma13rsaawards.html), up to 1.254 million lb (569 mt) of spiny dogfish could be used for RSA (i.e., 3 percent of the 2014 commercial quota).
        Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that EFH be defined for all managed stocks, and that it should be periodically reviewed and updated. EFH designations are used by NMFS when consulting with other agencies on Federal activities, and up-to-date designations lead to more effective consultation and protection of EFH. Spiny dogfish EFH was most recently updated in 2007 (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm150/). Amendment 3 includes updated text and maps, using the most recent fishery-independent data, to describe EFH for the following spiny dogfish size and sex categories: Recruits (juvenile males and females <36 cm); sub-adult females (36-79 cm); sub-adult males (36-59 cm); adult females (>79 cm); and adult males (>59 cm). Detailed EFH maps and text descriptions are provided in the supporting documents (see ADDRESSES).
        Rollover of Specifications
        This measure would allow the specifications (annual catch limit, commercial quota, etc.) of the current fishing year to carry forward to the subsequent fishing year, in the event that rulemaking and implementation of revised specifications are delayed. If the implementation of new final specifications is delayed beyond the start of the new fishing year (May 1), the previous year's specifications would apply to the new fishing year until replaced by the final rule. The Councils are recommending this measure to maintain consistency across FMPs.
        Commercial Quota Allocation
        The current regulations implementing the Spiny Dogfish FMP (§ 648.232) require that the commercial quota be allocated between two seasons: Season 1 (May through October) receives 57.9 percent of the quota; and Season 2 (November through April) receives 42.1 percent of the quota. These seasons were designed to match the regional distribution of the spiny dogfish population as it migrates up and down the Atlantic coast, and to ensure that each state's fisheries would be able to land spiny dogfish during the year.
        In contrast to the Federal regulations, the Commission allocates the commercial quota to individual states/regions, rather than by season. These different management approaches have occasionally resulted in misaligned in-season fishery closures between Federal and state waters, and confusion within the industry regarding where they can fish. This rule proposes to remove the Federal FMP's seasonal quota allocation, and replace it with a single, annual coastwide commercial quota. The Federal spiny dogfish fishery would only be closed when 100 percent of the coastwide commercial quota is projected to be landed. The states, through the Commission's FMP, would be responsible for controlling their spiny dogfish allocations to ensure the participation of all states. This measure is expected to help alleviate potential misalignment issues with the Commission, while still constraining total spiny dogfish catch to the specified Federal limits.
        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Spiny Dogfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866.

        The Councils prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section of the preamble and in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Councils (see ADDRESSES).
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply
        This rule will impact fishing vessels, including commercial fishing entities. In 2012, 2,666 vessels held spiny dogfish permits. However, not all of those vessels are active participants in the fishery; only 489 vessels landed spiny dogfish in 2012. If two or more vessels have identical owners, these vessels should be considered to be part of the same firm, because they may have the same owners. When permit ownership data is considered, in 2012, 1,976 fishing firms held at least one spiny dogfish permit. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), firms are classified as finfish or shellfish firms based on the activity which they derive the most revenue. Using the $5M cutoff for shellfish firms (NAICS 114112) and the $19M cutoff for finfish firms (NAICS 114111), there are 1,953 directly regulated small entities and 23 directly regulated large entities. There are 488 active fishing firms, of which 482 are small entities and 6 are large entities. On average, for small entities, spiny dogfish is responsible for a small fraction of landings, and active participants derive a small share of gross receipts from the spiny dogfish fishery. While all 1,953 directly regulated small entities will be affected by the Amendment 3, many of these small entities do not currently participate in this fishery and would be likely to experience only negligible economic impacts, if any.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives
        According to the Council's analysis in the EA (see ADDRESSES), Amendment 3 is not expected to result in any direct negative or positive economic impacts. The management measures and alternatives included in this action are administrative in nature, and have no inherent direct economic costs or benefits. Possible indirect, minor positive economic impacts are anticipated from the RSA and EFH alternatives. Under the RSA alternatives, the preferred alternative (Alternative 1b) of allowing an RSA quota of up to 3 percent of the commercial quota, and Alternative 1c, which would allow up to 5 percent of the commercial quota for RSA, are expected to result in minor positive economic impacts relative to no action (i.e., no RSA; Alternative 1a). This conclusion was based on cases where research funded by RSA would result in improved management of the spiny dogfish fishery. Both the no action (i.e., no update to EFH; Alternative 2a) and preferred (i.e., updated EFH; Alternative 2b) EFH alternatives may result in indirect, minor positive economic impacts, as the designation of EFH can inform Federal activities and help minimize potentially negative habitat impacts. Under the commercial quota allocation alternatives, the no action alternative (i.e., maintain current seasonal allocation of the quota; Alternative 4a) was expected to result in minor, indirect negative economic impacts in situations where misalignment in Federal (Council) vs. state (Commission) fishery closures could result in lost revenues. The preferred alternative (i.e., remove allocation of the quota; Alternative 4b) is anticipated to alleviate the potential negative economic impacts associated with the current management misalignment. Both the no action alternative (i.e., no rollover of specifications; Alternative 3a) and the preferred alternative (i.e., allow rollover of specifications; Alternative 3b) associated with the rollover of specifications from one year to the next in the event of delayed implementation of specifications are expected to have no economic impact (positive or negative).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 4, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.232, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (e); and add paragraphs (c)(3) and (f) to read as follows:

          § 648.232
          Spiny dogfish specifications.
          (a) Commercial quota and other specification measures. The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee a TAL (i.e., annual coastwide commercial quota) and any other measures, including those in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section, that are necessary to ensure that the commercial ACL will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1-April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. If research quota is specified as described in paragraph (f) of this section, the effective commercial quota will be those commercial landings available after the deduction for the research quota. The measures that may be recommended include, but are not limited to:
          (1) Minimum or maximum fish sizes;
          (2) Seasons;
          (3) Mesh size restrictions;
          (4) Trip limits;
          (5) Research quota set from a range of 0 to 3 percent of the commercial quota;
          (6) [Reserved]
          (7) Other gear restrictions; and
          (8) Changes to AMs and ACT control rules.
          (b) Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee recommendation. The Councils' Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall review the recommendations of the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations, requests for research quota, and any public comments, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall recommend to the Councils a TAL, and possibly other measures, including those specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section, necessary to ensure that the ACL specified in § 648.230 will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1-April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years.
          (c) * * *

          (3) If the annual specifications are not published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing year, the previous year's annual specifications will remain in effect. The previous year's specifications will be replaced by the current year's specifications as of the effective date of the final rule implementing the current year's specifications.

          (e) Landings applied against the commercial quota. All spiny dogfish landed for a commercial purpose in the states from Maine through Florida shall be applied against the annual coastwide commercial quota, regardless of where the spiny dogfish were harvested.
          (f) Research quota. See § 648.22(g).

        3. In § 648.233, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 648.233
          Spiny dogfish accountability measures (AMs).
          (a) Commercial EEZ closure. The Regional Administrator shall determine the date by which the annual coastwide quota described in § 648.232 will be harvested and shall close the EEZ to fishing for spiny dogfish on that date for the remainder of the fishing year by publishing notification in the Federal Register. Upon the closure date, and for the remainder of the fishing year, no vessel may fish for or possess spiny dogfish in the EEZ, nor may vessels issued a spiny dogfish permit under this part land spiny dogfish, nor may dealers issued a Federal permit purchase spiny dogfish from vessels issued a spiny dogfish permit under this part.

        4. In § 648.235, revise paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b), and remove paragraph (c).
        The revisions read as follows:

          § 648.235
          Spiny dogfish possession and landing restrictions.
          (a) Possession limit. Vessels issued a valid Federal spiny dogfish permit under § 648.4(a)(11) may:

          (b) Regulations governing the harvest, possession, landing, purchase, and sale of shark fins are found at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter.

      [FR Doc. 2014-07976 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a Petition To Delist the Woodland Caribou

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) from the Federal list of endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting of the woodland caribou may be warranted.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on October 13, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this petition should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 E. Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206. The petition finding, supporting data, and comments are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Martin, Supervisor, Upper Columbia River Basin Office, at the above address (telephone 509/891-6839; facsimile 509/891-6748).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We base the finding on information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information available to us at the time we make the finding. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that substantial information supports the petitioned action, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to promptly commence a review of the status of the species and to disclose our findings within 12 months.

        On May 27, 1998, we received a petition dated May 22, 1998, to delist the endangered population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), which is located in the Selkirk Mountains of northeast Washington, northern Idaho, and southeast British Columbia, Canada. The petition was submitted by Peter B. Wilson, representing the Greater Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce, Bonners Ferry, Idaho.
        In a letter dated June 12, 1998, we notified the petitioner that a finding on their petition would be delayed due to a backlog of higher priority listing activities. This backlog resulted from a moratorium on listing activities enacted by Congress in 1995 and a subsequent series of inadequate budgets for listing activities. We now use funding for recovery activities to support work on findings for delisting petitions, and, therefore, we were able to proceed with this finding.
        The petitioner made a number of assertions in the petition, but the main points were—(1) our determination to list and maintain the listing of the caribou is based solely on conjecture and inadequate research, and no biological reason or need for the listing has been established by research and conclusion; (2) there is no significant biological distinction between the mountain and woodland caribou, and, since there are numerous “woodland” caribou in Canada, their listing in the United States is not warranted (also, the petitioner contends there is a problem with mixing mountain and woodland caribou within the Selkirk population); (3) the petitioner has several concerns regarding the historical and current range of the woodland caribou and whether or not caribou ever inhabited the conterminous United States, including Idaho; (4) no environmental impact statement was prepared for the listing; (5) caribou mortalities within this population have been high; and (6) old growth forest has not been established as a requirement for caribou habitat.
        We have reviewed the petition and other documentation to determine if substantial information has been presented to indicate that the requested action may be warranted. The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only, after conducting a review of the species status, if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a result of—(1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) a determination that the original data used for classification of the species as endangered or threatened were in error.
        Our determination to list the woodland caribou was made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available (49 FR 7390; February 29, 1984). The petition's assertion that the listing of the woodland caribou is based solely on conjecture comes from the petitioner's interpretation of our revised Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou in the Selkirk Mountains (Recovery Plan). The Recovery Plan stated a number of unknowns about caribou biology, population factors, and habitat variables. These statements were made in the context of gathering the information needed to support recovery actions. Though it is true there is much to learn about the caribou, at the time of listing, we had enough information to warrant the listing of the species, including substantial information on habitat fragmentation, poaching, and a genetic bottleneck.
        Regarding the issue of “woodland” versus “mountain” caribou, woodland caribou occur in two distinct ecotypes (a locally adapted population of a widespread species): The northern ecotype and the mountain ecotype. In woodland caribou, ecotypic differentiation is based on habitat use and behavior patterns. The endangered Selkirk population is the mountain ecotype. Both ecotypes are within the same subspecies; there is no genetic distinction between caribou inhabiting the northern ecotype and those inhabiting the mountain ecotype (Service 1994).

        Historically, woodland caribou were distributed across the northeastern, northcentral, and northwestern conterminous United States (Fashingbauer 1965, cited in Service 1994; McCollough 1991). It is well-documented that the species' range was once more extensive than it is today. Caribou once occurred as far south as the Salmon River in Idaho and as far east as the North Fork of the Flathead River in Montana (Evans 1960). Before 1910, they occupied the Selkirk, Cabinet, Purcell, and Bitterroot Mountains (Evans 1960; Layser 1974). By the 1950's, caribou were reduced to about 100 animals occupying about 2,590 square kilometers (1,000 square miles) in the Selkirk Mountains, with remnant bands in the Cabinet and Yaak Mountains (Flinn 1956; Evans 1960). Although by 1983 the distribution of the Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou population centered around Stagleap Provincial Park several miles north of the border in British Columbia, caribou inhabited the U.S. portion of the Selkirk Ecosystem as well, and continue to do so today.
        At the time of listing, we did not distinguish the caribou population by State. Caribou movement within home ranges may cross State boundaries, and the listing decision was based on the species' status within the United States. According to section 3(15) of the Act, “species” can include “any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We listed the woodland caribou as a distinct vertebrate population segment limited to Idaho, Washington, and that part of southeast British Columbia, Canada, bounded by the United States-Canadian border, Columbia River, Kootenay River, and Kootenay Lake. The Selkirk Mountain population of woodland caribou was listed because its range and distribution within the conterminous United States had undergone a significant decline and the species was being affected by a variety of ongoing threats.

        We did not prepare an environmental impact statement at the time of listing the woodland caribou. As stated in the final rule listing the woodland caribou published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244), we determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Regulations addressing the listing of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 424.11) state that listing, reclassification, and delisting decisions are to be based solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information regarding species status, without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.
        The petitioners are correct in that the woodland caribou population has experienced significant mortalities due to a number of factors. The population, which consisted of an estimated 25-30 animals when it was listed in 1984, has been augmented with a total of 103 animals over an 11-year period between 1987 and 1998. In 1998, the population consisted of an estimated 44 animals (includes animals recruited into the population through reproduction). Fifty-nine of the transplanted caribou died over this 11-year period, and the fate of 21 others is unknown due to radio-collar loss or failure. However, while this speaks to the difficulty and critical nature of the recovery program, it does not provide a reason to delist the caribou.

        Seasonal habitat use patterns and forage requirements by woodland caribou have been documented by research in northern Idaho and British Columbia. Occasionally, caribou have been observed feeding on succulent, newly emerging vegetation in clearcuts in the spring. However, data show that, even during spring, caribou preferentially use old-growth and mature forest habitats as a source of forage (Wakkinen et al. 1992). As to use of old-growth during other seasons of the year, caribou nearly exclusively use old-growth forest during early winter through late spring (Scott and Servheen 1984).
        When evaluating petitions for delisting of species under the Act, our guidelines state that a “not-substantial information” finding be made when a petition to delist a species presents no new information indicating the original data for listing the species may be in error (Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996). We have reviewed the petition and other available literature. We conclude the petition does not present substantial information to indicate that the original data for listing the species was in error, or that delisting the Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou may be warranted. Furthermore, the species has not met the recovery objectives identified in the 1994 Recovery Plan, which calls for an increasing population and secure habitat.
        References Cited

          Evans, H.F. 1960. A preliminary investigation of caribou in northwestern United States. Masters Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 145 pp.
          Flinn, P. 1956. Caribou of Idaho. Unpublished report, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 57 pp. + attachments
          Layser, E.F. 1974. A review of the mountain caribou of northeastern Washington and adjacent northern Idaho. Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science, Special Research Issue No. 3, 63 pp.
          McCollough, M. 1991. Final Report—Maine caribou project 1986-1990. University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 13 pp. and 24 pp.
          Scott, M. and G. Servheen. 1984. Caribou ecology. Unpublished report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho. 78 pp.
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 63 pp.
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Endangered species petition management guidance. Washington, D.C. 20 pp. + appendices
          Wakkinen, W.L., B. Compton, and P. Zager. 1992. Selkirk Mountain caribou transplant. Unpublished report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Pages i, iii, 16-18

          Author

          The primary author of this document is Suzanne Audet, Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Columbia River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section).
          Authority

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

          Dated: October 13, 2000.
          Jamie Rappaport Clark,
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-27232 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P