        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500030115]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Three Petitions

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on three petitions to list or reclassify wildlife or plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that one petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. We refer to this as the “not-substantial” petition finding. We also find that two petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a review of the status of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          When we conduct status reviews, we will consider all information that we have received. To ensure that we will have adequate time to consider submitted information during the status reviews, we request that we receive information no later than January 30, 2017. For information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), this means submitting the information electronically by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.

          ADDRESSES:

            Not-substantial petition finding: A summary of the basis for the not-substantial petition finding contained in this document is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see Table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION), or on the Service's Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov. Supporting information in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in Table 3 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. If you have new information concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat, please submit that information to the person listed in Table 3 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

            Status reviews: You may submit information on species for which a status review is being initiated by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the Search button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          See Table 3 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific people to contact for each species.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Not-Substantial Finding

        The not-substantial petition finding contained in this document is listed in Table 1 below, and a summary of the basis for the finding, along with supporting information, are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number, or on the Service's Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov.

          Table 1—Not-Substantial Finding

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to Docket on http://www.regulations.gov

              Tetraneuris verdiensis (Verde four-nerve daisy)
            FWS-R2-ES-2016-0132

              http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2016-0132.

        Substantial Findings
        List of Substantial Findings

        The list of substantial findings contained in this document is given below in Table 2, and the basis for the findings, along with supporting information, are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number, or on the Service's Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov.

          Table 2—List of Substantial Findings for Which a Status Review Is Being Initiated

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to Docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Leopard
            FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131

              http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131.

            Lesser prairie-chicken
            FWS-R2-ES-2016-0133

              http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2016-0133.

        Request for Information for Status Reviews
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends.

        (2) The five factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both. The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.

        If, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition at section 3(5)(A) of the Act) for domestic (U.S.) species under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information (submitted as provided for in ADDRESSES, above) for the species listed in Table 2 on:
        (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;
        (2) Where these features are currently found;
        (3) Whether or not any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
        (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and
        (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat falls within the definition of “critical habitat” at section 3(5) of the Act.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Contacts
        Contact information is provided below in Table 3 for both substantial and not-substantial findings.

          Table 3—Contacts

            Common name
            Contact person

            Leopard
            Janine VanNorman, 703-358-2370; Janine_VanNorman@fws.gov.

            Lesser prairie-chicken
            Clay Nichols, 817-471-6357; clay_nichols@fws.gov.

            Verde four-nerve daisy
            Shaula Hedwall, 928-556-2118; shaula_hedwall@fws.gov.

        If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) establish that the standard for substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently summarize the status review in our 12-month finding.
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

        In considering whether conditions described within one or more of the factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to those conditions to evaluate whether the species may respond to the conditions in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a condition and the species responds negatively, the condition qualifies as a stressor and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant the stressor is. If the stressor is sufficiently significant that it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act, the stressor constitutes a threat to the species. Thus, the identification of conditions that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these conditions may be operative threats that individually or cumulatively act on the species to a sufficient degree that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List Tetraneuris verdiensis (Verde Four-nerve Daisy) as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0132 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Species and Range

          Tetraneuris verdiensis (Verde four-nerve daisy): Arizona.
        Petition History

        On April 21, 2016, we received a petition dated March 11, 2016, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that Tetraneuris verdiensis be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition under section 4 of the Act and included the identification information for the petitioner as required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We responded to the petitioner on June 29, 2016, with an email message acknowledging the receipt of the petition. This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Tetraneuris verdiensis may be warranted. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing Tetraneuris verdiensis may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0132 under the Supporting Documents section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see Table 3, above).
        Evaluation of a Petition To Reclassify Leopards Currently Listed as Threatened Species to Endangered Species Under the Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Species and Range
        Leopard (Panthera pardus): Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kenya, and Uganda.
        Petition History
        On July 26, 2016, we received a petition dated July 25, 2016, from The Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals, requesting that the leopard be reclassified as endangered throughout its range under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that reclassifying the leopard (Panthera pardus) as endangered throughout its range may be warranted, based on Factors A, B, D, and E (for a listing of the factors, see (2) under Request for Information for Status Reviews, above). However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of an endangered species under section 3(6) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) and any other factors identified in this finding.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Lesser Prairie-Chicken as an Endangered Species Under the Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0133 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Species and Range
        Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidus): Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas.
        Petition History

        On September 8, 2016, we received a petition dated September 8, 2016, from WildEarth Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity, and Defenders of Wildlife requesting that we list the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidus) and three distinct population segments as endangered under the Act. The petition additionally requests that the sandsage and the shinnery oak prairie population segments be emergency listed as endangered under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that an emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was necessary. This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the lesser prairie-chicken may be warranted, based on Factors A, D, and E (for a listing of the factors, see (2) under Request for Information for Status Reviews, above). However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either an endangered species under section 3(6) of the Act or a threatened species under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) and any other factors identified in this finding.
        Conclusion

        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition summarized above for Tetraneuris verdiensis (Verde four-nerve daisy) does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review for this species.
        The petitions summarized above for the leopard and lesser prairie-chicken present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted.

        Because we have found that these petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of each status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted.
        It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider only the information in the petition and in our files, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the “best scientific and commercial data available” to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead field offices (contact the appropriate person listed in Table 3, above).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: November 16, 2016.
          Daniel M. Ashe,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-28513 Filed 11-29-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 000905252-0252-01; I.D.080700D]
        RIN 0648-AN98
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibited Species Donation Program

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing to permanently extend the temporary  regulations that establish and govern the voluntary Pacific halibut donation program.  Under this program, Pacific halibut that is taken incidentally in groundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska may be donated for consumption by economically disadvantaged individuals rather than discarded, as normally required.  This action is necessary to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs).  The intended effect of this action is to reduce the amount of regulatory discards in the groundfish fisheries.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by October 5, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Susan Salveson, Assistant Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to Federal Building, Fourth Floor, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, and marked Attn: Lori Gravel.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action may be obtained from the same address or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.  Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to NMFS, Alaska Region at the address given here and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn:  NOAA Desk Officer).  Send comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule to the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Salveson, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska pursuant to the Alaska groundfish FMPs.  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs, and NMFS approved them, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Regulations governing the Alaska groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.  Fishing for Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska is governed by the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea and by regulations adopted by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and approved by the Secretary of State of the United States pursuant to section 4 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773-773k).  Regulations of the IPHC are published as annual management measures in the Federal Register each year pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 300.62.
        The Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) program regulations at § 679.26 include provisions for the voluntary donation of halibut taken as bycatch in the groundfish trawl fisheries that are delivered dead  by trawl catcher vessels to shoreside processors for distribution by tax-exempt organizations for consumption by economically disadvantaged individuals.

        The groundfish trawl vessels are not allocated any directed fishery quota for halibut and must discard all halibut.  Many trawl vessels discard halibut at sea; some portion of which is alive.  However, many trawl vessels, for practical reasons, cannot sort their catch at sea and catch remains unsorted until it is offloaded at a shoreside processor.  Because of this process of shoreside sorting, halibut are ‘landed’ dead.  This action would not affect the halibut resource because the groundfish fisheries are restricted by halibut bycatch mortality limits that require closure of specified fisheries when a limit has been reached.  In 1998 and 1999, 21,196 lb (9,635 kg) and 6,190 lb (2,814 kg) of eviscerated halibut were donated through the PSD program, respectively.  NMFS estimates that the halibut donation program provided 65,000 meals to economically disadvantaged individuals in the western Washington Puget Sound area in 1998.  No violations of the halibut donation regulations have been reported or observed.
        The halibut PSD program will expire on December 31, 2000.   The Council and the IPHC supported the sunset provision to allow  management agencies to assess the effectiveness of the halibut donation program, relative to the program's objectives, before the Council took action to extend the program beyond the year 2000.
        At its June 2000 meeting, the Council requested NMFS to initiate rulemaking to permanently extend the halibut donation program.  The Council also endorsed a recommendation by IPHC staff to review the program every 3 years and assess whether regulatory changes should be pursued to respond to any management or enforcement concerns that may arise in the future.  This proposed rule would extend permanently the existing halibut provisions of the PSD program.  This action would make no other changes to the existing PSD program.  NMFS, the Council, and the IPHC would conduct periodic reviews of the program and the regulations could be revised in the future, if necessary, to respond to new concerns.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that this proposed regulatory amendment is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the views and comments received during the comment period.
        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 regulatory amendment, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          This proposed regulatory amendment would make permanent the halibut provisions of the Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) program and is identical to the existing program, which is scheduled to end on December 31, 2000, and is in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.  The proposed regulatory amendment would allow NMFS to continue to authorize distribution of halibut incidentally caught in the Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries and delivered dead to shoreside processors.  Halibut voluntarily donated under the PSD program would be distributed to economically disadvantaged individuals through a network of non-profit organizations.  Because the overall U.S. groundfish quotas and fishing patterns would remain the same, no change is anticipated in overall revenues that would accrue to small businesses in the groundfish fishery.  Furthermore, because halibut bycatch is unavoidable in the trawl fisheries, is fully accounted for in quota setting in the directed halibut fishery, and is otherwise discarded, the PSD program imposes no adverse impacts on halibut fishing or on the resource.
          The authorized distributor, Northwest Food Strategies, is now believed to provide the single most important source of protein for hunger relief in the United States, delivering nearly 14 million seafood meals to hungry Americans since 1933.  This non-profit organization is dominant in its field of seafood distribution to hunger-relief agencies (1.8 million pounds in 1999), and as such, is not considered a small entity.  Other non-profit agencies that would be expected to apply in the future are likely to be small entities.  However, a limited number of these applications is anticipated because donated distributors attempt to equate the number of distributors to available vessel participants and donated product.
          The participating processors, Unisea, Inc., and Alyeska Seafoods, Inc., are not considered small entities because they are owned by corporations that employ greater than 500 people, in all of their holdings, combined.  Other processors that are likely to be authorized to process trawl-caught halibut for this program (predominantly in Dutch Harbor, Alaska) also are not considered small entities.  This program would be totally voluntary.  NMFS anticipates that no processor that qualifies as a small entity would elect to participate in the voluntary program if the costs of doing so imposed a significant adverse economic burden.
          The ability to donate trawl-caught halibut may indeed reduce costs to small entities (catcher vessels) because this program would eliminate the need for the catcher vessel to return halibut bycatch that is sorted shoreside to Federal waters for disposal.

        This proposed regulatory amendment has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS has completed a consultation on the effects of the groundfish fishery on listed species.  Reasonable and prudent alternatives have been implemented to mitigate the adverse impacts of the pollock fisheries on the western population of Steller sea lions and its critical habitat (65 FR 3892, January 25, 2000, and extended at 65 FR 36795, June 12, 2000).  NMFS also completed consultations on the effects of the 2000 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) groundfish fisheries on listed species, and on critical habitat.  These consultations were completed December 23, 1999, and concluded that the proposed fisheries were not likely to cause jeopardy or adverse modification to designated critical habitat.  However, in an order dated January 25, 2000, the District Court for the Western District of Washington concluded that NMFS must consult pursuant to section 7 of the ESA on the fishery management plans for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. Greenpeace v. NMFS, Civ. No. 98-49ZZ (W.D. Wash.).  Prior to the issuance of the Court’s order, NMFS had begun consultation to evaluate the cumulative effects of the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries over a multi-year period on candidate and listed species and critical habitat.  NMFS is currently reviewing this ongoing consultation for compliance with the Court’s order and will continue consultation.  NMFS has determined that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable or prudent alternative measures that may be necessary.
        The area in which this proposed action is planned has been identified as essential fish habitat (EFH) for species managed by the Council.  No adverse impacts to EFH are anticipated from this action and, therefore, no consultation is required.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information,  subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA.  The collection of this information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 0648-0316.  Public reporting burden (per individual) for these collections of information, including both salmon and halibut donations, is estimated to average as follows:  40 hours every 3 years per application and 40 hours per year for completing a list of vessels and processors for a NMFS authorized distributor; 9 hours per year (0.1 hrs for 90 processing days) for vessel and processor labeling and product tracking documentation; and 15 minutes per year for vessels/processor documentation.  The estimated response times listed include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

        Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

        The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language when communicating with the public, through regulation or otherwise.  Therefore, NMFS seeks public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: September 14, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

          1.  The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

          2.  In § 679.26, the section heading, paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3)(iv) are revised to read as follows:

            § 679.26
            Prohibited Species Donation Program (PSD).
            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (2) Halibut delivered by catcher vessels using trawl gear to shoreside processors.
            (b) * * *
            (3) * * *
             (iv) Effective period.  A PSD permit issued for salmon or halibut remains in effect for a 3-year period after the selection notice is published in the Federal Register unless suspended or revoked.  A PSD permit issued to an authorized distributor may be renewed following the application procedures in this section.

      [FR Doc. 00-24184 Filed 9-19-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S
     -


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2017-0123]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Safety Zone, Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor; Charleston, SC

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety zone during the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor, a parade of ships occurring on the Cooper River and Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The temporary moving safety zone is necessary to protect participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. This rule is intended to prohibit persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the moving safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 28, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0123 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email John.Z.Downing@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          E.O. Executive order
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          Pub. L. Public Law
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code
          COTP Captain of the Port

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        On December 1, 2016, Tall Ships Charleston notified the Coast Guard that they will be sponsoring the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on May 18, 2017. Approximately eight ships are anticipated to participate in the parade event, which will take place on certain navigable waters of the Cooper River and the Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with the parade constitute a safety concern for anyone within the proposed moving safety zone. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

        The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety zone on the waters of the Cooper River and Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina, during the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor, from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. on May 18, 2017. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Cooper River and Charleston Harbor during the parade. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. The Coast Guard would provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
        The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone would be enforced for only three hours; (2) the safety zone would move with participant vessels so that once the ships clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone would no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels would still be able to enter or transit through the safety zone if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a temporary moving safety zone lasting three hours which would prohibit entry into, transit through, anchoring within, or remaining within the safety zone during the parade event. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

        1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0123 to read as follows:

          § 165.T07-0123
           Safety Zone; Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor, Charleston, SC.
          (a) Regulated area. The rule establishes the following regulated area as a temporary moving safety zone: All waters 100 yards in front of the first parade vessel, 100 yards behind the last parade vessel, and 100 yards on either side of all Parade vessels. The Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor consists of an eight mile course that starts near Fort Sumter in approximate position 32°45′25″ N./079°52′20″ W. and follows the shipping channel north, along the Cooper River ending at Veterans Terminal in approximate position 32°51′18″ N./079°56′57″ W.
          (b) Definition. As used in this section, “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
          (c) Regulations.

          (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in the Tall Ships Charleston Parade Around the Harbor and those serving as safety vessels.
          (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
          (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
          (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. on May 18, 2017.

          Dated: March 23, 2017.
          G.L. Tomasulo,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.

      [FR Doc. 2017-06187 Filed 3-28-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.050331089-5089-01; I.D. 031005A]
        RIN 0648-AS74
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Total Allowable Catches for Georges Bank Cod, Haddock, and Yellowtail Flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area for Fishing Year 2005

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2005 fishing year (FY) Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for Georges Bank (GB) cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area, and provides notice that these TACs may be adjusted during FY 2005, if NMFS determines that the harvest of these stocks in FY 2004 exceeded the TACs specified for FY 2004.  The intent of this action is to provide for the conservation and management of those three stocks of fish.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by May 16, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: USCATAC@NOAA.gov.  Include in the subject line the following: Comments on the proposed TACs for the U.S./Canada Management Area.
          • Federal e-rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail:    Paper, disk, or CD ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on  the proposed TACs for the U.S./Canada Management Area.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135.
          Copies of the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee's 2004 Guidance Document and copies of the Environmental Assessment of the 2005 TACs (including the Regulatory Impact Review and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) may be obtained from the National Marine Fisheries Service at the mailing address specified above; telephone (978) 281-9315.  NMFS prepared a summary of the IRFA, which is contained in the Classification section of this proposed rule.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9347, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail Thomas.Warren@NOAA.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specifies a procedure for setting annual hard (i.e., the fishery or area closes when a TAC is reached) TAC levels for GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder.  The regulations governing the annual development of TACs (§ 648.85(a)(2)) were implemented by Amendment 13 to the FMP (69 FR 22906; April 27, 2004) in order to be consistent with the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding (Understanding), which is an informal understanding between the United States and Canada that outlines a process for the management of the shared GB groundfish resources.  The Understanding specifies an allocation of TAC for these three stocks for each country, based on a formula that considers historical catch percentages and current resource distribution.

        Annual TACs are determined through a process involving the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC), and the U.S./Canada Transboundary Resources Steering Committee (§ 648.85(a)(2)(i)).  On August 31, 2004, the TMGC approved the 2004 Guidance Document for GB cod, GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder, which included recommended U.S. TACs for these stocks.  The recommended 2005 TACs were based upon the most recent stock assessments (Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) Status Reports for 2004), and the fishing mortality strategy shared by both the United States and Canada.  The strategy is to maintain a low to neutral risk of exceeding the fishing mortality limit reference (Fref = 0.18, 0.26, and 0.25 for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, respectively).  When stock conditions are poor, fishing mortality rates (F) should be further reduced to promote rebuilding.

        For GB cod, the TMGC concluded that the most appropriate combined U.S./Canada TAC  for FY 2005 is 1,000 mt.  This corresponds to an F less than the Fref of 0.18 in 2005 and represents a low risk of exceeding the Fref.  At this level of harvest there is a neutral or 50 percent chance, that stock biomass will decrease from 2005 to 2006.  The annual allocation shares for FY 2005 between the U.S. and Canada are based on a combination of historical catches (35 percent weighting) and resource distribution based on trawl surveys (65 percent weighting).  Combining these factors entitles the United States to 26 percent and Canada to 74 percent, resulting in a national quota of 260 mt for the United States and 740 mt for Canada.
        For GB haddock, the TMGC concluded that the most appropriate combined U.S./Canada TAC for FY 2005 is 23,000 mt.  This corresponds to an F of less than the Fref of 0.26 in 2005 and represents a low risk of exceeding the Fref.  Adult biomass will increase substantially from 2005 to 2006 due to recruitment of the exceptional 2003 year class.  The annual allocation shares for 2005 between countries are based on a combination of historical catches (35 percent weighting) and resource distribution based on trawl surveys (65 percent weighting).  Combining these factors entitles the United States to 33 percent and Canada to 67 percent, resulting in a national quota of 7,590 mt for the United States and 15,410 mt for Canada.

        For GB yellowtail flounder, the TMGC concluded that the most appropriate combined U.S./Canada TAC for FY 2005 is 6,000 mt.  A catch of about 4,000 mt in 2005 corresponds to an F equal to the Fref of 0.25.  Alternative analyses, which make different assumptions about selectivity, indicate higher projected catch at Fref in 2005, but still lower than the 2004 quota of 7,900 mt.  The trend in stock biomass is increasing and recent recruitment has improved, but fishing mortality remains substantially above Fref.  A reduced catch of 6,000 mt in 2005 should result in moving toward Fref.  The annual allocation shares for 2005 between countries are based on a combination of historical catches (35 percent weighting) and resource distribution based on trawl surveys (65 percent weighting).  Combining these factors entitles the United States to 71 percent and Canada to 29 percent, resulting in a national quota of 4,260 mt for the United States and 1,740 mt for Canada.
        On September 1, 2004, the 2004 Guidance Document was presented to the U.S./Canada Transboundary Resources Steering Committee.  On September 16, 2004, the Council approved the following U.S. TACs recommended by the TMGC:    260 mt of GB cod, 7,590 mt of GB haddock, and 4,260 mt of GB yellowtail flounder.  The 2005 cod and yellowtail flounder TACs represent a decrease from 2004 TAC levels, and the 2005 haddock TAC represents an increase from the 2004 TAC.

          2005 U.S./Canada TACs (mt) and percentage shares (in parentheses)

            GB Cod
            GB Haddock
            GB Yellowtail flounder

            Total Shared TAC
            1,000
            23,000
            6,00

            U.S. TAC
            260 (26)
            7,590 (33)
            4,260 (71)

            Canada TAC
            740 (74)
            15,410 (67)
            1,740 (29)

          2004 U.S./Canada TACs (mt) and percentage shares (in parentheses)

            GB Cod
            GB Haddock
            GB Yellowtail flounder

            Total Shared TAC
            1,300
            15,000
            7,900

            U.S. TAC
            300 (23)
            5,100 (34)
            6,000 (76)

            Canada TAC
            1,000 (77)
            9,900 (66)
            1,900 (24)

        The 2005 TACs are based upon stock assessments conducted in June 2004 by the TRAC.  The proposed TACs are consistent with the results of the TRAC and the TMGC's harvest strategy.
        The regulations implemented by Amendment 13, at § 648.85(a)(2)(ii), state the following:    “Any overages of the GB cod, haddock, or yellowtail flounder TACs that occur in a given fishing year will be subtracted from the respective TAC in the following fishing year."

        Therefore, should an analysis of the catch of the shared stocks by U.S. vessels indicate that an overage occurred during FY 2004 the pertinent TACs will be adjusted downward in order to be consistent with the FMP and the Understanding.  Although it is very unlikely, it is possible that a very large overage could result in an adjusted TAC of zero.  If an adjustment to one of the 2005 TACs for cod, haddock, or yellowtail flounder is necessary, the public will be notified through a Federal Register notice and through a letter to permit holders.
        Classification
        This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.
        The specification of hard TACs is necessary in order to ensure that the agreed upon U.S./Canada fishing mortality levels for these shared stocks of fish are achieved in the U.S./Canada Management Area (the geographic area on GB defined to facilitate management of stocks of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder that are shared with Canada).  A description of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed TACs is contained in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule.
        Under the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for small fishing entities ($3.5 million), all permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery are considered to be small entities.   Gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold.  The maximum number of small entities that could be affected by the proposed TACs are approximately 1,000 vessels, i.e., those with limited access Northeast multispecies days-at-sea permits, that have an allocation of Category A or B days-at-sea.  Realistically, however, the number of vessels that choose to fish in the U.S./Canada Management Area, and that therefore would be subject to the associated restrictions, including  hard TACs, would be substantially less.
        From May 2004, through February 2005, 141 individual vessels fished in the U.S./Canada Management Area.  Because the regulatory regime in FY 2005 will be similar to that in place in FY 2004, it is likely that the number of vessels that choose to fish in the area during FY 2005 will be similar to the number of vessels that fished in the area during FY 2004 (141 vessels).
        The economic impacts of the proposed TACs are difficult to predict due to several factors that affect the amount of catch, as well as the price of the fish.  Furthermore, the economic impacts are difficult to predict due to the newness of these regulations (May 2004; Amendment 13 to the FMP).  Therefore, there is relatively little historic data, and little is known about the specific fishing patterns or market impacts that may be caused by this hard TAC management system.
        The amount of GB cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder landed and sold will not be equal to the sum of the TACs, but will be reduced as a result of discards (discards are counted against the hard TAC), and may be further reduced by limitations on access to stocks that may result from the associated rules.  Reductions to the value of the fish may result from fishing derby behavior and the potential impact on markets.  The overall economic impact of the proposed 2005 U.S./Canada TACs will likely be similar to the economic impacts of the TACs specified for the 2004 fishing year.
        Although unlikely, a downward adjustment to the TACs specified for FY 2005 fishing year could occur after the start of the fishing year, if it is determined that the U.S. catch of one or more of the shared stocks during the 2004 fishing year exceeded the relevant TACs specified for FY 2004.

        Three alternatives were considered for FY 2005:   the proposed TACs, the status quo TACs, and the no action alternative.  No additional set of TACs are proposed because the process involving the TMGC and NEFMC yields only one proposed set of TACs.  The proposed TACs would have a similar economic impact as the status quo TACs.  Adoption of the status quo TACs, however, would not be consistent with the FMP because the status quo TACs do not represent the best available scientific information.  Although the no action alternative (no TACs) would not constrain catch in the U.S./Canada Area, and therefore would likely provide some additional fishing opportunity, the no action alternative is not a reasonable alternative because it is inconsistent with the FMP in both the short and long term.  The FMP requires specification of hard TACs in order to limit catch of shared stocks to the appropriate level (i.e., consistent with the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding and the FMP).  As such, the no action alternative would likely provide less economic benefits to the industry in the long term than the proposed alternative.
        Two of the three proposed TACs would be reduced (cod and yellowtail flounder), and could, under certain circumstances, constrain fishing opportunity on haddock (for which the TAC is increasing).  The proposed TACs do not modify any collection of information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.  The proposed TACs do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

          Dated:April 8, 2005.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assisitant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-7514 Filed 4-13-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S