Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Shark Management Measures, 24494-24495 [05-9332]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
24494
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:32 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because
it has been determined that the
promulgation of operating regulations
for drawbridges are categorically
excluded.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33
CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. In §117.997, paragraphs (g)(2)
introductory text, (g)(3) and (g)(4) are
revised to read as follows:
§ 117.997 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
South Branch of the Elizabeth River to the
Albermarle and Chesapeake Canal.
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00010
*
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) From 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4
p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays:
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(3) From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday to
Friday, except Federal holidays, the
draw need be opened every hour on the
hour.
(4) If any vessel is approaching the
bridge and cannot reach the draw
exactly on the hour, the drawtender may
delay the opening up to ten minutes
past the hour for the passage of the
approaching vessel and any other
vessels that are waiting to pass.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Lawrence J. Bowling,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–9303 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[I.D. 040605D]
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Commercial Shark Management
Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Receipt of a petition for
rulemaking; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt
of, and requests public comment on, a
petition from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries
(Petitioner) to initiate rulemaking to
amend the extent of the current time/
area closure for Atlantic sharks off the
Mid-Atlantic region.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on July 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the
petition should be sent to Jackie Wilson,
Highly Migratory Species Management
Division:
• E-mail: SF1.040605D@noaa.gov.
• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark
the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments
on Petition for Rulemaking for Sharks.’’
• Fax: 301–713–1917.
E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM
10MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules
• Federal e-Rulemaing Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Include in the
subject line the following identifier: I.D.
040605D.
Copies of the petition are available
upon request at the address specified
above and are also available on the
internet at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/hms.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jackie Wilson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz
by phone: 301–713–2347 or by fax: 301–
713–1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition for Rulemaking
On March 7, 2005, NMFS received a
request from the Petitioner to initiate
rulemaking for a regulatory amendment
to 50 CFR 635.2 in the definition of the
‘‘Mid-Atlantic shark closed area.’’ The
proposal would reduce the current
closed area by changing the boundary
from 55 fathoms to only include waters
out to 15 fathoms coastwide for North
Carolina. The Petitioner has stated that
this action would allow North Carolina
fishermen access to the larger sharks in
deeper waters from 15 to 55 fathoms
and minimize discards of juvenile and
protected sharks to a reasonable extent.
The Petitioner states that the available
data suggest that juvenile sharks occur
predominately near shore. Thus, the
Petitioner proposes that closing out to
15 fathoms along the entire North
Carolina coastline instead of out to 55
fathoms for the northern part of North
Carolina will still attain the
management goal of protecting juvenile
sandbar and prohibited dusky sharks.
The Petitioner believes that the offshore
extent of the current closed area
encompasses the primary shark fishing
grounds off North Carolina and severely
restricts access to the shark quota off
North Carolina, particularly during the
first trimester.
The Petitioner asserts that the current
time/area closure off of North Carolina
is not justified based on available data,
and has been implemented in violation
of at least three National Standards (e.g.,
ι4, 8, and 10) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. The Petitioner notes that the
proposed change could address the
above concerns and have positive
significant economic benefits to
fishermen, dealers, and fishing
communities in the South Atlantic.
During the proposed rule stage of
Amendment 1 (August 1, 2003, 68 FR
45196) of the Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan, NMFS took
comment on a much larger time/area
closure (31,387 square nautical miles
from VA to SC) than the current time/
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:32 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
area closure. Based on comments from
fishermen, NMFS conducted additional
analyses and adjusted the time/area
closure’s seaward boundary to follow
the 60 to 80 fathom contour (4,490
square nautical miles). This area was
selected to include all observed catches
of dusky and sandbar sharks while
mitigating social and economic impacts
on fishing communities in North
Carolina compared to the originally
proposed closed area. The analyses
conducted in Amendment 1 indicated
that the current time/area closure
should reduce dusky shark catch by 79
percent, and neonate and juvenile
sandbar shark catch by 55 percent.
Because the rebuilding plan for large
coastal sharks (LCS) incorporated the
mortality reductions anticipated for the
existing time/area closure, it is possible
that changes to the closure of the
magnitude suggested by the Petitioner
would require an amendment to the
rebuilding plan.
In the final rule, NMFS also delayed
implementation of the time/area closure
for a year to allow fishermen time to
adjust to the new regulations (December
24, 2003, 68 FR 74746). Thus, this
closure has not yet been in place for a
full year.
The Petitioner notes that North
Carolina’s interest in changing the time/
area closure is on record. In addition, on
March 23, 2005, the Petitioner presented
this issue to the HMS Advisory Panel
(AP), stating that the time/area closure
disproportionately affects fishermen
operating from home ports in the State
of North Carolina. AP members noted
that the LCS stock assessments
determined that sandbar and dusky
sharks have been overfished and are not
currently rebuilt, thus warranting
further management actions to rebuild
these stocks. AP members also stated
that any amendment to the current time/
area closure must not increase mortality
on large juvenile sandbar or dusky
sharks because rebuilding these stocks
requires lowering the mortality rate of
large juveniles. AP members also
discussed alternatives, such as the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission working with other East
Coast states for more statewide
compliance with regulations at least as
restrictive as Federal regulations.
Request for Comments
NMFS solicits comments from the
public regarding the need to proceed
with rulemaking to amend the current
Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. NMFS is
specifically requesting that the public
provide comments on the social,
economic, and biological impacts that a
potential regulatory amendment to the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24495
closure would have on the LCS
rebuilding plan. NMFS will consider
this public input in determining the
need to amend regulations.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 3, 2005.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9332 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 697
[Docket No. 050329085–5085–01; I.D.
032305A]
RIN 0648–AT31
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act Provisions; American
Lobster Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR), Notice of Intent
(NOI) to combine rulemaking and
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS); request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to
consider revisions to the Federal lobster
regulations in response to the effort
control recommendations of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission) in Addenda II, III, IV, V
and VI to Amendment 3 of the Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for American
Lobster (ISFMP), and prepare an EIS to
assess the impact on the human
environment of controlling fishing effort
in the American lobster fishery, in the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Written comments are requested from
the public regarding issues that NMFS
should address in this EIS relative to
fishing effort reduction measures as
proposed in Addenda II through VI.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on or before June 9,
2005.
Written comments should
be sent to Harold C. Mears, Director,
State, Federal, and Constituent
Programs Office, Northeast Region,
NMFS, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Comments may
also be sent via email at
Lob0105@noaa.gov , via fax (978) 281–
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM
10MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24494-24495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9332]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[I.D. 040605D]
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Shark Management
Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Receipt of a petition for rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt of, and requests public comment on,
a petition from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries (Petitioner) to
initiate rulemaking to amend the extent of the current time/area
closure for Atlantic sharks off the Mid-Atlantic region.
DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
standard time, on July 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the petition should be sent to Jackie
Wilson, Highly Migratory Species Management Division:
E-mail: SF1.040605D@noaa.gov.
Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Please mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on Petition for
Rulemaking for Sharks.''
Fax: 301-713-1917.
[[Page 24495]]
Federal e-Rulemaing Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Include in the subject line the following identifier: I.D. 040605D.
Copies of the petition are available upon request at the address
specified above and are also available on the internet at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Wilson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz
by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition for Rulemaking
On March 7, 2005, NMFS received a request from the Petitioner to
initiate rulemaking for a regulatory amendment to 50 CFR 635.2 in the
definition of the ``Mid-Atlantic shark closed area.'' The proposal
would reduce the current closed area by changing the boundary from 55
fathoms to only include waters out to 15 fathoms coastwide for North
Carolina. The Petitioner has stated that this action would allow North
Carolina fishermen access to the larger sharks in deeper waters from 15
to 55 fathoms and minimize discards of juvenile and protected sharks to
a reasonable extent. The Petitioner states that the available data
suggest that juvenile sharks occur predominately near shore. Thus, the
Petitioner proposes that closing out to 15 fathoms along the entire
North Carolina coastline instead of out to 55 fathoms for the northern
part of North Carolina will still attain the management goal of
protecting juvenile sandbar and prohibited dusky sharks. The Petitioner
believes that the offshore extent of the current closed area
encompasses the primary shark fishing grounds off North Carolina and
severely restricts access to the shark quota off North Carolina,
particularly during the first trimester.
The Petitioner asserts that the current time/area closure off of
North Carolina is not justified based on available data, and has been
implemented in violation of at least three National Standards (e.g.,
4, 8, and 10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. The Petitioner notes that the proposed change could
address the above concerns and have positive significant economic
benefits to fishermen, dealers, and fishing communities in the South
Atlantic.
During the proposed rule stage of Amendment 1 (August 1, 2003, 68
FR 45196) of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, NMFS
took comment on a much larger time/area closure (31,387 square nautical
miles from VA to SC) than the current time/area closure. Based on
comments from fishermen, NMFS conducted additional analyses and
adjusted the time/area closure's seaward boundary to follow the 60 to
80 fathom contour (4,490 square nautical miles). This area was selected
to include all observed catches of dusky and sandbar sharks while
mitigating social and economic impacts on fishing communities in North
Carolina compared to the originally proposed closed area. The analyses
conducted in Amendment 1 indicated that the current time/area closure
should reduce dusky shark catch by 79 percent, and neonate and juvenile
sandbar shark catch by 55 percent. Because the rebuilding plan for
large coastal sharks (LCS) incorporated the mortality reductions
anticipated for the existing time/area closure, it is possible that
changes to the closure of the magnitude suggested by the Petitioner
would require an amendment to the rebuilding plan.
In the final rule, NMFS also delayed implementation of the time/
area closure for a year to allow fishermen time to adjust to the new
regulations (December 24, 2003, 68 FR 74746). Thus, this closure has
not yet been in place for a full year.
The Petitioner notes that North Carolina's interest in changing the
time/area closure is on record. In addition, on March 23, 2005, the
Petitioner presented this issue to the HMS Advisory Panel (AP), stating
that the time/area closure disproportionately affects fishermen
operating from home ports in the State of North Carolina. AP members
noted that the LCS stock assessments determined that sandbar and dusky
sharks have been overfished and are not currently rebuilt, thus
warranting further management actions to rebuild these stocks. AP
members also stated that any amendment to the current time/area closure
must not increase mortality on large juvenile sandbar or dusky sharks
because rebuilding these stocks requires lowering the mortality rate of
large juveniles. AP members also discussed alternatives, such as the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission working with other East
Coast states for more statewide compliance with regulations at least as
restrictive as Federal regulations.
Request for Comments
NMFS solicits comments from the public regarding the need to
proceed with rulemaking to amend the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed
area. NMFS is specifically requesting that the public provide comments
on the social, economic, and biological impacts that a potential
regulatory amendment to the closure would have on the LCS rebuilding
plan. NMFS will consider this public input in determining the need to
amend regulations.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 3, 2005.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-9332 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
