Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program; Recordkeeping and Reporting, 48298-48301 [2010-19728]

Download as PDF wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 48298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules propagation or reintroduction programs for A. franciscana must account for the threat of cross pollination from hybrids or other species, and subsequent genetic contamination and swamping of the A. franciscana gene pool (Allendorf et al. 2001, pp. 613, 618-621). The conservation plan does take this into account by recommending that future outplantings of nursery-raised plants avoid areas that could facilitate cross pollination (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 31), but additional plans will be needed to work out the details. We agree that climate change may cause presently suitable habitat to become unsuitable for endemic California plants in general, due to projected changes in temperature and rainfall (Loarie et al. 2008, pp. 1-2). The ability of Arctostaphylos franciscana to track future climate changes by establishing new plants in new habitat may be limited because of its historic association with serpentine and greenstone bedrock outcrops (USFWS 2003, pp. 95, 96). However, the current ability of modeling to predict specific changes in climate at a scale that is meaningful to the species is extremely limited. The petition did not provide substantial information, nor did we have information in our files, to indicate climate change is a threat to the species. We agree that trampling by dogs or people could impact the species if the wild specimen, or any herbarium-raised future specimens, were to be placed in areas subject to regular foot or dog traffic, but neither the petition nor any information in our files provides substantial information to indicate that this has occurred or is likely to occur. The petition asserts that special events can draw tens of thousands of people to the Presidio, but does not provide substantial information to indicate that any such events are likely to occur near the translocated wild plant or near any herbarium-grown plants that may be translocated to the Presidio in the future. Despite the fact that the translocation has already been accomplished (Chronicle 2010, p. 1; Yam 2010b, pp. 1, 4), we still do not know whether the plant will persist over time and reproduce. Chasse et al. (2009) acknowledge that translocation of the mature plant is ‘‘very risky’’ (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 15), and that the translocated plant will require careful monitoring and management by an experienced manzanita horticulturist to increase its chance of survival (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 26). The translocated wild plant has been planted in an active native plant management area and is protected from public access by a cable VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:16 Aug 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 and post fence (Chasse et al. 2009, p. 20). It was also monitored every day for the first 10 days at its new location (Yam 2010b, pp. 4-13), and is scheduled to be monitored weekly until November 1, 2010, and monthly thereafter for the following 2 years (Chasse et al. 2009, pp. 27, 28). We agree that stochastic events may constitute a threat to the species. Because the known population of Arctostaphylos franciscana in the wild is currently limited to a single plant, the population may be considerably vulnerable to stochastic events, normal but randomly occurring environmental perturbations and catastrophes such as droughts, floods, and fires, from which large, wide ranging populations can generally recover, but which extirpate small isolated populations (Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 25-31). Therefore, we have determined that the petition and information in our files do present substantial information regarding threats from translocation of the species, from cross pollination with other Arctostaphylos species, and from stochastic events to indicate that listing may be warranted. Finding On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing Arctostaphylos franciscana throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under factors A, C, D, and E. Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that Arctostaphylos franciscana may be at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future and, therefore, listing under the Act may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing A. franciscana under the Act is warranted. The ‘‘substantial information’’ standard for a 90–day finding differs from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’ standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90– day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12–month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90– day finding. Because the Act’s standards for 90–day and 12–month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90–day finding does not PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Author The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: July 27, 2010 Wendi Weber, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2010–19429 Filed 8–9–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 0910051335–0171–01] RIN 0648–AY28 Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program; Recordkeeping and Reporting National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. AGENCY: This proposed action removes the Crab Rationalization Program requirements for catcher/processors to weigh all offloaded crab on a stateapproved scale that produces a printed record and to report this information at the time of offload to NMFS on a catcher/processor offload report. NMFS has determined that these requirements are no longer necessary. This proposed action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable laws. DATES: Comments must be received no later than August 25, 2010. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648–AY28, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. • Fax: 907–586–7557, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. 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). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Electronic copies of this rule, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the categorical exclusion memorandum may be obtained from the Alaska Region website at http:// alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska, Sustainable Fisheries Division, e-mailed to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202–395–7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patsy A. Bearden, 907–586–7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. crab fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 ADDRESSES: Background The Crab Rationalization (CR) Program is a limited-access system that allocates crab managed under the FMP among harvesters, processors, and VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:16 Aug 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 coastal communities. Currently, NMFS requires that all crab individual fishing quota (IFQ) harvested and processed by catcher/processors be weighed at sea prior to processing and that crab weights be reported to NMFS on an IFQ crab landings report (see § 679.5(e)(8)). The weights reported on the IFQ crab landings report are used to debit crab IFQ from a quota holder’s account. In addition, catcher/processors are required to weigh the crab again when it is offloaded from the vessel and report this weight to NMFS on a catcher/ processor offload report (see § 680.5(e)). The original purpose of the offload report was to provide information so that NMFS could audit the IFQ crab landing reports. Completing this report requires a crab catcher/processor to offload all crab-processed product shoreside at a designated port and weigh that product on a scale approved by the state in which the crab is removed from the vessel. The offload report must be completed when crab are offloaded from the vessel and a scale printout showing gross product offload weight must be attached to the offload report. The weight reported on the offload report includes not only the weight of crab but also the weight of packaging, pallets, and glaze. While deductions for these items can be made, the deductions create variance in the total weight of crab landed shoreside. For this reason, NMFS has found it difficult to use the weights from the offload report to audit the weight obtained from the at-sea hopper scales as originally intended. Advancements in at-sea reporting of crab catch (eLandings) and the improved reliability of the at-sea motion-compensated hopper scales have changed the need for CR catcher/ processors to report offloads. Catcher/ processors use eLandings to report total harvest of crab to NMFS weekly while at sea, which provides NMFS with upto-date accounting of total crab harvested. Motion-compensated hopper scales provide reliable, independent estimates of the total catch by quota sector for all crab harvested. Removal of the regulatory requirements for CR catcher/processors to weigh offloaded crab product and submit offload reports does not diminish NMFS’ ability to verify reported CR crab catch weight. NMFS still requires that all crab be weighed at sea and scale weights of crab be submitted to NMFS on eLandings weekly reports. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) observers are onboard crab vessels and have the opportunity to observe hopper scale activities for consistency with the PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48299 regulatory requirement that vessels weigh all landed CR crab. NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) uses eLandings weekly reports, the printouts from the hopper scales showing the total weight of crab harvested, and additional auditing methods to verify CR quota accounting instead of using the catcher/processor offload reports. Further, even without the requirement to weigh and report the gross weight of offloaded product, the OLE will still have the authority and ability to conduct a full audit of offload weights to verify reported crab catch weight. Specifically, this proposed rule would remove the requirement at § 680.5(e) for the owner or operator of a catcher/ processor to complete and submit to NMFS–at the time of offload of CR crab– a catcher/processor offload report with its attached scale printout showing gross product offload weight. It also would remove § 680.5(a)(2)(i)(H) because it only serves as a cross-reference to § 680.5(e), which would be removed. This rule also would remove the requirement at § 680.23(b)(4) for catcher/processors to weigh all offloaded CR Program crab on a stateapproved scale. Classification Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This rule would relieve restrictions by removing weighing and reporting requirements under the CR Program that NMFS has determined are no longer necessary for management and monitoring of the crab fisheries. Adequate information about the weight of crab harvested by catcher/processors under the CR Program is available under regulations that govern the weighing and reporting of crab catch on the IFQ landing report. The reports to be removed by this action were first implemented at the inception of the CR fisheries and were intended to be used primarily for purposes of auditing IFQ landing reports. However, with more experience managing those fisheries and advances in electronic reporting, NMFS has determined that these requirements are no longer necessary. Removing these requirements would relieve restrictions on the industry and would reduce costs to both the industry and NMFS. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 48300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Factual Basis for Certification Estimate of Economic Impact on Small Entities by Entity Size and Industry The impacts of this action have been evaluated in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The proposed regulatory changes would remove reporting requirements for directly regulated entities. The estimated costs of the current requirement imposed on directly regulated entities are small (on the order of $25 per report and the fleet of four to six vessels submits a total of about 18 such reports, annually). Thus, because the action would remove a regulatory requirement and decrease compliance costs for directly regulated entities, this proposed action is not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on any directly regulated small entities. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Applies The number of active crab catcher/ processors changes annually. As noted above, from four to six vessels have submitted these reports in recent years. In 2009, there were five crab catcher/ processors. An analysis of operation gross revenues from all Alaskan sources indicates that only one of these is a small entity under RFA criteria (total gross revenues from all sources less than $4 million). While this vessel would be affected by this action, one vessel would not constitute a substantial number of small entities. Criteria Used to Evaluate Whether the Rule Would Impose ‘‘Significant Economic impacts’’ The two criteria recommended to determine the significant economic impact of the action are disproportionality and profitability. The proposed action would not place a substantial number of small entities at a disadvantage, relative to large entities. The proposed action would not have disproportionate impacts on small entities. The proposed action would not adversely affect the profitability of any small entity. Indeed, the proposed action would ‘‘remove’’ a reporting burden and, as such, would ‘‘reduce’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:16 Aug 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 economic costs imposed upon directly regulated small entities. Criteria Used to Evaluate Whether the Rule Would Impose Impacts on ‘‘a Substantial Number’’ of Small Entities NMFS’ Guidelines for Economic Review of National Marine Fisheries Service Regulatory Actions (https:// reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/ publicsite/documents/procedures/ 0111105.pdf) explain that the term ‘‘substantial number’’ has no specific statutory definition and the criterion does not lend itself to objective standards applicable across all regulatory actions. Rather, ‘‘substantial number’’ depends upon the context of the action, the problem to be addressed, and the structure of the regulated industry. The Small Business Administration casts ‘‘substantial’’ within the context of ‘‘more than just a few’’ or de minimis (‘‘too few to care about’’ criteria). Description of and Basis for Assumptions Used The proposed rule would not impose adverse economic impacts on any of these entities. The economic analysis contained in the RIR further describes the potential size, distribution, and magnitude of the economic impacts that this action may have on small entities. Based upon that analysis and the foregoing, NMFS finds that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on the small entities participating in these fisheries. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Collection-of-information Requirements This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office for Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0648–0570. Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 20 minutes for a catcher/processor crab offload report. This proposed rule would remove this offload report and the associated reporting burden. These estimates of public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 (see ADDRESSES); e-mail to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202–395–7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 4, 2010. Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 680–SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109– 241; Pub. L. 109–479. § 680.5 [Amended] 2. In § 680.5, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(i)(H) and paragraph (e). 3. In § 680.23, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 680.23 Equipment and operational requirements. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Offload all CR crab product processed onboard at a shoreside location in the United States accessible by road or regularly scheduled air service; and * * * * * § 680.23 [Amended] 4. At each of the locations shown in the ‘‘Location’’ column, remove the phrase indicated in the ‘‘Remove’’ column and replace it with the phrase indicated in the ‘‘Add’’ column for the number of times indicated in the ‘‘Frequency’’ column. E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 48301 Location Remove Add Frequency § 680.23(f)(3)(i) delivery or offload are delivery are 1 § 680.23(f)(3)(ii) CR crab or an offload of CR crab product must CR crab must 1 [FR Doc. 2010–19728 Filed 8–9–10; 8:45 am] wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 BILLING CODE 3510–22–S VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:16 Aug 09, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM 10AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48298-48301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19728]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 680

[Docket No. 0910051335-0171-01]
RIN 0648-AY28


Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program; Recordkeeping 
and Reporting

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  This proposed action removes the Crab Rationalization Program 
requirements for catcher/processors to weigh all offloaded crab on a 
state-approved scale that produces a printed record and to report this 
information at the time of offload to NMFS on a catcher/processor 
offload report. NMFS has determined that these requirements are no 
longer necessary. This proposed action is intended to promote the goals 
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable laws.

DATES:  Comments must be received no later than August 25, 2010.

[[Page 48299]]


ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AY28, by 
any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 907-586-7557, Attn: Ellen Sebastian.
     Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
     Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th 
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
    Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until 
after the comment period has closed. 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). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.
    Electronic copies of this rule, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 
and the categorical exclusion memorandum may be obtained from the 
Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska, Sustainable Fisheries 
Division, e-mailed to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202-395-
7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. crab fisheries under 
the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and 
Tanner Crabs (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulations 
implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680. General 
regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 
CFR part 600.

Background

    The Crab Rationalization (CR) Program is a limited-access system 
that allocates crab managed under the FMP among harvesters, processors, 
and coastal communities. Currently, NMFS requires that all crab 
individual fishing quota (IFQ) harvested and processed by catcher/
processors be weighed at sea prior to processing and that crab weights 
be reported to NMFS on an IFQ crab landings report (see Sec.  
679.5(e)(8)). The weights reported on the IFQ crab landings report are 
used to debit crab IFQ from a quota holder's account. In addition, 
catcher/processors are required to weigh the crab again when it is 
offloaded from the vessel and report this weight to NMFS on a catcher/
processor offload report (see Sec.  680.5(e)).
    The original purpose of the offload report was to provide 
information so that NMFS could audit the IFQ crab landing reports. 
Completing this report requires a crab catcher/processor to offload all 
crab-processed product shoreside at a designated port and weigh that 
product on a scale approved by the state in which the crab is removed 
from the vessel. The offload report must be completed when crab are 
offloaded from the vessel and a scale printout showing gross product 
offload weight must be attached to the offload report. The weight 
reported on the offload report includes not only the weight of crab but 
also the weight of packaging, pallets, and glaze. While deductions for 
these items can be made, the deductions create variance in the total 
weight of crab landed shoreside. For this reason, NMFS has found it 
difficult to use the weights from the offload report to audit the 
weight obtained from the at-sea hopper scales as originally intended.
    Advancements in at-sea reporting of crab catch (eLandings) and the 
improved reliability of the at-sea motion-compensated hopper scales 
have changed the need for CR catcher/processors to report offloads. 
Catcher/processors use eLandings to report total harvest of crab to 
NMFS weekly while at sea, which provides NMFS with up-to-date 
accounting of total crab harvested. Motion-compensated hopper scales 
provide reliable, independent estimates of the total catch by quota 
sector for all crab harvested.
    Removal of the regulatory requirements for CR catcher/processors to 
weigh offloaded crab product and submit offload reports does not 
diminish NMFS' ability to verify reported CR crab catch weight. NMFS 
still requires that all crab be weighed at sea and scale weights of 
crab be submitted to NMFS on eLandings weekly reports. Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) observers are onboard crab vessels 
and have the opportunity to observe hopper scale activities for 
consistency with the regulatory requirement that vessels weigh all 
landed CR crab. NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) uses 
eLandings weekly reports, the printouts from the hopper scales showing 
the total weight of crab harvested, and additional auditing methods to 
verify CR quota accounting instead of using the catcher/processor 
offload reports. Further, even without the requirement to weigh and 
report the gross weight of offloaded product, the OLE will still have 
the authority and ability to conduct a full audit of offload weights to 
verify reported crab catch weight.
    Specifically, this proposed rule would remove the requirement at 
Sec.  680.5(e) for the owner or operator of a catcher/processor to 
complete and submit to NMFS-at the time of offload of CR crab-a 
catcher/processor offload report with its attached scale printout 
showing gross product offload weight. It also would remove Sec.  
680.5(a)(2)(i)(H) because it only serves as a cross-reference to Sec.  
680.5(e), which would be removed. This rule also would remove the 
requirement at Sec.  680.23(b)(4) for catcher/processors to weigh all 
offloaded CR Program crab on a state-approved scale.

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public 
comment.
    This rule would relieve restrictions by removing weighing and 
reporting requirements under the CR Program that NMFS has determined 
are no longer necessary for management and monitoring of the crab 
fisheries. Adequate information about the weight of crab harvested by 
catcher/processors under the CR Program is available under regulations 
that govern the weighing and reporting of crab catch on the IFQ landing 
report. The reports to be removed by this action were first implemented 
at the inception of the CR fisheries and were intended to be used 
primarily for purposes of auditing IFQ landing reports. However, with 
more experience managing those fisheries and advances in electronic 
reporting, NMFS has determined that these requirements are no longer 
necessary. Removing these requirements would relieve restrictions on 
the industry and would reduce costs to both the industry and NMFS.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

[[Page 48300]]

Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

Factual Basis for Certification

Estimate of Economic Impact on Small Entities by Entity Size and 
Industry

    The impacts of this action have been evaluated in the accompanying 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The proposed regulatory changes would 
remove reporting requirements for directly regulated entities. The 
estimated costs of the current requirement imposed on directly 
regulated entities are small (on the order of $25 per report and the 
fleet of four to six vessels submits a total of about 18 such reports, 
annually). Thus, because the action would remove a regulatory 
requirement and decrease compliance costs for directly regulated 
entities, this proposed action is not expected to have a significant 
adverse economic impact on any directly regulated small entities.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Rule Applies

    The number of active crab catcher/processors changes annually. As 
noted above, from four to six vessels have submitted these reports in 
recent years. In 2009, there were five crab catcher/processors. An 
analysis of operation gross revenues from all Alaskan sources indicates 
that only one of these is a small entity under RFA criteria (total 
gross revenues from all sources less than $4 million). While this 
vessel would be affected by this action, one vessel would not 
constitute a substantial number of small entities.

Criteria Used to Evaluate Whether the Rule Would Impose ``Significant 
Economic impacts''

    The two criteria recommended to determine the significant economic 
impact of the action are disproportionality and profitability. The 
proposed action would not place a substantial number of small entities 
at a disadvantage, relative to large entities. The proposed action 
would not have disproportionate impacts on small entities.
    The proposed action would not adversely affect the profitability of 
any small entity. Indeed, the proposed action would ``remove'' a 
reporting burden and, as such, would ``reduce'' economic costs imposed 
upon directly regulated small entities.

Criteria Used to Evaluate Whether the Rule Would Impose Impacts on ``a 
Substantial Number'' of Small Entities

    NMFS' Guidelines for Economic Review of National Marine Fisheries 
Service Regulatory Actions (https://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/publicsite/documents/procedures/0111105.pdf) explain that the term 
``substantial number'' has no specific statutory definition and the 
criterion does not lend itself to objective standards applicable across 
all regulatory actions. Rather, ``substantial number'' depends upon the 
context of the action, the problem to be addressed, and the structure 
of the regulated industry. The Small Business Administration casts 
``substantial'' within the context of ``more than just a few'' or de 
minimis (``too few to care about'' criteria).

Description of and Basis for Assumptions Used

    The proposed rule would not impose adverse economic impacts on any 
of these entities. The economic analysis contained in the RIR further 
describes the potential size, distribution, and magnitude of the 
economic impacts that this action may have on small entities. Based 
upon that analysis and the foregoing, NMFS finds that the proposed 
action would not have a significant economic impact on the small 
entities participating in these fisheries. As a result, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been 
prepared.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Collection-of-information Requirements

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been 
approved by the Office for Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB 
Control No. 0648-0570.
    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 20 
minutes for a catcher/processor crab offload report. This proposed rule 
would remove this offload report and the associated reporting burden.
    These estimates of public reporting burden 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 (see ADDRESSES); e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 
202-395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 4, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 680-SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 
ALASKA

    1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.
    Sec.  680.5 [Amended]
    2. In Sec.  680.5, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(i)(H) and 
paragraph (e).
    3. In Sec.  680.23, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  680.23  Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Offload all CR crab product processed onboard at a shoreside 
location in the United States accessible by road or regularly scheduled 
air service; and
* * * * *
    Sec.  680.23 [Amended]
    4. At each of the locations shown in the ``Location'' column, 
remove the phrase indicated in the ``Remove'' column and replace it 
with the phrase indicated in the ``Add'' column for the number of times 
indicated in the ``Frequency'' column.

[[Page 48301]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Location                Remove          Add        Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   680.23(f)(3)(i)          delivery or   delivery are            1
                                offload are
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   680.23(f)(3)(ii)                    CR crab or    CR crab must 1
                                 an offload
                                        of CR crab
                                product must
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-19728 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S